Jesus said Thomas could now believe because He was now standing physically right in front on him and could put his hands in his wounds. Notice Jesus did not rebuke Thomas for not believing the disciples testimony.
One could argue from the long ending of Mark (verse 14) that this sort of disbelief was certainly rebuked by Jesus. But even if Jesus didn't rebuke Thomas specifically (John 20 is silent on this specific aspect), his disbelief was certainly not praised. On the contrary, Jesus declared quite explicitly a blessing for those who do not see and yet believe (“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”). In other words, if a genuine Christian, a brother or sister in the faith, comes to you and shares with you a sincere testimony, I don't think Jesus would be happy with you offhandedly dismissing everything they say.
People are now can believe in the resurrection without physically seeing Christ because it is recorded in scripture.
Some people do. Some people don't. Doubting Thomas's are still around, and in those cases, more dramatic forms of conversion may be necessary. I can share tons of testimonies to support this if you want. Oh, wait, never mind, you will dismiss them offhandedly too.
I believe the miracles in scripture because the Bible is absolute truth.
And your proof is ...? Your personal experience? How can I know, from my perspective, that you are not deluded?
That is from the disputed long ending of Mark which most scholars reject as being Mark's words, but rather a later addition by a scribe.
Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? | GotQuestions.org
Wait ... didn't you believe that the Bible was God's word because the Holy Spirit told you so?
But now you are saying that a portion of the Bible is NOT God's word because of a majority opinion of scholars. So how is it? Is it the Holy Spirit or the scholars who decide what is inspired and what is not?
Can you share with us what exactly the Holy Spirit told you? Can you share your testimony?
Anyways, even if Mark 16:9-20 was canonized later, it doesn't follow that it is not inspired. In fact, one could argue that if God allowed this later addition, this is strong evidence that He wanted it to be part of the canon because its content was inspired. Thus, even if you manage to prove that Mark 16:9-20 is in fact a later addition, you would still need to prove that it was not inspired.
That verse is not referring to believing a human testimony of miracles.
John 3:9-15 (ESV)
9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know, and bear witness to what we have seen, but you do not receive our testimony. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man. 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
The expression heavenly things certainly appeals to the supernatural. Jesus is calling out the Israelites on their skepticism, who won't believe even the earthly things, let alone the heavenly ones. And miracles are undoubtedly heavenly.
This is John stating that what has been written in his gospel is true.
Because he is a firsthand witness, and he is sharing his testimony with us. This is a clear defense of the value of testimonial evidence when it comes from a credible firsthand witness.
But Christians already know that.
How do you define "knowledge"?
How do you define "belief"?
How do you know that Christians "know" that the Bible is God's word?
If you define knowledge as absolute certainty, that's demonstrably false. Lots of Christians base their belief in the Bible on probabilistic/abductive arguments from the field of Christian apologetics. These arguments are not formal proofs (as in mathematics or logic), therefore they don't provide absolute certainty. The best historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus do not provide absolute certainty. Not every Christian claims 100% certainty.
By the way, I felt inspired to post this thread, check it out: How should Christians determine which parts of the Bible are divinely inspired?
And more often that not the Jews did not believe the witness of the apostles. Those who did believe their witness did so by virtue of the fact they were apostles. I would have no problem believing the testimony of an apostle because they are authoritative spokesmen for Christ and spoke God's word.
That's not entirely accurate. A clear counterexample is Philip, who was a deacon, NOT an apostle.
Acts 6:1-6 (ESV)
Now in these days when the disciples were increasing in number, a complaint by the Hellenists arose against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. 2 And the twelve summoned the full number of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should give up preaching the word of God to serve tables. 3 Therefore, brothers, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we will appoint to this duty. 4 But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word.” 5 And what they said pleased the whole gathering, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch. 6 These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands on them.
And the we read about Philip:
Acts 8:4-13 (ESV):
Philip Proclaims Christ in Samaria
4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. 6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was much joy in that city.
Simon the Magician Believes
9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
4 Now those who were scattered went about preaching the word. 5 Philip went down to the city of Samaria and proclaimed to them the Christ. 6 And the crowds with one accord paid attention to what was being said by Philip, when they heard him and saw the signs that he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying out with a loud voice, came out of many who had them, and many who were paralyzed or lame were healed. 8 So there was much joy in that city.
Simon the Magician Believes
9 But there was a man named Simon, who had previously practiced magic in the city and amazed the people of Samaria, saying that he himself was somebody great. 10 They all paid attention to him, from the least to the greatest, saying, “This man is the power of God that is called Great.” 11 And they paid attention to him because for a long time he had amazed them with his magic. 12 But when they believed Philip as he preached good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. 13 Even Simon himself believed, and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles performed, he was amazed.
That is referring to testifying in a court of law.
So what? That's still Jesus encouraging Paul (and every Christian reader) to proclaim their testimony. What Jesus never said was "and by the way, make sure you bring peer-reviewed journal articles and Nobel Prizes to back up your miraculous claims".
The man was told to evangelise about Christ. And, as we know, even that does not guarantee the listeners will believe in Him. More often than not they don't.
And unbelief is wrong. So this doesn't help your case.
23 But Jesus said to him, “‘If You can?’ All things are possible for the one who believes.” 24 Immediately the boy’s father cried out and said, “I do believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:23-24 NASB)
So what? It's still testimonial evidence being promoted. The gospels are literally first/second/third hand testimonies written down."this gospel"
So what? That's still the epistemological value of testimonial evidence being defended. Testimonies are valuable.That is referring to charges brought in a court of law.
Your first underlined part I addressed in my previous post. The second underlined part (a different event) is referring to Jesus himself speaking.
So what? The passage provides clear example of how the testimony of firsthand witnesses of miracles can be valuable for bringing people to salvation. If someone comes to you and shares what God has done in their life (as the Samaritan woman did), you shouldn't dismiss what they say offhandedly. That kind of dismissive attitude is never praised nor taught in the Bible.
That verse is not referring to believing a human testimony of miracles.
The text is addressing testimonies in general, and miracles are certainly part of the testimony of those who have personally experienced them. The Bible is replete with examples of people who were firsthand witnesses of miracles. Similar stories have been reported throughout church history. For those individuals, the word of their testimony includes miracles.
Finally a point in which we agree. Sure, we shouldn't blindly believe anything someone says. But we shouldn't offhandedly dismiss what they say either. So what should we do? Should we remain agnostic and only believe what they say when they present a peer-reviewed publication in a scientific journal? Should we only believe them when they come to us with a Nobel Prize?I see nowhere in scripture that says we should blindly believe the hearsay stories of other normal humans.
When should we consider someone to be trustworthy? The Bible talks about the fruit of the Spirit, and the fact that only good trees produce good fruit consistently. We need to pay attention to the fruit of the person, their character, their sanctification. Not to peer-reviewed articles and Nobel Prize-worthy publications.
There is no "sufficient" evidence in science to "prove" that a miracle occurred. Science is not about proofs. You cannot prove anything in science. Science is only about testing and disproving hypotheses, or failing to disprove the strongest ones. But there is never a point when you can say that "sufficient evidence" has been inspected. There is always room for changing your mind about anything provided that new evidence comes along.Scientists might say that don't know the explanation, but they cannot deny a miracle occurred if presented with sufficient evidence.
I highly recommend you read this answer. Here is a quote:
Can science confirm a miracle?
Science does not prove things (like math or logic can, using axioms). Science disproves things. The current scientific consensus consists of hypotheses that have been extensively tested and nobody has been able to disprove them. Information that is as-yet-undiscovered always holds the possibility of overturning present-day consensus.
At best, then, scientific inquiry could show that state A (pre-miracle) & state B (post-miracle) are different, and that our present knowledge of natural laws does not explain how we got from A to B. The more I study both science and theology the more I am persuaded of the truth of this statement:
Perfect science and perfect theology agree perfectly. It is our imperfect understanding of both that creates the illusion of conflict.
Science does not prove things (like math or logic can, using axioms). Science disproves things. The current scientific consensus consists of hypotheses that have been extensively tested and nobody has been able to disprove them. Information that is as-yet-undiscovered always holds the possibility of overturning present-day consensus.
At best, then, scientific inquiry could show that state A (pre-miracle) & state B (post-miracle) are different, and that our present knowledge of natural laws does not explain how we got from A to B. The more I study both science and theology the more I am persuaded of the truth of this statement:
Perfect science and perfect theology agree perfectly. It is our imperfect understanding of both that creates the illusion of conflict.
Call them whatever you want, but the Bible clearly encourages believers to share their testimonies.Subsequent testimonies are hearsay.
Last edited:
Upvote
0