Can gospel claims be debunked?

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Typically skeptics demand that Christians show evidence for belief, but I wonder if it would be possible for skeptics to show evidence for disbelief

The gospel writers are presenting a scenario that is difficult to disprove. Let's assume the best position, that a one time event of the coming Messiah (anointed one) occurs. For the sake of covenience, we'll call him the "Son of God" (SOG). What limits entail if the SOG appears?

There is a tacit assumption used in the historical critical method. We can call it the princinple of like-experience. The assumption goes: the days of Jesus were just like our days, same physics, same everything. Do I see people walking on water? No, I do not. So, by the principle of like-experience, neither did folks in Jesus's day.

That all makes sense, so long as we assume Jesus was not that one-time event of the Messiah. So long as we assume Jesus was not SOG, we can handily discount his supposed walking on water. But, why should I assume that?

If I were walking around every day with the one-time event of the Chosen One, what would I see? In other words, what the atheist has to disprove is that Jesus was the Christ! Lol ^_^ Good luck with that! Naysayers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,619.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
....Why would you invent a different genealogy rather than simply asking somebody who remembers the original genealogy?...
I think it helps to think about what the purpose of the genealogies is. Well both completely fulfil the prophecies related to the Messiah's ancestors. If you asked around it wouldn't guarantee that governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel would be mentioned... but that is what happened... twice. Remember that the birth was 30 years before Jesus died, and the gospels were probably written at least a further 30-50 years later.
For it to be passed down orally the list of dozens of names would have to be retold multiple times - unless the list can be remembered in a single retelling...
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
The gospel writers are presenting a scenario that is difficult to disprove. Let's assume the best position, that a one time event of the coming Messiah (anointed one) occurs. For the sake of covenience, we'll call him the "Son of God" (SOG). What limits entail if the SOG appears?

There is a tacit assumption used in the historical critical method. We can call it the princinple of like-experience. The assumption goes: the days of Jesus were just like our days, same physics, same everything. Do I see people walking on water? No, I do not. So, by the principle of like-experience, neither did folks in Jesus's day.

That all makes sense, so long as we assume Jesus was not that one-time event of the Messiah. So long as we assume Jesus was not SOG, we can handily discount his supposed walking on water. But, why should I assume that?

If I were walking around every day with the one-time event of the Chosen One, what would I see? In other words, what the atheist has to disprove is that Jesus was the Christ! Lol ^_^ Good luck with that! Naysayers.
That's similar to an argument I have heard Bart Ehrman make - i.e. that historians deal in probabilities and miracles are inherently the least probable explanation thus a historian can never conclude that a miracle happened.

HOWEVER, that isn't true. A historian can prove that something else happened at the time and place when the miracle was supposed to happen. If someone claims that Donald Trump walked on water then a historian might show that actually Donald Trump was getting his haircut at the time he was claimed to be walking on water - thus the miracle has been disproved.

Obviously it is more difficult with Jesus walking on water, because the information is so scarce, but in principle something might be done. At least skeptics should give it more thought than I have seen them doing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I think it helps to think about what the purpose of the genealogies is. Well both completely fulfil the prophecies related to the Messiah's ancestors. If you asked around it wouldn't guarantee that governor Zerubbabel and his father Shealtiel would be mentioned... but that is what happened... twice. Remember that the birth was 30 years before Jesus died, and the gospels were probably written at least a further 30-50 years later.
For it to be passed down orally the list of dozens of names would have to be retold multiple times - unless the list can be remembered in a single retelling...
But the genealogy of Jesus is also the genealogy of James the Just and all the other brothers and cousins and nephews and uncles of Jesus. All those people would memorize that genealogy, because it is important personally to each of them as their own ancestry and a source of great pride if it is believed to go back to King David.
 
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I suppose it depends on a person's goal. For me it isn't enough to know who Jesus was not - I want to know who Jesus was. Partly it is curiosity and partly it is to be certain that I haven't unfairly dismissed Christianity simply because orthodox Christianity doesn't seem possible. In other words, I am looking for some unorthodox understanding of Christianity that might work - just in case it is true. I'm a person who checks a door to be certain I locked it and then checks it again a few minutes later to be doubly certain LOL

I don't know that this could be possible? He died 2K+ years ago. The only direct mention of His existence, is from the very Book which also claims He was divine. All later secular writings were mere writings to state there was a group of people/followers whom believed He was the Messiah.

All such claims, in regards to His asserted 'miracles', are unfalsifiable, just like all claimed 'works' from other proclaimed agents of the past; where we are merely left to trust such the claims, based upon one-time past eye witnessed based events.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's similar to an argument I have heard Bart Ehrman make - i.e. that historians deal in probabilities and miracles are inherently the least probable explanation thus a historian can never conclude that a miracle happened.

HOWEVER, that isn't true. A historian can prove that something else happened at the time and place when the miracle was supposed to happen. If someone claims that Donald Trump walked on water then a historian might show that actually Donald Trump was getting his haircut at the time he was claimed to be walking on water - thus the miracle has been disproved.

Obviously it is more difficult with Jesus walking on water, because the information is so scarce, but in principle something might be done. At least skeptics should give it more thought than I have seen them doing.

I can't imagine how they would go about disproving the miracles, or that Jesus was the Christ. Is it possible in principle? I suppose. Maybe a new discovery of some sort might contribute to such an attempt. I think you've mentioned this already. Certainly, if the skeptic could produce the body of Jesus that would be significant. Technically speaking, that is not an impossibility (assuming he was never raised).

I think the skeptic's best bet is to continue to place the onus of proof on the believer. Once the skeptic is saddled with using their own criteria (demanding evidence) for their disbelief (such as providing evidence that Jesus was not the Christ or that God does not exist) they're dead in the water. Of course, that's the beauty of being a skeptic. The skeptic doesn't need to prove anything, she only needs to remain unconvinced of the claims of others. Easy money.
 
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I don't know that this could be possible? He died 2K+ years ago. The only direct mention of His existence, is from the very Book which also claims He was divine. All later secular writings were mere writings to state there was a group of people/followers whom believed He was the Messiah.

All such claims, in regards to His asserted 'miracles', are unfalsifiable, just like all claimed 'works' from other proclaimed agents of the past; where we are merely left to trust such the claims, based upon one-time past eye witnessed based events.
I agree it's difficult and maybe impossible depending on a person's expectations for proof. But learning about the history of Judaism and early Christianity has made me more certain that Christian claims are not true. Essentially I am not satisfied by shooting down claims about God and the Bible and Jesus - I want to know where they actually came from and who they actually were. It is somewhat possible to do that by reading history, but of course it isn't a smoking gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I want to know where they actually came from and who they actually were. It is somewhat possible to do that by reading history, but of course it isn't a smoking gun.

This might be a decent introductory beginning? Rather than thumbing through tons of dry text, get the 'crash course' version. 11 minutes packed in here...


 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
I can't imagine how they would go about disproving the miracles, or that Jesus was the Christ. Is it possible in principle? I suppose. Maybe a new discovery of some sort might contribute to such an attempt. I think you've mentioned this already. Certainly, if the skeptic could produce the body of Jesus that would be significant. Technically speaking, that is not an impossibility (assuming he was never raised).

I think the skeptic's best bet is to continue to place the onus of proof on the believer. Once the skeptic is saddled with using their own criteria (demanding evidence) for their disbelief (such as providing evidence that Jesus was not the Christ or that God does not exist) they're dead in the water. Of course, that's the beauty of being a skeptic. The skeptic doesn't need to prove anything, she only needs to remain unconvinced of the claims of others. Easy money.

Yea, skepticism is easy money. Maybe we should instead assert a hard line SIDE, (yes or no); as to whether it be about the claims for alien sightings, Big Foot sightings, God(s) sightings, ghosts sightings, other :)

What's wrong with 'I don't believe you'? Especially when the 'skeptic' has no experiences, or sees lack in evidence, to substantiate the claim(s) in question? And sure, skeptics cannot prove a negative. This seems to be basic logic.

Example... Aliens don't exist! How would I even go about proving this?

And furthermore, I've already laid my proverbial cards on the table. I've asked countless others to pray for me to receive direct revelation. All have either not risen to the said request, or the requests are perpetually failing thus far. Either way, I remain skeptical, as my personal burden of proof has not been fulfilled, in the slightest.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,619.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
But the genealogy of Jesus is also the genealogy of James the Just and all the other brothers and cousins and nephews and uncles of Jesus. All those people would memorize that genealogy, because it is important personally to each of them as their own ancestry and a source of great pride if it is believed to go back to King David.
ALL? BTW it would also be a great source of pride for Jews and Moslems to believe they were descendants of Abraham but how many of them memorize their genealogies?
Also Jesus wasn't technically a descendant of King David - a more important point is that Jesus was born from a virgin... though apparently "The only books in the New Testament that clearly say that Jesus was born of a virgin, are Matthew and Luke"
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories
BTW in John 7:5 it says "For even his own brothers did not believe in him". It seems his brothers weren't aware of his miraculous birth stories.... or if they were they didn't think they happened....
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yea, skepticism is easy money. Maybe we should instead assert a hard line SIDE, (yes or no); as to whether it be about the claims for alien sightings, Big Foot sightings, God(s) sightings, ghosts sightings, other :)

What's wrong with 'I don't believe you'? Especially when the 'skeptic' has no experiences, or sees lack in evidence, to substantiate the claim(s) in question? And sure, skeptics cannot prove a negative. This seems to be basic logic.

Example... Aliens don't exist! How would I even go about proving this?

And furthermore, I've already laid my proverbial cards on the table. I've asked countless others to pray for me to receive direct revelation. All have either not risen to the said request, or the requests are perpetually failing thus far. Either way, I remain skeptical, as my personal burden of proof has not been fulfilled, in the slightest.

May God bless you, cvanwey. When I said skepticism is easy money, I meant it is easy money for your run-of-the-mill skeptic. You, my friend, are definitely an exception to the rule. You spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince others of just how unconvinced you are! :)

Well, let's face it, you evangelicals are all the same. Relentless with your good news you just insist that others believe (or in your case, don't believe)! ^_^ Ah, where do you get the energy? ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

cloudyday2

Generic Theist
Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
7,381
2,352
✟568,802.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
ALL? BTW it would also be a great source of pride for Jews and Moslems to believe they were descendants of Abraham but how many of them memorize their genealogies?
Also Jesus wasn't technically a descendant of King David - a more important point is that Jesus was born from a virgin... though apparently "The only books in the New Testament that clearly say that Jesus was born of a virgin, are Matthew and Luke"
An Uncensored Guide to the Christmas Stories
BTW in John 7:5 it says "For even his own brothers did not believe in him". It seems his brothers weren't aware of his miraculous birth stories.... or if they were they didn't think they happened....
Well being a descendant of King David potentially gives you claim to the throne with all the power and money that would bring. Being a descendant of Abraham is more like an American claiming to be a descendant of Benjamin Franklin - it would be interesting but that's all. And for a Jew it won't impress any of your fellow Jews, because they all imagine Abraham as their ancestor.

I imagine Jesus coming from a group (the Nazarenes) who are similar to the Dunedain in Lord of the Rings. You can bet Aragorn knew his genealogy going all the way back to Elendil, because it was his purpose in life. Same with Jesus and everybody in his extended family and all the people around him who hoped to put somebody from their family on the throne.

The virgin birth of course is a late addition to the gospel, so it is kind of irrelevant to the question of why there are two genealogies that are so different. I didn't read your link though.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Hawkins

Member
Supporter
Apr 27, 2005
2,559
394
Canada
✟235,114.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think in theory the resurrection could be falsified. Here are some scenarios:
(1) Imagine we found early writings showing that the earliest Christians did NOT believe in a bodily resurrection?
(2) Imagine we found early writings mentioning the body of Jesus being burned in the trash heap?
(3) Imagine we found an early gospel with no mention of a bodily resurrection?

History mostly cannot be falsified. They are basically testimonies from the different sources. It relies on which source you choose to believe. The nature of human testimonies is they can carry a truth, they can also carry a lie. Humans have no alternative but to believe them (or reject them) in one way or another simply because humans lack the ability to confirm a long past.

That said. The earliest manuscript of the Bible itself is back to 4th AD. It is thus a doubt that you actually have anything concrete about what "earliest Christians" are. Only a well structured authority such as the Roman government can possibly keep something historically reliable. There were several Roman empire wide persecutions of Christianity where documents (ancient scrolls in animal skins mostly) were burnt in a large scale.

That's why our early churches even failed to keep the originally canonized copy of the Bible. A much more liberal location is Egypt. Egypt is less subject to such a empire wide persecution. The earliest Bible copy artifacts are found here. But the problem is, all the heretic documents can also be found here! So it boils down to what sources you are referring to when to try to quote from the "earliest Christians". Usually we Christians only take from church records still available to us, mostly they are letters left behind by the early church fathers. They however seem to believe a bodily resurrection as mentioned in the Bible.

For example,
"The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand." (Clement of Rome, First Clement, 24, 27, 42)

Clement is considered as the Pope who lived from around AD 35 to AD 99 (became Pope in AD88).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

cvanwey

Well-Known Member
May 10, 2018
5,165
733
64
California
✟144,344.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Private
May God bless you, cvanwey. When I said skepticism is easy money, I meant it is easy money for your run-of-the-mill skeptic. You, my friend, are definitely an exception to the rule. You spend a lot of time and energy trying to convince others of just how unconvinced you are! :)

Well, let's face it, you evangelicals are all the same. Relentless with your good news you just insist that others believe (or in your case, don't believe)! ^_^ Ah, where do you get the energy? ;)

I have exerted plenty of 'energy' searching for truth in Christianity. I have asked God to reveal Himself to me, in a way for which I cannot deny Him. This did not work. I now ask of others, as others claim prayers can and do work.

Heck, I think you even stated, at one point or another, that you would pray on my behalf.

So though I cannot disprove God, I'm left with the knowledge that many, even here, stated they will pray for me, and God cares not to oblige?
 
Upvote 0

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,972
12,054
East Coast
✟830,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Heck, I think you even stated, at one point or another, that you would pray on my behalf.

Dude, of course! I prayed for you when I replied earlier. Don't misunderstand my intentions, cvanwey. I give you grief because I like you! Be well, my friend. :)
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,619.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Well being a descendant of King David potentially gives you claim to the throne with all the power and money that would bring.
Normally only the first born would become king (not every descendant)... though David wasn't a son of King Saul...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I think in theory the resurrection could be falsified. Here are some scenarios:
(1) Imagine we found early writings showing that the earliest Christians did NOT believe in a bodily resurrection?
(2) Imagine we found early writings mentioning the body of Jesus being burned in the trash heap?
(3) Imagine we found an early gospel with no mention of a bodily resurrection?

Or how about the notion that the idea of resurrection in the Bible might be far more vague than Christian fundamentalism suggests?

Paul seems very sketchy on the details, so do many of the Gospels. Mark doesn't even mention the resurrection aside from an angelic visitation.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,619.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Or how about the notion that the idea of resurrection in the Bible might be far more vague than Christian fundamentalism suggests?

Paul seems very sketchy on the details, so do many of the Gospels. Mark doesn't even mention the resurrection aside from an angelic visitation.
I think the following thread is relevant:
The "mistaken identity" theory
 
  • Like
Reactions: cloudyday2
Upvote 0

FireDragon76

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 30, 2013
30,474
18,454
Orlando, Florida
✟1,249,390.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Ch. of Christ
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
US-Democrat
I think the following thread is relevant:
The "mistaken identity" theory

I don't even think it's mistaken identity. I think its quite possibly a case of ADC (After Death Communication), something that is not that rare among people who have encountered the death of a close friend or relative.

In Tibetan Buddhist culture, cases of gurus appearing to their disciples after their death are not too rare. The guru appears to his disciples as a fruit of the path of holiness, to confirm them that the path is worth following.

Fr. Francis Tiso, a Jesuit priest fluent in Tibetan, has actually done research in India and Tibet on the subject.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JohnClay

Married Mouth-Breather
Supporter
Oct 27, 2006
1,129
186
Australia
Visit site
✟443,619.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I don't even think it's mistaken identity. I think its quite possibly a case of ADC (After Death Communication), something that is not that rare among people who have encountered the death of a close friend or relative.

In Tibetan Buddhist culture, cases of gurus appearing to their disciples after their death are not too rare. The guru appears to his disciples as a fruit of the path of holiness, to confirm them that the path is worth following.

Fr. Francis Tiso, a Jesuit priest fluent in Tibetan, has actually done research in India and Tibet on the subject.
It could be both (on separate occasions). I mean I think there is a reason for the story of King Herod believing Jesus was John the Baptist.... and that purpose was to show that in the Bible times you can have mistaken identity even if it appears to be someone completely different...
 
Upvote 0