More Active Posts
Front Page
Evidence and choice
 |
 90 Comments |
“Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed” (John 20:6-9).
If you skimmed that verse quickly you missed the great philosophical debate of the next two thousand years of Western civilization: what constitutes “evidence”?
Let’s have an instant replay of the scene: It’s dawn and two men are racing. John outruns Peter (perhaps he is younger) and reaches the crypt first; he does not enter. Peter arrives second and, being Peter, barges in. He takes in the following brute data at a glance: linen cloths lying; Jesus’ head-covering apart from the linens, folded up. No body. (A reporter would have scribbled notes, perhaps looked for signs of struggle, foul play, forced entry.)
John crossed the threshold second. We are told he “also went in, and saw and believed.”
You might think, “Wait! Wait! John is skipping too many steps! What about this possibility, and that possibility?” And you proffer a dozen theories to explain the missing corpse, and each generation after you generates a dozen more.
When I was on the threshold of becoming a Christian, in the early 70s, pestering Christians with objection after objection, a patient man named John finally said calmly: “You know, Andrée, there comes a point where you have to stop accumulating evidence and decide.”
Of making many books there is no end. In the final analysis, there is this: the linen cloth neatly folded, the empty tomb, and your choice.
 |
Topic: Editor's Choice, Front Page, The World |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: apologetics, faith |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
“You know, Andrée, there comes a point where you have to stop accumulating evidence and decide.”
Because at the end of the day its not about evidence, for its not an intellectual matter but a moral matter: are you willing to submit your life to God? If you are not willing to live according to His commands, then no amount of evidence will be sufficient to convince you (because its not truly about the evidence).
On this point, I am pro-choice:)
It is plausible that the tomb was empty.
All else is belief.
And I always ask, why is this belief necessary? If the belief is not necessary, then arguably it is potentially intellectually expensive, as this discussion seems to demonstrate.
So why is a resurrection, as opposed to an empty tomb, necessary?
It does not say Peter chose to believe. It says ‘He believed’. I did not choose to become a child of God, I was adopted. I am His by His choice through the faith He has given me, not by my choice. It is not about anything I have done. I can only recieve His gift with thanksgiving.
Musing,
Christ’s death paid the price of sin. He bore our sin on the cross.
1 Corinthians 15:13ff (this is the resurrection chapter)
But if there is not resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised.; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, your faith is in vain. For if the dead are not raised. your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. ..but now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. (The great exchange)
Christ abolished death and the grave through the resurrection. We will be raised in Christ.
He is risen–He is risen indeed! Alleluia!
Here’s a good picture for faith: remember that scene in the 3rd Indiana Jones movie when he steps out into the abyss and finds the stairs ready for him? Faith is that moment when we extend the foot and still cannot see the stairs.
Perhaps there’s NO evidence, perhaps it looks like there’s a huge drop beneath us, but we step out and find the stairs that God has left for us.
Andrée, you published a piece last October that I think fits beautifully here (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/13382). Here is your opening paragraph, “Mark Aug. 14, 2007, as the day I got tired of playing “He loves me, He loves me not.” Nothing in the noumenal or phenomenal world presaged this occurrence. It was about 7 a.m. and I was walking the dog on Harrison Avenue, and at the corner of Harrison and Waverly I decided that the game stops here—which, as I think of it, is similar to C.S. Lewis’ underwhelming conversion recorded in Surprised by Joy: “When we set out I did not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and when we reached the zoo I did.”
I would say the same of John. “When John left the house, he did not believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God, but when he looked into the empty tomb, he did”.
Everyone either has or will have that opportunity to believe based on some amount of evidence that God has granted us. For those of us who are fortunate and have been blessed by His grace in this life, something has happened and now we believe. For others, it may be at the final judgement, but I’ll let God sort that out.
Belief in the Risen Lord, belief in creation (intelligent design), belief in life over death, righteousness over sin, contentment over greed…we must eventually decide what side we are on. I like God because He keeps things simple. His multiple choice scenarios involve only two possibilities rather than five like you normally find on a test. “No one can serve two masters. For you will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Luke 16:13. I suppose that is why the Evolutionist espouse such vitriol against those who adhere to a Creater. They have chosen to love themselves (i.e., highest biological specimen) rather than love God…for if the other way, they would have to admit they weren’t that smart after all.
John had finally reached the decision point…and thank God he chose the better way. I think Peter had reached it three nights previously, before the cock crowded three times and he probably breathed a huge sigh of relief that in fact, he was not the Judas, but the Rock on which Christ’s church would be built.
So for those of us who finally believe, what are we going to do about it? After all, Peter and John helped change the world!
Kimberly,
Good picture.
In Acts 9 after Saul’s conversion verse 22 says, ‘Saul kept increasing in strength and comfounding the Jews who lived at Damascus by PROVING that this Jesus is the Christ.”
I suppose that is why the Evolutionist espouse such vitriol against those who adhere to a Creater. They have chosen to love themselves (i.e., highest biological specimen) rather than love God…for if the other way, they would have to admit they weren’t that smart after all.
FALSE DICHOTOMY ALERT!!!
Like many, I am Christian, believe in God, and have zero problem reconciling that belief with the facts of evolution.
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact. Evolution (lesser to greater) is not a fact.
AWSTAR,
That’s your opinion. Reasonable Christians and believers, while agreeing with you completely on Christ’s resurection being factual can, and do, differ on the second sentence.
Please let’s not hijack the thread. Nitrobob was setting up a list of dichotomous choices believers face. But evolution vs. intelligent design is not a dichotomy; it appears to be a gratuitous inclusion, and not necessary to prove his point.
Thomas,
If your chief concern is that the thread isn’t highjacked, then why didn’t you just ignore Nitrobob instead of asserting that evolution is a fact, when it isn’t. I’m just trying to point out that you’re the one who is instigating the false dichotomy, not Nitrobob.
Nitrobob,
The Rock which the church is built is not Peter,(he was a human) but on Christ.
Psalm 118:22 The Stone the builder rejected has become the chief cornerstone.
2 Samuel 22:2,32 The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer.
1 Corinthians 10:4 … and they all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from the spiritual rock which followed them; and the rock was Christ.
Ephesians 2:19-20 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone.
Grandma post 5,
now I suggest that your comment:
“Christ’s death paid the price of sin. He bore our sin on the cross.”
is a reasonable model.
But why then does:
“But if there is not resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised.; and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain,”
necessarily follow.
I believe I do not see any necessary theological arguments for this point in your post.
awstar post 10,
you make the statement:
“The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a fact.”
but provide no objective evidence.
What is your objective evidence for this?
Do note that the discussion starts off with the belief in this. You appear to now have, without substantiation, extended this to a fact.
It would seem that you have extended beyond your data.
And your objective data that Jesus was resurrected?
There is no Christian faith without the resurrection. The apostle Paul would not have been preaching the Gospel if he had not known for a fact that Christ had risen from the dead. He saw the risen Christ, and God changed his life.
All this can only be understood by faith. Yes, you want solid, concrete answers and data. But in reality, it cannot be proven with any evidence we have today. I can’t explain faith to a person. It is beyond all human understanding. All of the mysteries of God have not been revealed to us. We have what we need in Scripture. I do not have all the answers, but I know I believe in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Christ, all by faith that was given to me by God’s grace.
Grandma post 18
actually in the early church there was much discussion on the meaning of the resurrection. There are still Christian sects today which appear to have non-traditional views on this point.
I do agree with your following points:
1) based on the New Testament record, it appears th Paul did base his preaching on his understanding of a resurrection
2) as you note:
“All this can only be understood by faith. Yes, you want solid, concrete answers and data. But in reality, it cannot be proven with any evidence we have today.”
and I agree.
So I am not asking for evidence, it is awstar who appear to insist there is evidence. If awstar has such evidence, then produce it. If not, then admit it is faith.
I am asking a different question, and you do not yet appear to have addressed this:
Why is the resurrection necessary from a Christian theological perspective? What of our Christian beliefs requires the resurrection?
In the final analysis, there is this: the linen cloth neatly folded, the empty tomb, and your choice.
Actually, there’s none of that - just a 2,000-yo story about it that was written from oral tradition decades after the alleged event!
And for reference, the oldest versions of Mark appear to end at Mark 16:9 - the tomb is empty, the women are afraid, but there is no mention of any encounters with a resurrected Jesus.
This pablum piece of Seu’s is yet another admonition to have the kind of faith that, in the words of Mark Twain, is “believing what you know ain’t so.”
spinoza post 18
actually no, here I disagree.
there is still “your choice”.
We can always choose to believe, indeed the only justification for pure belief is choice.
However, what I find interesting is how difficult it appears for people who appear to hold certain strong beliefs to explain why these beliefs are necessary.
Faith is not our choice. It is a gift. Did you ‘choose’ your parents? No you were part of your family by NO choice of your own.
The resurrection is necessary for salvation. Christ was brought back to life and we will all be brought to life on that last day. Some for judgement, and some to eternal life with Him. No other religion has a risen and living Savior. We do.
Wow. Sovereignty of God and free will of man. Before we even begin to get an inkling of deep theology, we recognize a point where the Cross made sense. We stopped second guessing and accepted Christ as our Savior. We chose. Little did we know that we were already chosen.
Does the fact that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world negate the point when we accepted Christ as Savior?
It’s like watching the sun rise or set. Despite the fact that we KNOW that it doesn’t, we still speak of it in that sense.
And Spinoza, you are chatting with folks who have experienced something you have obviously not. As such, it would be like me arguing about scuba diving. I know not of what I speak.
Keith at #23: Does the fact that God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world negate the point when we accepted Christ as Savior?
The flip side of this belief is that God also chose many, many people — most likely the majority that ever lived or ever will — for damnation. People go to hell, in your belief, not because they willingly reject God but because God did not choose them to be saved.
Does that idea really not trouble you, that you worship a God who would do that to people?
Musing said:
A fact is not established by data or majority opinion. A fact is truth. The fact that one plus one equals two exists even if the human race disappears. Jesus’ resurrection was a fact before it even happened because He said it would happen. Anything God says is a fact. He is the author of facts.
But if you really need data points, then the accounts of Peter and Paul in Acts and the last chapter of each of the four Gospels give you some eye witnesses. But even if someone comes back from the dead and stands before you, I doubt if you’ll accept this testimony, for the simple reason you don’t desire it to be a fact.
And being a gracious God, He says He will let anyone have their hearts desire — either eternal life with Him or without Him.
awstar post 25,
ah so you don’t have any data.
Paul did not witness the resurrection.
As I noted with the post on Mark, the only common thread in the four Gospels on this point is that the tomb is empty, a point to which I have already stipulated.
What you have is your belief that Jesus was resurrected, but no objective evidence which stands up under any rigorous scrutiny.
As noted in this start to this discussion the resurrection is a choice for you to believe not a fact proved rigorously with hard evidence.
I am always amazed at those who appear to be strong believers who then insist that the unprovable must be fact.
Is your belief so fragile that you can only hold your belief if you insist, without available evidence, that it must be fact?
Grandma post 21,
when you say:
“Faith is not our choice.”
I am unclear how you then reconcile this with Genesis 2.
No faith is always a choice, because it is in the end a choice to believe even in the absence of evidence.
If you have rigorous evidence, then no faith is required.
And one can always choose not to have faith.
grandma post 22,
now you say:
“The resurrection is necessary for salvation.”
However we determined earlier (your post 5) that it was Christ’s death which paid the price of sin, not his resurrection.
Given your statement, it would seem we are still left without a theological necessity for the resurrection.
And do remember that a number of early Christian churches (and some to th is day) have and had different perspectives ont his point.
AwStar at #25: Jesus’ resurrection was a fact before it even happened because He said it would happen. Anything God says is a fact. He is the author of facts.
I’m always amused when people say things like this and expect to be taken seriously.
For this to be convincing, the person you’re talking to must already believe Jesus is God. If they already believe Jesus is God, they probably don’t need to be convinced of the resurrection.
If you’re talking to someone who doesn’t think Jesus was God, their response will be, “What? God didn’t say it, Jesus said it, if the account of him saying it is even correct.” Your “logic” here convinces only the already-convinced.
steveg post 29,
actually the situation is stronger than you suggest: as posed this is “alogical”.
And if we are to accept:
“Anything God says is a fact.”
We are left with at least the following questions:
1) who is God?
2) how do we unequivocally know what God said?
3) how do we know that what God said is fact?
And of course now the religious fundamentalists of every ilk start arguing among themselves.
Post #27 you say;
“I am unclear how you then reconcile this with Genesis 2.”
What in Genesis 2 says there was any choice?
You also say:
“And one can always choose not to have faith.”
Exactly! That is the only choice we have. Faith is given as a GIFT that we recieve. When you recive a gift, you have no choice in being given that gift. You can choose to reject it. But the one who gave it to you, still has given that gift.
Grandma (#4) Well, yes, He chose you before the foundation of the world, but we also have the free will to choose not to believe Jesus. Look at Spinoza and company. They choose not to believe, and their posts here are evident of that. Even though God has provided us with a gift of eternal life, we who are destined to Heaven must still be willing to receive that gift. The transfer of eternal life only becomes ours when the transfer is complete from Jesus to mankind.
I appreciate Keith’s post (#23). Keith, you have stated it much better than I could. Obviously, since I posted this before reading your’s, it is evident we think along the same theological line.
Well done, Brother.
grandma post 31,
ah but Adam and Eve could have chosen not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
They instead did eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge and, to prevent them from being like gods, they were expelled so as not to eat from the tree of life.
(if you want to be finicky it was Genesis 3, but the story begins in Genesis 2 and continues arguably through Genesis 5).
grandma post 31,
when you say:
“That is the only choice we have. ”
you would seem to be admitting we have a choice.
Satan said, ” For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be LIKE God.” That was a lie of Satan. The banishing from the garden was not to prevent them from being like gods.
You can CHOOSE to REJECT the gift. As I said before, faith is the gift we are given.
In Genesis 3 man did choose to to eat. They sinned. But, it goes on to say that God sought them (they were trying to hide) and He clothed them. They tried to make clothing for themselves but failed. Now God even promises the Savior. Here at the begining, God does it all out of mercy and grace.
I am not finicky, but it is important to site scripture correctly.
What is your theology on the resurrection, musing? I am curious, since you keep asking me, I would like to know yours. I know I have not answered you question to your specifications. Not being a theologian, I am doing some research on that question. I will post my answer later. Thank you for your patience.
grandma post 35,
and of course Genesis 3:22- [NIV}:
“22Then the LORD God said,(W) “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand(X) and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” ”
You are right, the wording is not be like gods, but rather God saying they will become like us.
So we can quible the details here, but as you note they did choose.
grandma post 35,
with respect to the resurrection, I remain neutral. Mark 16:1-9 is, as I have noted, amazingly quiet on this point.
I can find no part of Christian theology which requires the resurrection save the threat of punishment if we don’t agree to God’s model.
Since I tend to react badly to threats and since I have reviewed my understanding of God’s model and find my understanding of it reasonable with no need of threats, I find no need to include the resurrection as a necessary belief.
And it is certainly a very expensive belief in terms of intellectual effort required to sustain it (see posts by awstar).
Musing said:
Nobody witnessed the resurrection event, but there were hundreds who encountered the resurrected Christ- including Paul. ( Acts 9:5 )
That’s more authority than what supports your beliefs.
By the way, Jesus used Paul as His apostle to bring reconcilation with God to both you and me. I’ve accepted God’s free offer of peace. In whom have you placed your hope when you are judged by the resurrected Christ? Your own nifty way with words?
awstar post 38,
good observation:
“Nobody witnessed the resurrection event, ”
When you say:
“but there were hundreds who encountered the resurrected Christ- including Paul.”
I suggest that if we consider the consistency of the reported narratives, that there are significant inconsistencies between these stories and very little commonality.
This in contrast to the empty tomb which is consistent accross all four Gospels.
So it has been my observations that we have more verifiable observations of Elvis than we have of a resurrected Jesus.
But I would be delighted if you could show a consistent set of post resurrection narratvies. When savedbygrace and I worked through this material, we found essentially no commonality among the four Gospels.
I will still reserve, however, the right to hold a discussion on whether and how we should consider the reliablity of the Gospel narratives.
awstar post 38,
I am afraid I can find no where in the words of Jesus that he:
“By the way, Jesus used Paul as His apostle to bring reconcilation with God to both you and me.”
As far as I am aware, there are no references to Paul by Jesus at all. It appears that Paul joined the Christian community post-crucifiction.
awstar post 38,
when you say:
“That’s more authority than what supports your beliefs.”
please refer to my posts 19 and 37.
I neither argue for nor against the resurrection.
I merely note that those who hold to the resurrection do so out of belief and not objective evidence.
Musing #40
Those words are here. As Paul makes Jesus known before another skeptic named Agrippa. He wasn’t convinced either, but Jesus didn’t tell Paul to convince anyone, just make the offer known.
Acts 26:15-18
15 “Then I asked, ‘Who are you, Lord?’
16 “‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you.
17 I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them
18 to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.’
Musing also said:
Actually you have it backwards. It’s their faith that is the evidence of the resurrection. God does all the work, we don’t even have to work at believing. We just accept His word, and He gives us His resurrected live, including faith.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
awstar post 42,
so I note that you used quotes from Acts.
But of course Acts is post crucifiction.
so can you provide Gospel references in what are argued are the words of Jesus to demonstrate that Jesus used Paul to bring reconicliation between God and the rest of us?
awstar post 42,
when you say:
“Actually you have it backwards. It’s their faith that is the evidence of the resurrection.”
I suggest that you have demonstrated that you are indeed “alogical”.
Faith alone objectively proves nothing except that one has faith.
And you have yet to provide any objective evidence for the resurrection.
It would indeed be simpler if you would admit that this is your belief, but unproved. It would speed things up. But if you insist on dragging this out …
It will make a good case study in certain classes of “alogical” thinking.
Musing.
I notice your spelling of crucifixion. It seem you think that too is fiction.
I will end my discussion with now. Thank you for your questions. They caused me to search the scripture which has given me the opportunity to grow in my faith.
I leave you with this scripture;
The god of this age has blinded the eyes of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 2 Corinthians 4:4
grandma post 45,
actually no.
We can refer to Tacitus and provide reasonable third party evidence that:
1) Jesus lived
2) Jesus was crucified
3) Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate
And of course a review of all four Gospels results in a fairly consistent narrative of the crucifiction across all four reports.
So it is arguably reasonable to accept the crucifiction approximately as written.
And I find it interesting that you appear to quote the Epistles primarily with less emphasis on the Gospels. Is there a reason for not referring your points to the Gospels more?
Musing -
The Gospel (Good News) is the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
These three events had to take place in order for our salvation to take place. God is holy and just and He sin cannot stand in His presence. There is no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood.
When man sinned in the garden, it was God Himself who shed the first blood by slaying animals to give Adam and Eve animal skins with which to cover their nakedness. God established the notion of substitutionary atonement. That’s what the sacrifices in the temple were all about.
Jesus Christ was the Lamb of God – the perfect sacrifice who was sacrificed once for all mankind, because the blood of bulls and goats were insufficient and had to be sacrificed year after year on the Day of Atonement.
His death on the cross was our substitutionary sacrifice by which we receive atonement with God.
That covers His death.
His burial: The fact that He was buried in the tomb for three days was sufficient to establish His death to doubting individuals at the time. I take it upon faith that the eyewitness accounts of the Bible are accurate, but then it is my personal belief that the Bible is the Word of God. Again, a matter of faith, for which I have no argument. “Blessed are they who did not see and yet believed.” I have not seen, but I believe.
His resurrection: the third and also integral part of the Gospel message. If Christ has not risen, then we have no hope of our own resurrection after our own death. Christ is the firstborn of the dead. If He is the firstborn of the dead, then we who will die in Christ have the hope of the resurrection for ourselves into eternal life. We have that hope for our loved ones who have died in Christ.
His resurrection is what characterizes the Christian walk – before, we were dead in our sins, we died with Christ in our baptism and now we walk in the newness of life – the resurrected life of a new creation in Christ. Immersion baptism is a beautiful picture of this spiritual truth: We go under the water in a “death” to our former life of habitual sin, to our old man. When we are immersed in the water, we are “buried” with Him, reflective of His burial. And when we come up out of the water, it is a picture of His resurrection and our new life in Christ. That is our new man.
If Christ is not risen from the dead, then all of this is for nothing and as Paul says, we are to be pitied more than any. Because then we have believed a lie and our sincere faith is a sham. The fact that people, over the course of about 2000 years have given their lives for this sham makes them gullible marks. Sign me up, because I am one of these gullible mark. I have no other proof that what the Bible says, but again, I have not seen, yet I believe. Without the resurrection, our faith is worthless. Once again, it is a matter of faith. Faith that has not been tested is no faith at all. Faith based upon fact is untested. True Faith is based on hope and not fact.
Musing:
Before there was you (or me or anyone else), there is truth and logic. Jesus is Truth, Jesus is The Word (logos — logic) made flesh. To believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in Truth and Logic. To say that believing in the resurrection of Jesus Christ when He himself said:
is not alogical — its extremely rational. It’s based on first person testimony. It’s far more rational than believing your logic or who’s ever logic it belongs to that you picked up; it’s certainly not from the author of logic.
And to further confirm this testimony is true
I have not seen and yet believed, and I can testify that I’m blessed — just as Jesus said I would be.
Klasko post 47,
please read Mark 16 which ends at verse 9 and then lets discuss this further.
My sense is you and I perhaps have a different defintion of the Gospel.
You and I are in agrement in general on this point:
“His death on the cross was our substitutionary sacrifice by which we receive atonement with God.”
I note that in your statement:
“but then it is my personal belief that the Bible is the Word of God. ”
If you are advocating the strong version of this statement, then I suggest you are advocating what appear to be a minority position among Christians. I happen to also disagree with you on this point if you mean the strong version of this statement.
and I note that tlike grandma, when you state:
“If Christ is not risen from the dead, then all of this is for nothing and as Paul says, we are to be pitied more than any. ”
you are quoting Paul not Jesus.
I do find that perhaps an interesting observation.
whenb you state:
“I have no other proof that what the Bible says,”
you and I are in agreement, and I am happy to accept your belief.
but it is your belief basedon your faith and not upon evidence.
See my earlier comment on those whose faith appears to be so weak that they must insist on absolute fact for that which is based on their belief.
awstar post 48,
when you state:
“believe in Jesus Christ is to believe in Truth and Logic.”
you position is quite simply from an objective standpoint not credible.
If you believe, then by all means believe and admit it.
If you insist that your belief must be a proved fact for you to believe it, then it would appear to be a weak belief indeed.
awstar post 48,
and it would appear based on your post that perhaps a discussion of the reliability of the Gospel texts is in order.
Both Luke and John were written well after Jesus’ death.
Luke is not even a first hand account, although interestingly it may perhaps be the most thoroughly researched account.
It is arguable whether John is a first hand account. It is even arguable whether it was written by John.
Is this an interesting topic to pursue?
Musing,
Just what exactly are you looking for in your circular arguments with the professing believers on this blog? Grandma, Awstar and I have all tried to give you answers to the question you have posed, and you keep moving the bar.
You seem to have a problem with some of the books of the Bible, from the Pauline Epistles and the Book of Acts to any other Gospel but the Gospel of Mark. You discount any arguments based upon these books of the bible, and yet you insist on citing an extra-biblical source when citing what you deem to be the “facts” of Christ’s death. (Referring to Tacticus as a reasonable third party evidence).
Do you want Believers to admit that they Believe without factual evidence? That seems to be what you are looking for when you say things like, “I merely note that those who hold to the resurrection do so out of belief and not objective evidence.”
That is indeed what all three of us have done. In fact, Awstar went so far as to quote the author of Hebrews regarding what faith is: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
You then go on to say in 2 separate posts:
“If you insist that your belief must be a proved fact for you to believe it, then it would appear to be a weak belief indeed.”
“Is your belief so fragile that you can only hold your belief if you insist, without available evidence, that it must be fact?”
I say, no, Musing, it is you who seems to need provable fact in order to believe in the Resurrection of Christ. I presume to speak for Awstar and Grandma when I say that we believe in spite of the fact that there is no evidence that Musing and others find acceptable. Isn’t that pretty much what faith is? Believing in something that cannot be proven?
Musing: - “I will still reserve, however, the right to hold a discussion on whether and how we should consider the reliablity of the Gospel narratives.”
You reject the whole counsel of Bible, picking and choosing what books and verses are acceptable to you in making your arguments. You have questioned the validity of the gospels of Luke and John. You also reject any quotes that are “post crucifixion” as invalid.
If you reject the resurrection as not being part of the gospel message, then you and I are indeed in disagreement on the content of the gospel message.
I noted (as did you) my belief that the Bible is the Word of God. I also mentioned that it is a matter of faith for which I have no argument.
Your response: “If you are advocating the strong version of this statement, then I suggest you are advocating what appear to be a minority position among Christians. I happen to also disagree with you on this point if you mean the strong version of this statement.”
What do you mean by “strong version”? Do you mean, do I believe it 100%? Yes I do. If that puts me in the minority among Christians, then that puts me in the minority. I can accept that. (The fact that only a minority of Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God is a sad indictment of Christianity, BTW). On that point, I fear we probably disagree as well.
Musing: “See my earlier comment on those whose faith appears to be so weak that they must insist on absolute fact for that which is based on their belief.”
As noted earlier, Musing, it takes much more faith to believe something that cannot be proven than to believe only after irrefutable proof has been proffered. My faith is not fragile. The fragile faith is the faith that demands proof before its exercise.
Musing: “Why is the resurrection necessary from a Christian theological perspective? What of our Christian beliefs requires the resurrection?”
This is the original question you posed. I doubt if you will find any of our answers satisfactory.
That answer is explained by Paul in 1 Cor 15:13 as referenced by Grandma. Without Christ’s resurrection, we have no hope of our own resurrection. You either have the faith to believe it or you don’t, because for those of us who live in the 21st century, we have no other proof than what is written in the Word. We are so far removed from the events that it is all on the basis of faith.
I have read Mark 16:1-9. I am willing to discuss this further with you. Verse 6 states that He is risen. Verse 7 states, “But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.” – that is a reference to Mark 14:28 – “But after I have been raised, I will go ahead of you to Galilee.”
“You can CHOOSE to REJECT the gift. As I said before, faith is the gift we are given.”
The gift of delusion? Isn’t this whole thread about the fact that there is insufficient evidence to warrant belief in Christianity, so one must “choose” to suspend disbelief and go along with the Santa Claus story?
Spinoza - when all is said and done, at the end of your life, what will you have to show for your disbelief?
What’s it to you if Christians choose to believe? Does it hurt you?
At the end of my life, I will have peace of mind and no question at all about what comes next. I shall not fear death.
Can you say the same?
klasko post 52,
I found your comment here peculiar:
“Just what exactly are you looking for in your circular arguments with the professing believers on this blog? Grandma, Awstar and I have all tried to give you answers to the question you have posed, and you keep moving the bar. ”
So first of all I am a Christian, and it follows that I believe in God. So it would seem that I am therefore a believer. Perhaps you need to expand on your definition on this point.
Notice that gradma’s argument appears to be circular: she is arguing that we have no choice but must choose.
awstar’s argument is explicitly curcular: Jesus is truth so what he says is true. awstar does not appear to have provided a mechanism for determining what are Jesus’ words.
I believe my argument is straightforward and linear:
1) as noted in the discussion leadin, the resurrection is a belief and one must choose to believe: there is no objective evidence to support the resurrection
2) if you insist that the resurrection is an objective fact, then you would appear to need to provide objective evidence to support this statement
My sense of this position is that it is purely linear.
This may expand if the participants in the discussion choose. For example if you introduce certain forms of outside proof, then we need to explore the validity of these outside proofs.
klaskopost 52,
when you state:
“As noted earlier, Musing, it takes much more faith to believe something that cannot be proven than to believe only after irrefutable proof has been proffered. My faith is not fragile. The fragile faith is the faith that demands proof before its exercise.”
I agree completely.
Hence my puzzlement at for example awstar’s comments which seem to insist that we have proof, but which, when awstar’s comments are examine, would appear to be just arguing that we believe the resurrection because we have yet another belief.
Musing - Please forgive me. I misspoke in imlying that you were not a professing Christian. Many of your comments attest to the fact that you believe in God and the substitutionary death of Christ. My sincerest apologies.
1) as noted in the discussion leadin, the resurrection is a belief and one must choose to believe: there is no objective evidence to support the resurrection.
You and I are in agreement. It is purely on the basis of faith that the Biblical accounts taken in their entirety are true. I believe them.
If I understand you correctly, you have some reservations regarding some of the Biblical accounts, no?
klasko post 52,
now when you say:
“This is the original question you posed. I doubt if you will find any of our answers satisfactory.
That answer is explained by Paul in 1 Cor 15:13 as referenced by Grandma. Without Christ’s resurrection, we have no hope of our own resurrection.”
I again agree that this is the classic justification.
Note that you have referenced Paul for this justification. And again I agree that this is the primary source by which the focus on the ressurection enters traditional Christianity. But of course this then brings to bear the queston of why does Paul have specific authority here?
Notice the adding of a belief to support a belief. My preferred model is to lay out one’s beliefs at the beginning and then linearly develop your conclusions.
But if you prefer a non-linear approach that is fine, but this of course opens the possiblity of the endless addition of additional beliefs as we move forward.
Now if I look at your comment:
“Without Christ’s resurrection, we have no hope of our own resurrection. ”
are you suggesting that you believe in Jesus and follow him only because he has promised you a resurrection? If he did not offer you the resurrection does that mean you would not follow him? The implications of this point seem puzzling.
Musing,
Let me explain for the last time why I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s because it was a real event recorded by real people who really saw him after He was really dead. And in believing, I really experienced His real Spirit indwelling in me that really assures my spirit that what was really recorded is really true. Really.
Bye.
klasko post 57,
when you say:
“If I understand you correctly, you have some reservations regarding some of the Biblical accounts, no?”
I agree completely.
The simplest examples are:
Mark 16:9-20 are not in our oldest versions of the text
John 7:53 - 8:11 are not in the oldest versions of the texts.
Since we now have existence proofs that the texts have not been transmitted unchanged, it opens the question of what is then most reliable and what is of lesser reliability in the texts, remembering that Mark 16:9-20 are clearly unreliable.
This can be a difficult but potentially interesting exercise should one choose to explore this path. My question to awstar was whether awstar wanted to pursue this.
And as an aside, do remember that the demographic majority of Christians do not believe in the strong form of Biblical inerrancy, so a strong form of Biblical inerrancy is a minority Christian position.
Musing - I would like to continue this discussion, but I have some commitments for the evening beginning in about an hour and a half. I do not have the time to continue right now. May we discuss this further tomorrow?
klasko post 61,
absolutely.
When these discussion have been pursued in this blog they typically spread over several days.
Savedbygrace and I once spent over a week on one such discussion. We developed a “Crossanish” approach to the Gospels restricting ourselves to only the traditional four Gospels as the source. It stalled when savedbygrace suggested we use a version of the Gospels other than the New International Version which required restarting the whole effort and I didn’t have the time to restart.
You might look in the “Creationism Anti-science …” discussion:
http://www.worldontheweb.com/2007/10/03/creationism-anti-science-anti-human-rights/
awstar post 59,
I have asked you for objectvie proof for your assertion:
“Let me explain for the last time why I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s because it was a real event recorded by real people who really saw him after He was really dead.”
You continue to fail to provide any objectvie evidence.
as such I suggest your position here is is an unsupported assertion.
If you have no objective evidence to demonstrate your point, then I suggest we are dealing with a belief here.
The clearly evidenct denial in your post of what is clearly and simply demonstrated, I suggest, is demonstration of the “alogical” position you appear to be espousing.
#54 Spinoza - when all is said and done, at the end of your life, what will you have to show for your disbelief?
At the end of my life, I will have peace of mind and no question at all about what comes next. I shall not fear death.
Klasko, you sound like the participants in the Heaven’s Gate Cult Suicide. They were also “sure” … that a spaceship was coming to take up their souls after release from the body. So they confidently committed suicide. By your logic, their great confidence in the face of death proves that a real space ship actually did take up their souls, or at least it shows they had something special we should all covet!
Doesn’t it?
AWSTAR - “Let me explain for the last time why I believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It’s because it was a real event recorded by real people who really saw him after He was really dead. And in believing, I really experienced His real Spirit indwelling in me that really assures my spirit that what was really recorded is really true. Really.”
Saying “real” and “really” repeatedly is a really unconvincing way to frame an argument. Really.
Musing, I have been away from my computer all day today. But I’ll be back - just didn’t want you to think I’d forgotten our conversation.
Spin - apples and vegetables.
Again, I ask - is my belief hurting you?
klasko post 66,
no problem. I am patient. I will be out of commission though starting tomorrow for about 2 days.
klasko post 67,
a deep comment here:
“Again, I ask - is my belief hurting you?”
Indeed this is my point: your belief is your business and you have every right to your belief unless:
- you insist that I must agree that your belief is right
- you insist that I must act in accordance with your belief
- you insist that because of your belief I can not have my belief
- you insist that your belief trumps the available objective data, and I must release my understanidng of the data to support your belief (this is an interesting point which may be worthy of more exploration)
And if you look at awstar’s comments, it would appear that awstar appears to be violating these basic tenets of fairness.
My sense is you are honoring these precepts.
Musing and others, Throughout this thread you claim to be Christian but deny most if not all of the Christian Doctrine as told in God’s Word, The Bible. You deny his suffering and death by referring to this most relevant event as “crucifiction”. You deny His ressurection and the death conquering necessity of it because there is (in your narrow mind) no objective evidence. The evidence and relevance of these events are clearly defined in the Bible which professing Christians believe to be God’s word.
You do not believe so it follows that you are not a Christian by any definition of the Faith.
I don’t think Musing’s spelling “crucifiction” is meant to be a subtle criticism. I think it’s just a mis-spelling.
I don’t believe that for a minute.
mtcon post 70,
I guess I mustask what you mean by god’s word?
How do you know it is God’s word?
I do not deny that Jesus suffered a horrible death. I do not deny that Jesus died for our sins. Please read my material again.
Please if yo9u insist on calling me names here, plleas:
1) provide your definiton of a Chrtistian
2) demonstrate that it is the accepted defintion by the majority of this blog (we have performed this exercise several times before, so based on your comments, I must assume you are new here)
3) demonstrate that this is the generally accepted defintion
4) demonstrate that I do not fit this definition
It is correct for you to say, perhaps, that you do not believe I am a Christian. It is correct so say, perhaps, that I do not practice Christianity the same way you do. As we pursue the discussion I suggest that the consensus position is that you are unlikely to have either the insights into a person nor the position of authority required to decide definitively that a person is or is not a Christian.
You might reread Seu’s leadin material again.
mtcon post 72,
I spell it crucifiction beacuse in my 50+ years of chruch attnedence this has been the form I have seen used.
It appears when I check that both your spelling and my spellings are acceptable forms.
If you can show that I have a major error in my spelling here, I will be happy to change.
If this comment, however is based on your personal preference rather than technial correctness, then this will become a different discusison altogether.
Whoa I must have hit a nerve! I did not call you names; I just did not call you Christian.
Even the demons believe, and they tremble.
Wiwipedia defines “crucifiction” as a common misspelling of “crucifixion”. Another link also referred to the former spelling as “used to imply that the crucifixion of Christ did not occur”.
My Websters does not list it with your spelling at all.
mtcon post 75,
I have found several references to crucifiction and of course this comes from crucify, but if it will please you I will be happy to use the spelling crucifixtion moving forward.
But your implications that I was misspelling this to make a religous point was neither warranted nor supported by the material.
mtcon post 75,
however when you said “I just did not call you Christian.”
then I will return the favor and argue that from certain technical perspectives, based on your postings so far, it is reasonable for me to assert that you are arguably not Christian.
This based on arguments based on Gospel passages.
Personally I have found it best to let the individual self-identify and then explore what they mean by ther term.
I have found that very seldom is there enough information to make any valid conclusion on this point whatsoever simply from the posted material, and, as we have noted many times in this blog, only God knows who is and who is not a Christian.
mtcon post 77,
and no, mtcon, based on your posts, your comments would appear to be meant as personal attacks and not comments on the posted information.
You could have made your posts as comments on the posted materials: the posts suggest you choose to comment on me personally directly instead.
24. by SteveG 05.05.08 at 10:33 pm “The flip side of this belief is that God also chose many, many people — most likely the majority that ever lived or ever will — for damnation”
Your point is intriguing. Theodicy is a branch of theology that attempts to defend God from claims of injustice for permitting evil. But what is free will? Is it logical reasoning from available facts? Do we approach each choice with a blank slate? Does free will invoke desires within us? What informs those desires? What role do emotions play?
If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he is capable of forming our will through life experiences. Reformed theology would posit that God changes the will of the elect, who receive mercy. Luther referred to the “bondage of the will” since the fall of Adam. Without the intervention of God, mankind would unanimously choose rebellion. A classic passage is Romans 9:11-24:
11though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of(A) him who calls— 12she was told,(B) “The older will serve the younger.” 13As it is written,(C) “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
14What shall we say then?(D) Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! 15For he says to Moses,(E) “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” 16So then it depends not on human will or exertion,[a] but on God, who has mercy. 17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh,(F) “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” 18So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
19You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For(G) who can resist his will?” 20But who are you, O man,(H) to answer back to God?(I) Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” 21(J) Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump(K) one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? 22What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience(L) vessels of wrath(M) prepared for destruction, 23in order to make known(N) the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he(O) has prepared beforehand for glory— 24even us whom he(P) has called,(Q) not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
This troubles our democratic sensibilities but I wouldn’t dismiss it because it’s severe. If there is a God, he will define himself alone without our help.
#79 Nice use of the alphabet.
That passage is yet another testament to what an extremely lousy theologian/philosopher Paul was!
norm p post 79,
interesting observation, and how does this compare with the thoughts in John 3:16 [NIV]:
“16″For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
which seems to offer hope for everyone?
I think I agree with spinoza, I have always thought that Paul was a genius at proselytizing and organizing but I was always skeptical of his theology.
Musing John 3:16: Reformed theologians would distinguish between a general, resistible call to salvation and the efficacious calling of the elect. Paul notes that humankind would uniformly rebel against God in Romans 3:9-18:
10as it is written:
(D) “None is righteous, no, not one;
11no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one.”
Our will is corrupt and absolutely resists God absent intervention. If God can be charged with violating free will, it would be levied by the elect because God sufficiently freed their will from bondage. They are able to choose to end their rebellion.
Of course, this brings us back to the reliability of the text. But let’s not say it’s untrue because it’s undemocratic or unmerciful. Is evolution more democratic and merciful? What matters is what is true, not what is preferred.
Musing – please forgive my delay.
You say:
“Note that you have referenced Paul for this justification. And again I agree that this is the primary source by which the focus on the resurrection enters traditional Christianity. But of course this then brings to bear the question of why does Paul have specific authority here?”
As I have mentioned before, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God. If I am not mistaken, you do not hold to that belief. You have pointed out that this is a minority belief among Christians. I have drawn the conclusion (correct me if I’m mistaken) that you do not find yourself in that same minority. My earlier comment that I doubted that you would find any of our answers satisfactory were based upon this conclusion.
Because I believe that the Bible is the Word of God, it follows that I also believe that Scripture interprets Scripture. I believe that the Pauline Epistles are Scripture.
Paul’s apostolic authority is established in Acts 9:10 –22. When the Lord spoke to Ananias in a vision and said to Ananias, “Go, for he is a chosen instrument of Mine, to bear My name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel; for I will show him how much he must suffer for My name’s sake.” Jesus had appeared to him personally on the road to Damascus. (After he had risen – if He had not risen, then how could He have appeared to Saul?)
These are Jesus’ own words establishing Paul’s authority.
You say:
“Notice the adding of a belief to support a belief. My preferred model is to lay out one’s beliefs at the beginning and then linearly develop your conclusions.”
My belief about the resurrection is on the basis of my belief in the Bible being the Word of God. Everything I believe is on this basis. So based on my belief that the Bible is the Word, and as such is Absolute Truth, then if the Bible says it, I believe it to be true. Again, it is a matter of faith, for which I have no other argument, and make no apology. You will note that all of my arguments are based upon this belief and I make my arguments from the written Word. If you find this an unacceptable basis for an argument, then I believe we are at an impasse.
I can make linear arguments using the Bible as the basis of the argument.
You say,
“Now if I look at your comment:
‘Without Christ’s resurrection, we have no hope of our own resurrection.’
are you suggesting that you believe in Jesus and follow him only because he has promised you a resurrection? If he did not offer you the resurrection does that mean you would not follow him? The implications of this point seem puzzling.”
No, I do not believe in and follow Jesus only because He has promised me a resurrection. I believe in Him and follow Him because He f