Board index ‹ Bible

[Jarold]

> What part of it would you like to discuss?

Well, this isn't a debate sub. But most people are convinced that jesus is a god because they believe he rose from the dead. My question is do you believe he's a god because you accept that he rose from the dead, or do you accept that be rose from the dead because you believe he's a god?

> I'm not convinced this is valid.

How do you explain why religions are based on where the believers live?

[jimwalton]

>> What part of it would you like to discuss?

> Well, this isn't a debate sub

But it is a discussion sub, do I was genuinely asking if there was something you want to discuss.

> But most people are convinced that jesus is a god because they believe he rose from the dead.

I don't think so. Rising from the dead doesn't make Jesus God. All Christians know this. Jesus was God incarnate, God from eternity past, God when He was a child, God when He ministered in Palestine, God when He died, and God when He rose again. This is standard (and unarguable) Christian doctrine.

> My question is do you believe he's a god because you accept that he rose from the dead, or do you accept that be rose from the dead because you believe he's a god?

I answered this question in my previous post.

> How do you explain why religions are based on where the believers live?

There's no arguing that children are trained in the culture, value systems, and religious worldviews of their parents. As you know, however, Islam is prevalent in Africa, Europe, parts of Asia (Afghanistan, Pakistan & Bangladesh) and North America. Christianity is global (now more concentrated in Africa, South & Central America, and parts of Asia than anywhere else). Judaism is global, but mostly Middle East, Europe, and North America. Hinduism is fairly concentrated in India; Buddhism in SE Asia, Shintoism in Japan.

I would say that socialization to the culture and religious worldview are trained into children, but acceptance (especially of Islam and Christianity) is dependent on individual decisions.

[Jarold]

> Christianity is a wonderfully diverse body. We agree on the essentials and have tolerance and freedom on the negotiables.

The fact that there is disagreement means that the parts in question do not have a solid foundation. If you all had a personal relationship with this god, then why the disagreement?

> He rose from the dead because He's God. He was God before He came to Earth. He was God before He rose from the dead. His resurrection confirmed the truth of His teachings and the power of His life over death.

I understand the narrative, I'm asking you about your belief.

Do you believe jesus is a god because he rose from the dead, or do you believe he rose from the dead because he's a god?

[jimwalton]

> The fact that there is disagreement means that the parts in question do not have a solid foundation. If you all had a personal relationship with this god, then why the disagreement?

Not so. I know scientists who disagree with each other. Archaeologists who disagree with each other. Historians. Economists. Educators. Disagreement doesn't indicate the lack of a solid foundation. I assume you don't think science lack a solid foundation, and yet we can find many scientists who disagree with each other about one various thing or another. Historians and archaeologists interpret data, documents, and artifacts differently. It's quite OK and doesn't disturb the integrity of the discipline or of the foundation of the knowledge.

> I understand the narrative, I'm asking you about your belief. Do you believe jesus is a god because he rose from the dead, or do you believe he rose from the dead because he's a god?

It IS my belief. Jesus is God. He is God from eternity past. He is God before His incarnation. He was God as a baby. He was God when He started His ministry. He was God when He died on the cross. He was God when He rose from the dead. He's still God. He is not God because He rose from the dead, He's God because He's God (consistency of identity).

[Green Hornet]

> We have to then look to assess whether Matthew has credibility as an author, which his historical and cultural narratives would lead us to believe that he is.

You think there's a level of credibility an author can have where, if they say they're recounting a time two of their friends walked on open sea, you should believe them? If my lifelong best friend insisted on something like that tomorrow, I'd take them for a psychiatric examination.

[jimwalton]

> You think there's a level of credibility an author can have where, if they say they're recounting a time two of their friends walked on open sea, you should believe them?

I'm saying that we can look at all of what Matthew writes to assess whether he is a person of integrity, historicity, honesty, and reliability. We can legitimately ask questions like: Do I have reason to believe he's lying? Is he delusional? Is he stupid? Was he fooled by others?

We can examine these questions. The person who makes the claim that he is lying (presumably you in this instance) then needs to give evidence of that. What can be confirmed as a lie? What are his motives for lying (what does he personally benefit from it)?

Is he part of a conspiracy? If that's your claim, we know that conspiracies work best with the lowest number of co-conspirators (not the case here), the shortest amount of time to have to hold it together (not the case here), excellent communication between conspirators (not the case here), strong bonds of relationship (not the case here; Matthew was an outlier to the group of disciples), and little or no pressure to confess (not the case here).

So, is Matthew delusional? Again, you must press your case. By assessing his writing, do you have reason to believe he's schizophrenic, psychotic, or given to hallucinations that divorce him from reality?

Is Matthew just stupid—dumber than a rock? The cogency and quality of his Gospel would say "no."

Was Matthew unduly influenced to believe things that weren't so? Since he traveled with Jesus for 3 years, this doesn't make sense.

> If my lifelong best friend insisted on something like that tomorrow, I'd take them for a psychiatric examination.

Of course. I get that. It makes us think that these men were all either (1) stupid, gullible fools, given to hallucinations, prone to schizophrenic episodes divorced from reality, and purveyors of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on humanity, or (2) they saw evidences of the most marvelous things and an astoundingly life-changing person that their lives were intractably altered.

If you read what Matthew wrote (and the other three), option 1 is nonsense and doesn't carry the case. Option 2, as "unbelievable" as it is, is the one that makes the most sense.

Suppose you took your friend for a psychiatric examination, and he or she was found to be perfectly sane, cogent, and rational. Then what?

[Green Hornet]

> It makes us think that these men were all either (1) stupid, gullible fools, given to hallucinations, prone to schizophrenic episodes divorced from reality, and purveyors of one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on humanity, or (2) they saw evidences of the most marvelous things and an astoundingly life-changing person that their lives were intractably altered.

OK. If this all boils down to a version of Lewis' Trichotomy, I'm familiar with that already and consider it pretty clearly debunked as a false choice.

[jimwalton]

Nope, that argument of yours is just a red herring. I'm not implying the same kind of thinking as Lewis's trichotomy, nor was I going in that direction. All I'm saying is that we have to logically and honestly evaluate the reliability of the authors if we're going to discern whether their narrative is fables or fact. I don't see anything in Matthew that leads me down the road of choice 1, so I am left to honestly consider option 2. If you wish to contend my hypothesis, we can go into it. Present your case for Matthew being unreliable, and we'll be on our way.

[Washington]

Understand that what follows is me putting together pieces of the religion to answer your question; by which I mean to emphasize: not the words of a scholar.

As you start to incorporate various verses from the Quran and narrations together, it can be noted that arrogance, as defined in the second narration, is largely considered a sin in Islam (i.e. the rejecting of the truth of the religion or holding oneself above others in station). This is likely due to the fact that the latter is an attribute of Iblis (Satan), which is seen in the Quran 7:11-13:

11. And surely, We created you [Adam] and then gave you shape, then We told the angels, “Prostrate yourselves to Adam”, and they prostrated, except Iblis [Satan], he refused to be of those who prostrated themselves.
12. (Allah) said: “What prevented you [Iblis] that you did not prostrate yourself, when I commanded you?” Iblis said: “I am better than him [Adam], You created me from fire, and him You created from clay."
13. (Allah) said: "Get down from this [paradise], it is not for you to be arrogant here. Get out, for you are of those humiliated and disgraced."

​

In a narration that relates to this discussion, Muhammad said:

"Allah said: Pride is my cloak and greatness My robe, and he who competes with Me in respect of either of them I shall cast into Hell-fire."

(19, Ahadith Qudsi)

Imam Nawawi again in Sharh Muslim comments on this narration:

"...What is meant is ‘Allaah says, ‘whoever seeks to compete with Me concerning them, I will punish him’.
What is meant by ‘seeks to compete with Me’ is seeking to acquire that characteristic in the sense of sharing in it.
This is a stern warning against arrogance which clearly demonstrates that it is haraam (i.e. a sin, forbidden)."

Me again:

Whereas the former, rejecting the truth of Islam, puts you outside of the fold -- and there's no coming back from rejecting the religion. Keeping this in mind, the thought process is like this:

You go to hell if you are a believer who died on the path of still committing greater sins, and then -- eventually -- are admitted to paradise.
Arrogance, as defined in the second narration, is considered to be a sin.

If you have one atom's worth of arrogance in your heart, you have died with sin in your heart.

Eventually, you will leave hell after that atom's worth or more-- and the other sins, if applicable -- are removed from your heart. Arrogance here is treated as a sin not because it resembles one but because it is one, so it is subject to the same conditions as any other sin.

To conclude this, I really appreciate your reply. It communicates that you want to have a mature discussion, and that you are willing to examine your own position honestly and critically if new information arises.