> Other religious recruits don new duds and take on some new habits to conform to their new faith
Interestingly though, when the Jesuits were trying to convert peoples in South America and Southeast Asia in the mid 17th century, the natives kept their own traditions deeply involved in the mix, keeping several of their own traditions and interjecting them into their own faith. For instance, Santa Muerte, or the Angel of Death, originated from latin american mythology and is still celebrated today (it's not sponsored by the Roman Catholic Church)
> What I see happen in my own life. My faith causes thoughts and behaviors that I would clearly say are not mine.
An alcoholic uses this same defense when speaking about his drinking.
Proof #5 I have several issues with. Most importantly, it presupposes that the New Testament is true, and not fictional. Also, the fact that the church was born in Jerusalem rather than in China where people were more literate is actually quite surprising. That doesn't really lend itself to anything though. Because Christians make the assumption (generally) that God has a plan. By that argument, anywhere the church was formed could be sign of that plan.
The sensibleness of the Bible The doctrine which is supposed to guide human nature for years to come but preaches subjugation of women, is rift with genocide, promotes slavery, and condemns homosexuals? I certainly think the bible is a literary treasurer; an epic for generations to come. But it is not any sort of modern moral code on how to live your life.
Board index ‹ Christianity
22 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by Conciliator » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:05 pm
- Conciliator
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 06, 2014 5:20 pm
> when the Jesuits were trying to convert peoples
Yeah, I certainly don't endorse what the Jesuits did in terms of enculturation. And I'm aware that many cultures mixed their ancients traditions with Christian teachings to arrive at an amalgam of religious mush. But that's not what I'm speaking of.
> An alcoholic uses this same defense when speaking about his drinking.
Sure they do. Eph. 5.18 even alludes to some of the similarities between alcoholism and the spiritual life. Because they share some characteristics doesn't mean they are equatable in all or even most areas, but only, in Ephesians for instance, that they share that something outside of your body has control over you.
#5. It doesn't presuppose that the NT is true, for I base my respect for the NT on study and evidence, not a priori argument and presupposition. And yes, China may have been more literate, but actually Palestine of the 1st c. was a comparatively literate society because of the Jewish traditions of training young men in the ways of the faith, traditional bar mitzvahs to evidence they had been trained in the reading and understanding of the Scriptures. Many Jews could read, not on the level of a trained scribe, but functionally so. The unlikeliness of the place to which I was referring was a place steeped in an unchangeable religious convention, Judaism, and yet devoted Jews stopped follow the Law, stopped doing sacrifices, stopped honoring the Sabbath, stopped recognizing the place of the temple, and believed in the Trinity and salvation by grace. It was a radical departure in a very unlikely system.
> subjugation of women
The Bible teaches no such thing. God created men and women equal in every way (Gn. 1.26ff.). While they later were in a patriarchal culture, the Bible gives women tremendous respect and unheard-of rights and protections. You're just wrong about this one.
> Genocide
The Bible teaches no such thing. What seems to be complete obliteration is a misunderstanding. Archaeologist have uncovered many such warfare tirades, and they are just typical warfare bravado of the day. They don't mean to wipe out the population, and that's not what was done. In the case of 1 Sam. 15, for example, the "command" was to wipe out the Amalekites, but the Amalekites remain (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). There is no intention of killing them all, no understanding that that was the command, and certainly no follow through on that account. The moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.
> Promoting slavery.
The Bible doesn't promote slavery. In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. In the NT, Paul and Peter didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right, even if they were mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> Condemns homosexuals.
There is no question that at every reference the Bible speaks of homosexuality as an affront to God. There is much to say here, all by itself—a whole discussion, but I've already had a large discussion. We can talk about this more as you wish.
Yeah, I certainly don't endorse what the Jesuits did in terms of enculturation. And I'm aware that many cultures mixed their ancients traditions with Christian teachings to arrive at an amalgam of religious mush. But that's not what I'm speaking of.
> An alcoholic uses this same defense when speaking about his drinking.
Sure they do. Eph. 5.18 even alludes to some of the similarities between alcoholism and the spiritual life. Because they share some characteristics doesn't mean they are equatable in all or even most areas, but only, in Ephesians for instance, that they share that something outside of your body has control over you.
#5. It doesn't presuppose that the NT is true, for I base my respect for the NT on study and evidence, not a priori argument and presupposition. And yes, China may have been more literate, but actually Palestine of the 1st c. was a comparatively literate society because of the Jewish traditions of training young men in the ways of the faith, traditional bar mitzvahs to evidence they had been trained in the reading and understanding of the Scriptures. Many Jews could read, not on the level of a trained scribe, but functionally so. The unlikeliness of the place to which I was referring was a place steeped in an unchangeable religious convention, Judaism, and yet devoted Jews stopped follow the Law, stopped doing sacrifices, stopped honoring the Sabbath, stopped recognizing the place of the temple, and believed in the Trinity and salvation by grace. It was a radical departure in a very unlikely system.
> subjugation of women
The Bible teaches no such thing. God created men and women equal in every way (Gn. 1.26ff.). While they later were in a patriarchal culture, the Bible gives women tremendous respect and unheard-of rights and protections. You're just wrong about this one.
> Genocide
The Bible teaches no such thing. What seems to be complete obliteration is a misunderstanding. Archaeologist have uncovered many such warfare tirades, and they are just typical warfare bravado of the day. They don't mean to wipe out the population, and that's not what was done. In the case of 1 Sam. 15, for example, the "command" was to wipe out the Amalekites, but the Amalekites remain (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). There is no intention of killing them all, no understanding that that was the command, and certainly no follow through on that account. The moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.
> Promoting slavery.
The Bible doesn't promote slavery. In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. In the NT, Paul and Peter didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right, even if they were mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> Condemns homosexuals.
There is no question that at every reference the Bible speaks of homosexuality as an affront to God. There is much to say here, all by itself—a whole discussion, but I've already had a large discussion. We can talk about this more as you wish.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by Corinthian » Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:48 am
> There are no such things as group hallucinations. Hallucinations are an individual phenomenon.
But mass hysteria does exist. As during the Salem Witch trials: one person claims they see a demon in the room and, hyped up on fear, emotion, and adrenaline, pretty soon everyone in the room sees it.
> but if there's a "group memory" of a resurrection of Jesus, all somebody has to do to debunk it is produce the body.
An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.
But there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened back when the claims were first made: perhaps Jesus was never actually buried, perhaps the body was stolen by graverobbers, or perhaps the body was even stolen by the people who were claiming that he had resurrected.
But mass hysteria does exist. As during the Salem Witch trials: one person claims they see a demon in the room and, hyped up on fear, emotion, and adrenaline, pretty soon everyone in the room sees it.
> but if there's a "group memory" of a resurrection of Jesus, all somebody has to do to debunk it is produce the body.
An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.
But there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened back when the claims were first made: perhaps Jesus was never actually buried, perhaps the body was stolen by graverobbers, or perhaps the body was even stolen by the people who were claiming that he had resurrected.
- Corinthian
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by jimwalton » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:19 am
> But mass hysteria does exist.
Indeed it does, but that's a different phenomenon. If 11 people were standing in a room, and all 11 say they saw Jesus, that can't be a group hallucination, because there is no such thing, and it's not mass hysteria, because they're not hyped up. If you're just going to treat the whole account in the gospels as lies, and make up whatever "facts" you want to set a scene the way you want it set, then we're not having a very reasonable discussion.
> An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.
Correct, but not very difficult at all just a few days later, when the stories started to circulate.
You're right, there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.
First, what do we have to know?
1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:
- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story
But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?
Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.
Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.
Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.
Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.
Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.
Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.
Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation.
Indeed it does, but that's a different phenomenon. If 11 people were standing in a room, and all 11 say they saw Jesus, that can't be a group hallucination, because there is no such thing, and it's not mass hysteria, because they're not hyped up. If you're just going to treat the whole account in the gospels as lies, and make up whatever "facts" you want to set a scene the way you want it set, then we're not having a very reasonable discussion.
> An understandably difficult proposition 2,000 years after the fact.
Correct, but not very difficult at all just a few days later, when the stories started to circulate.
You're right, there are hypothetical reasons for why this might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.
First, what do we have to know?
1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:
- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story
But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?
Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.
Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.
Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.
Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.
Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.
Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.
Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by Diamond Girl » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:30 am
1. I disagree that we worship the same God, but ok. Also, the state of the Jewish people as it is today is warned very explicitly in Deuteronomy.
2. I meant extremely early Christianity, first 50 years or so. From my understanding, they mostly stayed as a sect in Judaism until they started letting Gentiles in, and that's when their membership started exploding. As for the numbers, this scholarly source disagrees with you.
3. Well after searching around a bit, I can't find any stories of Islam. On the other hand, Christianity is the least cerebral of the Abrahamic faiths, so it makes sense.
4. And I'm saying that is a very personal relationship that others also feel in other religions. So not proof of Jesus, just how loving relationships makes you feel.
5. No, the resurrection, if it happened perfectly as described, is not proof of anything. The Torah specifically warns us not to trust prophets by their miracles, since God could be testing us, and to listen to their words instead. Since Jesus/his disciples tell people to worship God very differently... And what exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying? As for the second part, anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes. None of that is proof.
5. I would say there is neither consistency nor progression. Nowhere in the OT is the Trinity even hinted at (and there are specific parts which easily deem it heretical), the Law is not thought of as a burden to be relieved, a resurrection isn't shown to be proof of anything, the covenant was always described as eternal and personal, etc. etc.
2. I meant extremely early Christianity, first 50 years or so. From my understanding, they mostly stayed as a sect in Judaism until they started letting Gentiles in, and that's when their membership started exploding. As for the numbers, this scholarly source disagrees with you.
3. Well after searching around a bit, I can't find any stories of Islam. On the other hand, Christianity is the least cerebral of the Abrahamic faiths, so it makes sense.
4. And I'm saying that is a very personal relationship that others also feel in other religions. So not proof of Jesus, just how loving relationships makes you feel.
5. No, the resurrection, if it happened perfectly as described, is not proof of anything. The Torah specifically warns us not to trust prophets by their miracles, since God could be testing us, and to listen to their words instead. Since Jesus/his disciples tell people to worship God very differently... And what exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying? As for the second part, anecdotes, anecdotes, anecdotes. None of that is proof.
5. I would say there is neither consistency nor progression. Nowhere in the OT is the Trinity even hinted at (and there are specific parts which easily deem it heretical), the Law is not thought of as a burden to be relieved, a resurrection isn't shown to be proof of anything, the covenant was always described as eternal and personal, etc. etc.
- Diamond Girl
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by jimwalton » Mon Jul 07, 2014 10:20 am
> I disagree that we worship the same God
That's interesting. I assume from your replies that you're Jewish. Jesus himself said, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4.10). He was quoting and affirming Deut. 6.13-14, prohibiting the worship of any God but Adonai Elohim.
> the state of the Jewish people as it is today is warned very explicitly in Deuteronomy
I don't know what text in Deut. you're referring to here.
2. Fascinating link. Thank you for that article. I read the pertinent pages. The source doesn't disagree with me. He's working off of assumptions combined with historical and archaeological references, and while he has some hard facts to go by, he admits that they have "few facts to go by" and "only provide a framework." He admits that "population growth was not uniform" and that the records are only from the Greco-Roman world, though there is evidence that Christianity had spread east, south, and northwest as well, for which there is no data, as well as no data for "rural Christians." His figures , in reality, have a modicum of credibility, but don't begin to tell the whole story.
> Christianity is the least cerebral of the Abrahamic faiths, so it makes sense
Now this is just ludicrous. Christianity has engaged many of the best minds of history and culture through the ages. Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis in which you may be interested: "For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism. (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity.) There isn't really, for an adult mind, this infinite variety of religions to consider. We may salva reverentia (without outraging reverence) divide religions, as we do soups, into `thick' and `clear'. By Thick I mean those which have orgies and ecstasies and mysteries and local attachments: Africa is full of Thick religions. By Clear I mean those which are philosophical, ethical and universalizing: Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Ethical Church are Clear religions. Now if there is a true religion it must be both Thick and Clear: for the true God must have made both the child and the man, both the savage and the citizen, both the head and the belly. And the only two religions that fulfil this condition are Hinduism and Christianity. But Hinduism fulfils it imperfectly. The Clear religion of the Brahmin hermit in the jungle and the Thick religion of the neighboring temple go on side by side. The Brahmin hermit doesn't bother about the temple prostitution nor the worshiper in the temple about the hermit's meta-physics. But Christianity really breaks down the middle wall of the partition. It takes a convert from central Africa and tells him to obey an enlightened universalist ethic: it takes a twentieth-century academic prig like me and tells me to go fasting to a Mystery, to drink the blood of the Lord. The savage convert has to be Clear: I have to be Thick. That is how one knows one has come to the real religion."
> The Torah specifically warns us not to trust prophets by their miracles
Text?
> And what exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying?
He obtained eternal redemption. The blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled sanctified people with an outward cleanliness, but the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences. It's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. They were offered year after year, and therefore were not a permanent solution to sin. Christ's sacrifice was once for all, and by his sacrifice made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
> Trinity hinted at in Tanakh?
- Plural pronoun "us" used several times in Genesis, as well as Isa. 6.8
- Elohim is plural used with a singular verb.
- Ps. 110.1
- Isa. 9.6
- Ps. 2.7
- Dan. 7.13-14
> The law a burden to be relieved?
The Law was meant to be a joy and a blessing, but it carried with it a strong negative potential. Adherents became so afraid of transgression that they piled on more requirements to avoid getting close to infraction that they created a system of impossible conformity. It turns out to have been impossible. No one was able to keep the whole law all the time without flaw.
> a resurrection isn't proof of anything
The resurrection is a sign of dying and rising, of victory over death and sin. It verifies the sacrifice of the lamb was accepted and sin can be forgiven for those who accept and follow. It's a sign of hearing and heeding, that the truth has been revealed and those who refuse to see it will be held accountable. It's a sign of incarnation and crucifixion, of God with us (Isa. 7.14), and of the atonement (Isa. 53).
> the covenant was always described as eternal and personal
I agree. The covenant will never pass away, and yet we know that the covenant is progressive. The covenant expressed to Noah built on the one given to Adam, to Abraham built on the one given to Noah, to Moses built on that one, to David built on that one, and I believe that the covenant given through the person of Jesus built on the Davidic covenant. It's the nature of the covenant to be be filled up until all is complete.
That's interesting. I assume from your replies that you're Jewish. Jesus himself said, "Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only" (Matt. 4.10). He was quoting and affirming Deut. 6.13-14, prohibiting the worship of any God but Adonai Elohim.
> the state of the Jewish people as it is today is warned very explicitly in Deuteronomy
I don't know what text in Deut. you're referring to here.
2. Fascinating link. Thank you for that article. I read the pertinent pages. The source doesn't disagree with me. He's working off of assumptions combined with historical and archaeological references, and while he has some hard facts to go by, he admits that they have "few facts to go by" and "only provide a framework." He admits that "population growth was not uniform" and that the records are only from the Greco-Roman world, though there is evidence that Christianity had spread east, south, and northwest as well, for which there is no data, as well as no data for "rural Christians." His figures , in reality, have a modicum of credibility, but don't begin to tell the whole story.
> Christianity is the least cerebral of the Abrahamic faiths, so it makes sense
Now this is just ludicrous. Christianity has engaged many of the best minds of history and culture through the ages. Here's a quote from C.S. Lewis in which you may be interested: "For my own part, I have sometimes told my audience that the only two things really worth considering are Christianity and Hinduism. (Islam is only the greatest of the Christian heresies, Buddhism only the greatest of the Hindu heresies. Real Paganism is dead. All that was best in Judaism and Platonism survives in Christianity.) There isn't really, for an adult mind, this infinite variety of religions to consider. We may salva reverentia (without outraging reverence) divide religions, as we do soups, into `thick' and `clear'. By Thick I mean those which have orgies and ecstasies and mysteries and local attachments: Africa is full of Thick religions. By Clear I mean those which are philosophical, ethical and universalizing: Stoicism, Buddhism, and the Ethical Church are Clear religions. Now if there is a true religion it must be both Thick and Clear: for the true God must have made both the child and the man, both the savage and the citizen, both the head and the belly. And the only two religions that fulfil this condition are Hinduism and Christianity. But Hinduism fulfils it imperfectly. The Clear religion of the Brahmin hermit in the jungle and the Thick religion of the neighboring temple go on side by side. The Brahmin hermit doesn't bother about the temple prostitution nor the worshiper in the temple about the hermit's meta-physics. But Christianity really breaks down the middle wall of the partition. It takes a convert from central Africa and tells him to obey an enlightened universalist ethic: it takes a twentieth-century academic prig like me and tells me to go fasting to a Mystery, to drink the blood of the Lord. The savage convert has to be Clear: I have to be Thick. That is how one knows one has come to the real religion."
> The Torah specifically warns us not to trust prophets by their miracles
Text?
> And what exactly did Jesus accomplish by dying?
He obtained eternal redemption. The blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer sprinkled sanctified people with an outward cleanliness, but the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences. It's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. They were offered year after year, and therefore were not a permanent solution to sin. Christ's sacrifice was once for all, and by his sacrifice made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
> Trinity hinted at in Tanakh?
- Plural pronoun "us" used several times in Genesis, as well as Isa. 6.8
- Elohim is plural used with a singular verb.
- Ps. 110.1
- Isa. 9.6
- Ps. 2.7
- Dan. 7.13-14
> The law a burden to be relieved?
The Law was meant to be a joy and a blessing, but it carried with it a strong negative potential. Adherents became so afraid of transgression that they piled on more requirements to avoid getting close to infraction that they created a system of impossible conformity. It turns out to have been impossible. No one was able to keep the whole law all the time without flaw.
> a resurrection isn't proof of anything
The resurrection is a sign of dying and rising, of victory over death and sin. It verifies the sacrifice of the lamb was accepted and sin can be forgiven for those who accept and follow. It's a sign of hearing and heeding, that the truth has been revealed and those who refuse to see it will be held accountable. It's a sign of incarnation and crucifixion, of God with us (Isa. 7.14), and of the atonement (Isa. 53).
> the covenant was always described as eternal and personal
I agree. The covenant will never pass away, and yet we know that the covenant is progressive. The covenant expressed to Noah built on the one given to Adam, to Abraham built on the one given to Noah, to Moses built on that one, to David built on that one, and I believe that the covenant given through the person of Jesus built on the Davidic covenant. It's the nature of the covenant to be be filled up until all is complete.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by Slayer » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:05 am
> The persisting existence of the Jewish people as a people and as a nation.
Does the persisting existence of Indians as a people and a nation argue that Hinduism is correct? Admittedly, it's amazing that the Jewish people are still around as a culture, but I don't think God is necessary to explain that, nor is there any evidence that there has been any supernatural involvement.
> The radical change of Jewish stalwarts of the 1st c. to a dedicated group of Christians who no longer follow the law, do sacrifices, or recognize the temple.
Could the same be said for Christians who converted to Mormonism? Is the simple fact that there are, and were Christians turning to Mormonism evidence that Joseph Smith actually possessed the gold tablets, and was in direct revelation with God? If not, why is it different for First Century Christianity?
> The way the lives of people who become Christians are changed is radically different from converts to other religions.
I don't know that that's true. I've certainly heard testimonies that are of the same caliber from different religions—maybe this is just in your opinion and experience, but mine is different I suppose.
In any case, the devotion, and subjective experience of a follower of a religion cannot be used as evidence for the truth claims of that religion.
> The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.
I disagree with this. I think that, only if you're willing to grant 100% historical reliability of the gospel writers, and already possess belief in the supernatural that the resurrection seems like the most likely event. My explanation is that stories evolve. It was decades after the death of Jesus until the resurrection story was written down—we have evidence that the stories were, in fact, changing and evolving. I've never understood why believing that people were mistaken, and that the cult followers of a new cult would perhaps exaggerate or change the story is viewed as Christians as such an unlikely proposition.
> The sensibleness of the Bible. It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem.
I find that the Bible contains claims that happen to be both factually untrue, and morally reprehensible. Some examples would be 6 day creation, world wide flood, geocentric world view. Misogyny is rampant, owning people is endorsed, genocide is portrayed, infanticide is commanded, etc. The list goes on and on.
Does the persisting existence of Indians as a people and a nation argue that Hinduism is correct? Admittedly, it's amazing that the Jewish people are still around as a culture, but I don't think God is necessary to explain that, nor is there any evidence that there has been any supernatural involvement.
> The radical change of Jewish stalwarts of the 1st c. to a dedicated group of Christians who no longer follow the law, do sacrifices, or recognize the temple.
Could the same be said for Christians who converted to Mormonism? Is the simple fact that there are, and were Christians turning to Mormonism evidence that Joseph Smith actually possessed the gold tablets, and was in direct revelation with God? If not, why is it different for First Century Christianity?
> The way the lives of people who become Christians are changed is radically different from converts to other religions.
I don't know that that's true. I've certainly heard testimonies that are of the same caliber from different religions—maybe this is just in your opinion and experience, but mine is different I suppose.
In any case, the devotion, and subjective experience of a follower of a religion cannot be used as evidence for the truth claims of that religion.
> The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.
I disagree with this. I think that, only if you're willing to grant 100% historical reliability of the gospel writers, and already possess belief in the supernatural that the resurrection seems like the most likely event. My explanation is that stories evolve. It was decades after the death of Jesus until the resurrection story was written down—we have evidence that the stories were, in fact, changing and evolving. I've never understood why believing that people were mistaken, and that the cult followers of a new cult would perhaps exaggerate or change the story is viewed as Christians as such an unlikely proposition.
> The sensibleness of the Bible. It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem.
I find that the Bible contains claims that happen to be both factually untrue, and morally reprehensible. Some examples would be 6 day creation, world wide flood, geocentric world view. Misogyny is rampant, owning people is endorsed, genocide is portrayed, infanticide is commanded, etc. The list goes on and on.
- Slayer
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by jimwalton » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:19 am
> Admittedly, it's amazing that the Jewish people are still around as a culture...
And really, that's my only point. It's downright remarkable, certainly unique (since they were deprived of a homeland, as distinct from the Egyptians or the Indians). And it's only evidence, not proof. It's remarkable to point where some would even use the word miraculous, but that's just delving into subjective terminology and perspective.
> Could the same be said for Christians who converted to Mormonism?
Possibly. Mormonism has certainly grown as an offshoot of Christianity, as Christianity grew off of Judaism. Though taking all the facts together, I don't think the two equate. For instance, there is absolutely NO archaeological or historical evidence for ANYTHING the Mormons claim happened here in America. Nada.
> The resurrection of Jesus
There are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.
First, what do we have to know?
1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:
- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story
But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?
Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.
Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.
Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.
Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.
Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.
Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.
Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.
> Six-day creation
I subscribe to a perspective that has come to the surface in recent years that Gn. 1 is about function, not structure. (http://www.christianbook.com/world-gene ... vent=ESRCP). It's a fascinating interpretation that makes a world of sense. What it says is that Gn. 1 is about God giving creation its role and functionality, not about its material construction. Though the Bible is clear that God made the world, it doesn't tell us how or the duration of its material creation, only that God is the one who ordered it and assigned roles. Very provocative and sensible.
> World-wide flood
I don't believe in a world-wide flood. The Genesis account could easily be speaking of a humonstrous continental-sized deluge that destroyed the population God was judging.
> Geo-centric world view
Its old-world science that the Bible accommodates but doesn't authorize. Even we have a geo-centric view. We look at our universe from here. But the Bible doesn't teach that the world is the center of the universe. Their science believed the world WAS the universe, but the Bible doesn't authorize that perspective.
> Misogyny
Not true. God created the man and woman as equals in every way (Gn. 1.26ff.). While they later were in a patriarchal culture, the Bible gives women tremendous respect and unheard-of rights and protections. You're just wrong about this one.
> Owning people is endorsed.
It's allowed, but the Bible doesn't promote slavery. In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. In the NT, Paul and Peter didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right, even if they were mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> Genocide
The Bible teaches no such thing. What seems to be complete obliteration is a misunderstanding. Archaeologist have uncovered many such warfare tirades, and they are just typical warfare bravado of the day. They don't mean to wipe out the population, and that's not what was done. In the case of 1 Sam. 15, for example, the "command" was to wipe out the Amalekites, but the Amalekites remain (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). There is no intention of killing them all, no understanding that that was the command, and certainly no follow through on that account. The moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.
> Infanticide commanded?
Now you're really reaching. Nowhere is infanticide commanded.
There is no such list unless you only want to read the Bible superficially and not with intelligent meaning.
And really, that's my only point. It's downright remarkable, certainly unique (since they were deprived of a homeland, as distinct from the Egyptians or the Indians). And it's only evidence, not proof. It's remarkable to point where some would even use the word miraculous, but that's just delving into subjective terminology and perspective.
> Could the same be said for Christians who converted to Mormonism?
Possibly. Mormonism has certainly grown as an offshoot of Christianity, as Christianity grew off of Judaism. Though taking all the facts together, I don't think the two equate. For instance, there is absolutely NO archaeological or historical evidence for ANYTHING the Mormons claim happened here in America. Nada.
> The resurrection of Jesus
There are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.
First, what do we have to know?
1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:
- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story
But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?
Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.
Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.
Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.
Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.
Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.
Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.
Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.
> Six-day creation
I subscribe to a perspective that has come to the surface in recent years that Gn. 1 is about function, not structure. (http://www.christianbook.com/world-gene ... vent=ESRCP). It's a fascinating interpretation that makes a world of sense. What it says is that Gn. 1 is about God giving creation its role and functionality, not about its material construction. Though the Bible is clear that God made the world, it doesn't tell us how or the duration of its material creation, only that God is the one who ordered it and assigned roles. Very provocative and sensible.
> World-wide flood
I don't believe in a world-wide flood. The Genesis account could easily be speaking of a humonstrous continental-sized deluge that destroyed the population God was judging.
> Geo-centric world view
Its old-world science that the Bible accommodates but doesn't authorize. Even we have a geo-centric view. We look at our universe from here. But the Bible doesn't teach that the world is the center of the universe. Their science believed the world WAS the universe, but the Bible doesn't authorize that perspective.
> Misogyny
Not true. God created the man and woman as equals in every way (Gn. 1.26ff.). While they later were in a patriarchal culture, the Bible gives women tremendous respect and unheard-of rights and protections. You're just wrong about this one.
> Owning people is endorsed.
It's allowed, but the Bible doesn't promote slavery. In the Bible God does not dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. In the NT, Paul and Peter didn’t call for an uprising to overthrow slavery in Rome. They didn’t want the Christian faith to be perceived as opposed to social order and harmony. Hence, Christian slaves were told to do what was right, even if they were mistreated (1 Pet. 2.18-20; Eph. 6.5-9). Abraham Lincoln took the same approach. Though he despised slavery and talked freely about this degrading institution, his first priority was to hold the Union together rather than try to abolish slavery immediately.
> Genocide
The Bible teaches no such thing. What seems to be complete obliteration is a misunderstanding. Archaeologist have uncovered many such warfare tirades, and they are just typical warfare bravado of the day. They don't mean to wipe out the population, and that's not what was done. In the case of 1 Sam. 15, for example, the "command" was to wipe out the Amalekites, but the Amalekites remain (1 Sam. 27.8; 30.17-18). There is no intention of killing them all, no understanding that that was the command, and certainly no follow through on that account. The moral of the story is not to stop at a surface reading of these terms and assume God’s immorality.
> Infanticide commanded?
Now you're really reaching. Nowhere is infanticide commanded.
There is no such list unless you only want to read the Bible superficially and not with intelligent meaning.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by Zarma-Karma » Mon Jul 07, 2014 11:42 am
> The persisting existence of the Jewish people as a people and as a nation.
I could say the same thing about the Koreans, whom the Japanese tried to exterminate, and the Native Americans, whom Europeans tried to exterminate. The Persians also still exist.
> The radical change of Jewish stalwarts of the 1st c.
Even Jewish people who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah have changed the way they practiced their Judaism.
> The way the lives of people who become Christians are changed is radically different from converts to other religions. Other religious recruits don new duds and take on some new habits to conform to their new faith, but people who turn to Christ speak of "loads of life being lifted," of entirely new demeanors and personalities overcoming them, of miraculous changes in life (give up alcohol, are done with drugs, etc.), of radical life-change in attitude and behavior. Other religious converts speak of changes, but the testimonies of Christians seem in a whole different league to me.
Google "Allah changed my life." With regards to addiction, there are stories about that, but remember that Christianity suffers from selection bias. Most Muslim countries don't even allow alcohol, and have incredibly severe penalties for drugs, so they are working with a smaller pool to begin with, and the stigma of coming out as an addict makes success stories harder to come by.
> What I see happen in my own life. My faith causes thoughts and behaviors that I would clearly say are not mine.
Care to give an example?
> The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.
If you take the gospel account of Jesus's death and resurrection at face value, you're not being skeptical.
Regarding accounts of "lives changed," we have only one, Paul's, and it reads exactly like a hallucination. Remember that hallucinations or religious "experiences" are often brought on by fasting, which Jews did regularly.
It's possible that the other people who claimed to see Jesus simply convinced themselves that they saw him because they wanted it to be true. People have claimed to see the Emperor of Ethiopia (central figure of Rastafar) after he died. Some Hasidic Jews think that Rabbi Schneerson is the Messiah, and they claimed that he was still alive just 3 short days after his apparent death. 7% of Americans are convinced Elvis is still alive.
> The sensibleness of the Bible. It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem.
Even if I grant that the Bible is "sensible," I don't see why that is a reason to believe that it was divinely inspired. Many books and collections of books are filled with wisdom and life guidance, etc.
I could say the same thing about the Koreans, whom the Japanese tried to exterminate, and the Native Americans, whom Europeans tried to exterminate. The Persians also still exist.
> The radical change of Jewish stalwarts of the 1st c.
Even Jewish people who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah have changed the way they practiced their Judaism.
> The way the lives of people who become Christians are changed is radically different from converts to other religions. Other religious recruits don new duds and take on some new habits to conform to their new faith, but people who turn to Christ speak of "loads of life being lifted," of entirely new demeanors and personalities overcoming them, of miraculous changes in life (give up alcohol, are done with drugs, etc.), of radical life-change in attitude and behavior. Other religious converts speak of changes, but the testimonies of Christians seem in a whole different league to me.
Google "Allah changed my life." With regards to addiction, there are stories about that, but remember that Christianity suffers from selection bias. Most Muslim countries don't even allow alcohol, and have incredibly severe penalties for drugs, so they are working with a smaller pool to begin with, and the stigma of coming out as an addict makes success stories harder to come by.
> What I see happen in my own life. My faith causes thoughts and behaviors that I would clearly say are not mine.
Care to give an example?
> The historical, bodily resurrection of Jesus. Several years ago I went through a severe life crisis and was very close to walking away from Christianity. But I just couldn't get around the resurrection. The evidence is convincing: empty tomb (couldn't have been graverobbed or mistaken), lives changed on claims of having seen Jesus (couldn't have been hallucinations), church born in a very unlikely place (Jewish Palestine), and others.
If you take the gospel account of Jesus's death and resurrection at face value, you're not being skeptical.
Regarding accounts of "lives changed," we have only one, Paul's, and it reads exactly like a hallucination. Remember that hallucinations or religious "experiences" are often brought on by fasting, which Jews did regularly.
It's possible that the other people who claimed to see Jesus simply convinced themselves that they saw him because they wanted it to be true. People have claimed to see the Emperor of Ethiopia (central figure of Rastafar) after he died. Some Hasidic Jews think that Rabbi Schneerson is the Messiah, and they claimed that he was still alive just 3 short days after his apparent death. 7% of Americans are convinced Elvis is still alive.
> The sensibleness of the Bible. It's a literary treasure of God revealing himself, amply filled with wisdom, life guidance, harmony of theme and thought, speaking to real life, and addressing the human condition with honesty and hope. I believe it's inspired by God. My deep study of it turns up gem after gem.
Even if I grant that the Bible is "sensible," I don't see why that is a reason to believe that it was divinely inspired. Many books and collections of books are filled with wisdom and life guidance, etc.
- Zarma-Karma
Re: What are the five greatest evidences for Christianity?
by jimwalton » Mon Jul 07, 2014 12:13 pm
Thanks for your reply. You give various examples, but they are all from different arenas and forums. Christianity has all of them (and more), which I think add up to where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Of course there are other people groups that have survived intact through history, but the examples you gave also were never deprived of a homeland, especially for 2600 years while maintaining their group identity. Also, remember that when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 BC, those people are lost to history, so we know a people group like the Jews can get lost in the world. But the smaller group, Judah, conquered by Babylon in 586 BC—that they still exist is nothing short of remarkable, and that's an understatement. The Egyptians, Native Americans—sure, but they always had their land. Disperse them to the winds and it's a different historical picture: Gone!
> Even Jewish people who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah have changed the way they practiced their Judaism.
The micro-changes of Judaism through the eras is vastly different than the radical change brought about in a few short years in the hotbed of Judaistic ritualism and conformity: Jerusalem. I'm quite convinced that we're talking bout a qualitative distinction that makes the two unequatable.
> Christianity suffers from selection bias.
Hm. This sounds like a biased statement to me. The fact is that people who turn to Christianity find their lives radically changed in ways they did not anticipate, which is not a function of selection bias.
> If you take the gospel account of Jesus's death and resurrection at face value, you're not being skeptical.
There are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.
First, what do we have to know?
1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:
- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story
But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?
Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.
Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.
Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.
Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.
Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.
Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.
Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.
> Even if I grant that the Bible is "sensible," I don't see why that is a reason to believe that it was divinely inspired. Many books and collections of books are filled with wisdom and life guidance, etc.
True that many books are filled with wisdom and life guidance. The Bible is unique of historical religious and wisdom books (well, all books for that matter). 66 separate writings, over 40 separate authors, spanning at least 1600 years, writing from 3 continents, three languages, authors from all walks of life. The entire OT contains over 2600 claims to inspiration—that the writers did not originate their messages, but were given them by God. It is the only book of ancient history whose narrative reveals a purpose in history. It is the only religious book containing detailed prophecies of events to come. It is a book, by the testimony of millions, that has the power to convict people of sin and lead them to a life they would describe as "freedom." It reveals God in a way that makes sense and conforms to reality as we experience it.
Now, Muslims also assert that the Qur'an came from God. The distinctions are remarkable, though. Muhammad himself first believed that message he got from an angel choking him was a demon. Muslim biographer M.H. Haykal wrote vividly of Muhammad’s plaguing fear that he was demon-possessed. And although Muhammad recognized that prophets before him were confirmed by miracles of nature, he himself refused to perform any miracles to confirm his claims to be a prophet (Sura 3.181-84). Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has no specific, multiple, and long-term predictions that came to pass without fail. The best supposed example of a predictive prophecy is about the Romans avenging a defeat (Sure 30.2-4), but this is vague, indefinite, and humanly predictable.
The Bible, in contrast, was confirmed by signs and wonders. Ex. 4.5; Num. 16; 1 Ki. 18; Jn. 3.2; Lk.7.22; Acts 2.22; Heb. 2.4; 2 Cor. 12.12. No other book in the world has authors who were confirmed in this miraculous manner.
One of the most important evidences of the Bible's supernatural nature is its ability to make clear, repeated predictions about the distant future. The OT has nearly 200 predictions about the coming of Christ that were made hundreds of years in advance.
> Even Jewish people who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah have changed the way they practiced their Judaism.
The micro-changes of Judaism through the eras is vastly different than the radical change brought about in a few short years in the hotbed of Judaistic ritualism and conformity: Jerusalem. I'm quite convinced that we're talking bout a qualitative distinction that makes the two unequatable.
> Christianity suffers from selection bias.
Hm. This sounds like a biased statement to me. The fact is that people who turn to Christianity find their lives radically changed in ways they did not anticipate, which is not a function of selection bias.
> If you take the gospel account of Jesus's death and resurrection at face value, you're not being skeptical.
There are hypothetical reasons for why the resurrection might not have happened, and that's what we must deal with. We're dealing with a cold case here, and we must approach it like cops, realistically—cops and detectives, lawyers and scientists (you probably watch some of the forensics shows on TV, as many do). We have some alleged eye-witness testimony that we have to evaluate, and some material evidence.
First, what do we have to know?
1. Was he alive at point "A"? Virtually every scholar believes that Jesus was a live human early in the 1st century.
2. Was he dead at point "B"? For Jesus' death we have 5 ancient sources outside the Bible corroborating the historicity of his death. The death of Jesus on the cross is one of the best-attested historical events of the ancient world. The weight of the historical and medical evidence is that Jesus was dead even before the wound to his side was delivered. Jesus’ death is practically indisputable.
3. Was he alive again at point "C"? There are several strands of evidence:
- His tomb was empty. The site of his tomb was known to friends and enemies. If the tomb wasn't empty, it would have been an impossible story to maintain in the city where the death and burial occurred.
- Women were the first to witness and report the resurrection. This is the last thing a fiction writer would want to claim in their culture. It would just ruin the credibility of their story.
- Enemy attestation. The opponents of Jesus and his followers admitted the body was gone.
- The disciples were absolutely and passionately committed to the conviction that Jesus had risen, and were willing to suffer for their story
But now we're left to try to explain it. Were they wrong? Lying? Delusional? Fooled? Influenced? Distorted? Or accurate?
Maybe they were wrong, and Jesus never died. Jesus had been beaten and scourged, too weak to carry his own cross. Then crucified. The soldiers didn't bother to break his legs, but they spear his side, bringing blood and water. he had circulatory shock, where the result is either pericardial effusion or pleural effusion—a sure sign of death. Joseph and Nicodemus wrap the body, working with it to prepare it for burial. With all this time they would have seen the mortis triad: algor mortis, rigor mortis, and lividity mortis. Is it reasonable to assume Jesus is not dead? No.
Maybe they were lying, and it was a vast conspiracy. A successful conspiracy needs factors of a low # of co-conspirators, only a short time to hold the conspiracy together, excellent communication between conspirators, strong relationships, and little or no pressure to confess. But in this case there were 11+, holding the conspiracy for 60 years, with little communication between them, unrelated to each other, with huge pressure to confess. A conspiracy is not reasonable.
Maybe they were delusional, and were subject to hallucinations or mass hysteria, as you suggest. Well maybe Mary Magdalene and Peter really really wanted a resurrection to happen, but what of James, Jesus' brother? What about Saul/Paul—did he want to see Jesus? Were the two on the road to Emmaus expecting to? The 10 disciples? The 500? It's not reasonable to assume mass hysteria or group hallucinations.
Maybe they were fooled, a look-alike walking around pretending it was Jesus, pulling off a grand fraud.If you're playing a character, you need to know more about the topic than the person you are trying to con, and fool the people who know him best. And you still have to be able to do miracles, like ascend into heaven. Would that play well in Jerusalem? Not reasonably so.
Maybe they were swayed. Mary and Peter got caught up in their hallucinations, and influenced the others. Are you kidding? Was Mary that influential in the group? Not likely. And Peter was NEVER alone in his sightings. Paul? Paul influences the 12? They didn't even TRUST Paul.
Maybe they were distorted. Maybe it's a legend that grew over time, or making it all up. That doesn't make sense given that it's historically verifiable that these stories were widely circulating within just a few years, and we have a chain of custody about the story.
Well, maybe it's just accurate, and the truth. Granted, this theory has a HUGE liability. IT requires that supernatural things are reasonable. So the core under investigation is: Are supernatural events possible? If you are honestly investigating it, you can’t start with the presupposition that there is no such thing. If you start with “supernaturalism is not possible”, then no evidence will convince you. It’s called circular reasoning, when you are committed to your position before the investigation begins. There are only two choices: either Jesus rose from the dead, or he didn’t. But if your presupposition is that rising from the dead is impossible, then evidence never matters.
The resurrection hypothesis is significantly stronger than competing hypotheses. Historical investigation will never give you 100% certainty, but it does give reasonable certainty. Historians must choose the most probable explanation. The story of Jesus' bodily resurrection was circulating very quickly after the alleged event, and it can be virtually confirmed that it was a consistent narrative within a very short period of time.
> Even if I grant that the Bible is "sensible," I don't see why that is a reason to believe that it was divinely inspired. Many books and collections of books are filled with wisdom and life guidance, etc.
True that many books are filled with wisdom and life guidance. The Bible is unique of historical religious and wisdom books (well, all books for that matter). 66 separate writings, over 40 separate authors, spanning at least 1600 years, writing from 3 continents, three languages, authors from all walks of life. The entire OT contains over 2600 claims to inspiration—that the writers did not originate their messages, but were given them by God. It is the only book of ancient history whose narrative reveals a purpose in history. It is the only religious book containing detailed prophecies of events to come. It is a book, by the testimony of millions, that has the power to convict people of sin and lead them to a life they would describe as "freedom." It reveals God in a way that makes sense and conforms to reality as we experience it.
Now, Muslims also assert that the Qur'an came from God. The distinctions are remarkable, though. Muhammad himself first believed that message he got from an angel choking him was a demon. Muslim biographer M.H. Haykal wrote vividly of Muhammad’s plaguing fear that he was demon-possessed. And although Muhammad recognized that prophets before him were confirmed by miracles of nature, he himself refused to perform any miracles to confirm his claims to be a prophet (Sura 3.181-84). Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an has no specific, multiple, and long-term predictions that came to pass without fail. The best supposed example of a predictive prophecy is about the Romans avenging a defeat (Sure 30.2-4), but this is vague, indefinite, and humanly predictable.
The Bible, in contrast, was confirmed by signs and wonders. Ex. 4.5; Num. 16; 1 Ki. 18; Jn. 3.2; Lk.7.22; Acts 2.22; Heb. 2.4; 2 Cor. 12.12. No other book in the world has authors who were confirmed in this miraculous manner.
One of the most important evidences of the Bible's supernatural nature is its ability to make clear, repeated predictions about the distant future. The OT has nearly 200 predictions about the coming of Christ that were made hundreds of years in advance.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
22 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests