Evidence for God from Science

Proinsias wrote:That a really remarkable chap had an experience of the divine and with those around him interpreted it within the context of theology & religion available is about as far as I can go.

But this is just the sort of issue we have to treat seriously from a historical perspective. Suppose it is somewhat plausible that a Jesus figure could claim to be divine and it later taken in some exclusive sense today. Well we live in an age in which it's common for people to talk about union with the divine, when God is less personal and more cosmic. But when you consider Jesus' claims in light of first century Judaism, you have a different picture all together. The Jews were strict monotheists. Yahweh was God, and Yahweh alone. There's a reason that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for saying that God was His Father. Such a claim today is not only non-controversial, it's obvious. It's why Oprah can say, "We're all God's children" and why you are looked at like you just sprouted a second head if you claims someone is NOT God's child.

Just imagine going into a deeply Islamic nation--perhaps Saudia Arabia or Iran--and walking around talking as if you are Allah. They would have the same reaction the Jews had to Jesus--kill the blasphemer!

So this isn't just a matter of some Jew thinking He was divine and people misunderstanding what He was saying. This Jew believed that He was Yahweh in the flesh, that He was the Messiah predicted by His Scriptures, that whether or not a person spent eternity in Heaven or Hell hinged on whether or not they believed His claims about Himself. And not only him, but His disciples believed the same things.

Now here's the real question, because it isn't enough to just marvel at fact of the belief. You have to ask, from a historical perspective, how do we account for the origin of the belief? Maybe Jesus was a lunatic. So what about His twelve disciples and the roughly hundred others with Him right after His death? Where did THEY--these orthodox, monotheistic Jews--get that idea? And how did they maintain it after Jesus was killed in the most shameful way possible (and bear in mind, first century Israel was a shame based culture, not a guilt based one as the West is)? In N.T. Wright's terms, how do you account for the mutation in their theology? Historically, what event explains their firm conviction that Jesus was God in the flesh?

The resurrection certainly explains it. And that's just it. Nothing else can. You add Jesus' conviction that He was God with the reality of His resurrection (which they had witnessed because He appeared to them) and you have sufficient condition to fundamentally change their theology.

So just writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew preaching some form of eastern mysticism whereby He had an experience of unity with the Godhead doesn't work from a purely historical perspective. That is it is not a serious hypothesis because it doesn't work in that setting.

I remember Craig debating Ludemann on the resurrection, and I thought this is going to be awkward for Craig getting the audience onside.

Craig's debated the resurrection several times. And for some reason, I always have a sense of awkwardness because I know in online discussions perhaps, that with people who just don't know the facts, they often strike it off before even getting started. So it just seems like an impossible task.

Then in in debates on the resurrection by real scholars who know the facts, it always actually ends up being awkward for the other side because what they often naturally propose seems so absurd and even comedic that just believing Jesus was raised from the dead seems to most simple solution.

To anyone who just strikes off the plausibility of the resurrection before getting started, I'd recommend looking up any debates with Habermas or Craig It will at least be an eye opener as to the variables at play.

Jac3510 wrote:But this is just the sort of issue we have to treat seriously from a historical perspective. Suppose it is somewhat plausible that a Jesus figure could claim to be divine and it later taken in some exclusive sense today. Well we live in an age in which it's common for people to talk about union with the divine, when God is less personal and more cosmic. But when you consider Jesus' claims in light of first century Judaism, you have a different picture all together. The Jews were strict monotheists. Yahweh was God, and Yahweh alone. There's a reason that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for saying that God was His Father. Such a claim today is not only non-controversial, it's obvious. It's why Oprah can say, "We're all God's children" and why you are looked at like you just sprouted a second head if you claims someone is NOT God's child.

Just imagine going into a deeply Islamic nation--perhaps Saudia Arabia or Iran--and walking around talking as if you are Allah. They would have the same reaction the Jews had to Jesus--kill the blasphemer!

So this isn't just a matter of some Jew thinking He was divine and people misunderstanding what He was saying. This Jew believed that He was Yahweh in the flesh, that He was the Messiah predicted by His Scriptures, that whether or not a person spent eternity in Heaven or Hell hinged on whether or not they believed His claims about Himself. And not only him, but His disciples believed the same things.

Now here's the real question, because it isn't enough to just marvel at fact of the belief. You have to ask, from a historical perspective, how do we account for the origin of the belief? Maybe Jesus was a lunatic. So what about His twelve disciples and the roughly hundred others with Him right after His death? Where did THEY--these orthodox, monotheistic Jews--get that idea? And how did they maintain it after Jesus was killed in the most shameful way possible (and bear in mind, first century Israel was a shame based culture, not a guilt based one as the West is)? In N.T. Wright's terms, how do you account for the mutation in their theology? Historically, what event explains their firm conviction that Jesus was God in the flesh?

The resurrection certainly explains it. And that's just it. Nothing else can. You add Jesus' conviction that He was God with the reality of His resurrection (which they had witnessed because He appeared to them) and you have sufficient condition to fundamentally change their theology.

So just writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew preaching some form of eastern mysticism whereby He had an experience of unity with the Godhead doesn't work from a purely historical perspective. That is it is not a serious hypothesis because it doesn't work in that setting.

I'm not sure why it doesn't work. A great teacher, healer & miracle worker claiming to be the embodiment of the Abrahamic God and being taken seriously in that time & place seems quite reasonable to me, especially one that comes back from the grave. Historically great teachers, healers & miracle workers are the grounding and inspiration of most of the world's faiths. I'm not writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew any more than I'd write off Siddhārtha Gautama as a misunderstood Hindu. Those people that entire cultures believe in and have religions built upon them: Jesus, Buddha, Krisna etc, all tend to link into the local religion whilst refreshing and transforming it. If we were for a moment to take into account the claims of many religions we have a world in which miraculous teachers occasionally appear and leave a lasting imprint on huge swathes of humanity. I can see why a miraculous explanation makes the best fit for Jesus walking around after being crucified but I don't see it as verification of the theological system in which it was interpreted.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus was preaching a sort of eastern mysticism about his unity with the godhead, I'm suggesting Jesus preached his divinity in the language familiar to him and those around him, that of the Abrahamic tradition.

The argument as to how Jesus could possibly get around certain aspects of local Jewish culture and tradition that were not in his favour seems to me mitigated when we consider we are speaking about one of the most influential people to have ever graced the planet.

how do we account for the origin of the belief?

A combination of local religious tradition and miraculous happenings. The sort of things you find in the bedrock of most religions.

what event explains their firm conviction that Jesus was God in the flesh

Miraculous occurrences & messianic traditions.

Proinsias wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But this is just the sort of issue we have to treat seriously from a historical perspective. Suppose it is somewhat plausible that a Jesus figure could claim to be divine and it later taken in some exclusive sense today. Well we live in an age in which it's common for people to talk about union with the divine, when God is less personal and more cosmic. But when you consider Jesus' claims in light of first century Judaism, you have a different picture all together. The Jews were strict monotheists. Yahweh was God, and Yahweh alone. There's a reason that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for saying that God was His Father. Such a claim today is not only non-controversial, it's obvious. It's why Oprah can say, "We're all God's children" and why you are looked at like you just sprouted a second head if you claims someone is NOT God's child.

Just imagine going into a deeply Islamic nation--perhaps Saudia Arabia or Iran--and walking around talking as if you are Allah. They would have the same reaction the Jews had to Jesus--kill the blasphemer!

So this isn't just a matter of some Jew thinking He was divine and people misunderstanding what He was saying. This Jew believed that He was Yahweh in the flesh, that He was the Messiah predicted by His Scriptures, that whether or not a person spent eternity in Heaven or Hell hinged on whether or not they believed His claims about Himself. And not only him, but His disciples believed the same things.

Now here's the real question, because it isn't enough to just marvel at fact of the belief. You have to ask, from a historical perspective, how do we account for the origin of the belief? Maybe Jesus was a lunatic. So what about His twelve disciples and the roughly hundred others with Him right after His death? Where did THEY--these orthodox, monotheistic Jews--get that idea? And how did they maintain it after Jesus was killed in the most shameful way possible (and bear in mind, first century Israel was a shame based culture, not a guilt based one as the West is)? In N.T. Wright's terms, how do you account for the mutation in their theology? Historically, what event explains their firm conviction that Jesus was God in the flesh?

The resurrection certainly explains it. And that's just it. Nothing else can. You add Jesus' conviction that He was God with the reality of His resurrection (which they had witnessed because He appeared to them) and you have sufficient condition to fundamentally change their theology.

So just writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew preaching some form of eastern mysticism whereby He had an experience of unity with the Godhead doesn't work from a purely historical perspective. That is it is not a serious hypothesis because it doesn't work in that setting.

I'm not sure why it doesn't work. A great teacher, healer & miracle worker claiming to be the embodiment of the Abrahamic God and being taken seriously in that time & place seems quite reasonable to me, especially one that comes back from the grave. Historically great teachers, healers & miracle workers are the grounding and inspiration of most of the world's faiths. I'm not writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew any more than I'd write off Siddhārtha Gautama as a misunderstood Hindu. Those people that entire cultures believe in and have religions built upon them: Jesus, Buddha, Krisna etc, all tend to link into the local religion whilst refreshing and transforming it. If we were for a moment to take into account the claims of many religions we have a world in which miraculous teachers occasionally appear and leave a lasting imprint on huge swathes of humanity. I can see why a miraculous explanation makes the best fit for Jesus walking around after being crucified but I don't see it as verification of the theological system in which it was interpreted.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus was preaching a sort of eastern mysticism about his unity with the godhead, I'm suggesting Jesus preached his divinity in the language familiar to him and those around him, that of the Abrahamic tradition.

The argument as to how Jesus could possibly get around certain aspects of local Jewish culture and tradition that were not in his favour seems to me mitigated when we consider we are speaking about one of the most influential people to have ever graced the planet.

Hi Proinsias,

I read your above words twice. Once to read a rather refreshing position from a non-Christian rather than simply "dead people don't rise", and then a second time to see where your stumbling block lies.

Two questions.

First, do you really accept the miracle of Jesus' resurrection as the more likely fit and as such you in fact believe it to be true?

Second, what is this interpreted "theological system" of which you talk? Would this not have been cultivated by this great teacher, Christ -- and as such wouldn't that carry some weight of authority of truthfulness for the interpretation? Or would you say Christ was perhaps deluded, that is, misunderstood the theological framework of the events that transpired around his own life? If this latter, what would be an alternative context that the resurrection could reasonably be placed within?

Proinsias wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But this is just the sort of issue we have to treat seriously from a historical perspective. Suppose it is somewhat plausible that a Jesus figure could claim to be divine and it later taken in some exclusive sense today. Well we live in an age in which it's common for people to talk about union with the divine, when God is less personal and more cosmic. But when you consider Jesus' claims in light of first century Judaism, you have a different picture all together. The Jews were strict monotheists. Yahweh was God, and Yahweh alone. There's a reason that the Jews wanted to stone Jesus for saying that God was His Father. Such a claim today is not only non-controversial, it's obvious. It's why Oprah can say, "We're all God's children" and why you are looked at like you just sprouted a second head if you claims someone is NOT God's child.

Just imagine going into a deeply Islamic nation--perhaps Saudia Arabia or Iran--and walking around talking as if you are Allah. They would have the same reaction the Jews had to Jesus--kill the blasphemer!

So this isn't just a matter of some Jew thinking He was divine and people misunderstanding what He was saying. This Jew believed that He was Yahweh in the flesh, that He was the Messiah predicted by His Scriptures, that whether or not a person spent eternity in Heaven or Hell hinged on whether or not they believed His claims about Himself. And not only him, but His disciples believed the same things.

Now here's the real question, because it isn't enough to just marvel at fact of the belief. You have to ask, from a historical perspective, how do we account for the origin of the belief? Maybe Jesus was a lunatic. So what about His twelve disciples and the roughly hundred others with Him right after His death? Where did THEY--these orthodox, monotheistic Jews--get that idea? And how did they maintain it after Jesus was killed in the most shameful way possible (and bear in mind, first century Israel was a shame based culture, not a guilt based one as the West is)? In N.T. Wright's terms, how do you account for the mutation in their theology? Historically, what event explains their firm conviction that Jesus was God in the flesh?

The resurrection certainly explains it. And that's just it. Nothing else can. You add Jesus' conviction that He was God with the reality of His resurrection (which they had witnessed because He appeared to them) and you have sufficient condition to fundamentally change their theology.

So just writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew preaching some form of eastern mysticism whereby He had an experience of unity with the Godhead doesn't work from a purely historical perspective. That is it is not a serious hypothesis because it doesn't work in that setting.

I'm not sure why it doesn't work. A great teacher, healer & miracle worker claiming to be the embodiment of the Abrahamic God and being taken seriously in that time & place seems quite reasonable to me, especially one that comes back from the grave. Historically great teachers, healers & miracle workers are the grounding and inspiration of most of the world's faiths. I'm not writing Jesus off as a misunderstood Jew any more than I'd write off Siddhārtha Gautama as a misunderstood Hindu. Those people that entire cultures believe in and have religions built upon them: Jesus, Buddha, Krisna etc, all tend to link into the local religion whilst refreshing and transforming it. If we were for a moment to take into account the claims of many religions we have a world in which miraculous teachers occasionally appear and leave a lasting imprint on huge swathes of humanity. I can see why a miraculous explanation makes the best fit for Jesus walking around after being crucified but I don't see it as verification of the theological system in which it was interpreted.

I'm not suggesting that Jesus was preaching a sort of eastern mysticism about his unity with the godhead, I'm suggesting Jesus preached his divinity in the language familiar to him and those around him, that of the Abrahamic tradition.

The argument as to how Jesus could possibly get around certain aspects of local Jewish culture and tradition that were not in his favour seems to me mitigated when we consider we are speaking about one of the most influential people to have ever graced the planet.

how do we account for the origin of the belief?

A combination of local religious tradition and miraculous happenings. The sort of things you find in the bedrock of most religions.

what event explains their firm conviction that Jesus was God in the flesh

Miraculous occurrences & messianic traditions.

I had quite a response written up, but I took it down. Suffice it to say, your answer is rather dismissive and doesn't take the historical context seriously. But rather than go down that road right now, I want to see how you answer K's questions above first, because I think they might get to the same issues in a different way.

A combination of local religious tradition and miraculous happenings. The sort of things you find in the bedrock of most religions.

So, we have a group of people that followed a Man who, according to them and to those against them, did unexplained feats that those against him called "sorcery" and those for him called miralces.
They believed Him to be the Messiah BUT then he was killed in a most horrific way - scouring followed by crucifixion.
They were distraught because he was dead and most of his followers were scattered and lost faith.
They then say he returned from the Dead, resurrected in BODY AND FLESH and then they, who doubted and thought him dead, proceed to go out and start the most impressive conversion/evangelizing movement in the history of mankind EVEN under persecution and threats of death, threats that became ACTION against the VERY people that knew him DIRECTLY and thought him dead.
This resurrected person was then seen in the FLESH AND BONE but others, numbering over 500 according to one source.
This group of people and their subsequent followers proclaimed this Man to be Son of God, divine and powerful to the point of re-interpreting the VERY NATURE of the God they believed in.
Let all that sink in.

You will NOT find this in any other religion.

Kurieuo wrote: Hi Proinsias,

I read your above words twice. Once to read a rather refreshing position from a non-Christian rather than simply "dead people don't rise", and then a second time to see where your stumbling block lies.

Two questions.

First, do you really accept the miracle of Jesus' resurrection as the more likely fit and as such you in fact believe it to be true?

Second, what is this interpreted "theological system" of which you talk? Would this not have been cultivated by this great teacher, Christ -- and as such wouldn't that carry some weight of authority of truthfulness for the interpretation? Or would you say Christ was perhaps deluded, that is, misunderstood the theological framework of the events that transpired around his own life? If this latter, what would be an alternative context that the resurrection could reasonably be placed within?

1st:
I'm not going to claim the resurrection is true as the event seems rather distant and not particularly well documented. He's got a more robust claim than that of Bodhidharma, but less robust than the chap in the news you posted in the past few days who was dead for 45 mins. It wouldn't rock my world if all three, some or none were in fact dead and then came back to life. On a smaller scale I think the chap in the news item demonstrates to some degree the phenomenon I've outlined above, he was not making fresh theological claims and thus the miraculous happening has enriched and strengthened the theological views already present in him and those around him - Christianity.

2nd:
The theological system I'm referring to is that of the line of Abraham, Judaic monotheism. Jesus certainly left his stamp on that system. From a historical perspective I think there are parallels to be drawn with Siddhārtha Gautama's interpretation of the Vedic tradition in terms of refreshing & rejuvenating the system to the point of mass global appeal and acceptance, crossing social and geographic barriers, enriching the lives of billions & inspiring many of the most glorious achievements of humanity. Deluded is a strong word and seems a common theme I find amongst Christians, this sort of one extreme or the other, Jesus was either the one and only true son of the God he was brought up with or he was a demented lunatic.
C.S Lewis cuts to the heart of the matter with his observation: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.". I would contend it is of moderate importance. An alternative theological context in which to place the teachings of Jesus and the miraculous happenings around him is that he was teaching how to live a more meaning, fulfilling life both sides of the grave - Jesus himself as divine revelation for a particular need, a spark of the divine that would help billions over thousands of years. I don't place too much importance on whether we have 100% accuracy in written records & quotes from decades after the events.

On a similar note if we were to come across some reasonable evidence that the baby Buddha did in fact, upon birth, take seven steps and declare: "I am chief of the world, Eldest am I in the world, Foremost am I in the world. This is the last birth.There is now no more coming to be." I'd be unlikely to dismiss the value of thousands of years of Abrahamic/Christian theology.

Proinsias wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Hi Proinsias,

I read your above words twice. Once to read a rather refreshing position from a non-Christian rather than simply "dead people don't rise", and then a second time to see where your stumbling block lies.

Two questions.

First, do you really accept the miracle of Jesus' resurrection as the more likely fit and as such you in fact believe it to be true?

Second, what is this interpreted "theological system" of which you talk? Would this not have been cultivated by this great teacher, Christ -- and as such wouldn't that carry some weight of authority of truthfulness for the interpretation? Or would you say Christ was perhaps deluded, that is, misunderstood the theological framework of the events that transpired around his own life? If this latter, what would be an alternative context that the resurrection could reasonably be placed within?

1st:
I'm not going to claim the resurrection is true as the event seems rather distant and not particularly well documented. He's got a more robust claim than that of Bodhidharma, but less robust than the chap in the news you posted in the past few days who was dead for 45 mins. It wouldn't rock my world if all three, some or none were in fact dead and then came back to life. On a smaller scale I think the chap in the news item demonstrates to some degree the phenomenon I've outlined above, he was not making fresh theological claims and thus the miraculous happening has enriched and strengthened the theological views already present in him and those around him - Christianity.

2nd:
The theological system I'm referring to is that of the line of Abraham, Judaic monotheism. Jesus certainly left his stamp on that system. From a historical perspective I think there are parallels to be drawn with Siddhārtha Gautama's interpretation of the Vedic tradition in terms of refreshing & rejuvenating the system to the point of mass global appeal and acceptance, crossing social and geographic barriers, enriching the lives of billions & inspiring many of the most glorious achievements of humanity. Deluded is a strong word and seems a common theme I find amongst Christians, this sort of one extreme or the other, Jesus was either the one and only true son of the God he was brought up with or he was a demented lunatic.
C.S Lewis cuts to the heart of the matter with his observation: "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important.". I would contend it is of moderate importance. An alternative theological context in which to place the teachings of Jesus and the miraculous happenings around him is that he was teaching how to live a more meaning, fulfilling life both sides of the grave - Jesus himself as divine revelation for a particular need, a spark of the divine that would help billions over thousands of years. I don't place too much importance on whether we have 100% accuracy in written records & quotes from decades after the events.

On a similar note if we were to come across some reasonable evidence that the baby Buddha did in fact, upon birth, take seven steps and declare: "I am chief of the world, Eldest am I in the world, Foremost am I in the world. This is the last birth.There is now no more coming to be." I'd be unlikely to dismiss the value of thousands of years of Abrahamic/Christian theology.

Lot of going on
-
-
-

cnk12 wrote:Yes! There are historians and historic figures that make reference to Jesus, Christianity, and the resurrection.

I think it's also important to note that the Bible wasn't always the Bible. The gospels are a collection of separate eyewitness accounts of Jesus and His life, that were grouped together with the other letters of the NT because of their acceptance throughout the ancient world.

Two easy reads that review the Biblical and non-biblical evidence are "The Reason for God" by Timothy Keller and "Cold Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace.

There is also a book referenced in Cold Case Christianity that the author says testifies to the non-biblical ancient sources that corroborate Jesus' existence. It is "The Evidence for Jesus" by R.T. France.

I thought enough of "Cold Case Christianity" by J. Warner Wallace to buy it after getting it from the library.

Regarding the OP, I think a roman historian would not simply write about a small time jewish cult leader, mentioning him in the same breath as Caesar and Pilate and again Tacitus also writes"

""Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind"."

That is two roman emperors plus one ruler of Judea which is pilate, and christ, all in the same account. A roman historian would not be careless when dealing with such details.

The "Jesus is myth" position is silly. If santa, tooth fairy and christ are one and the same, then why didn't Tacitus wrote about zeus, or apollo or any of the other Gods in the same way as he wrote about Christ? A historian would not make such a blunder. And no doubt being a senator he had access to official records, which were inscribed with names of the three roman officials.

Plus, a huge theological system, as successfull as christianity can not be founded on legends alone. Jesus historicity is beyond doubt.