Evidence for God from Science

bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that ), but how does having Jesus' body wrap prove anything? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't prove he rose from the dead.

This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.

ryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that ), but how does having Jesus' body wrap prove anything? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't prove he rose from the dead.

This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.

Ryan I have answered your question on the main shroud thread
bippy

ryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that ), but how does having Jesus' body wrap prove anything? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't prove he rose from the dead.

This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.

I've been a Christian for about 12 years and have been a member of this site for about 7. I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the evidence for Christianity, especially the evidence put forth by this site, but I'm just not really convinced by it anymore, and find the numerous arguments against Christianity just compelling enough to make the foundation of the whole structure feel like its disappeared. Most of the evidence for the resurrection from accounts of the tomb and claims to see him ressurected fail to debunk the proposition "the authors of the Gospels (probably not the actual apostles) made the whole story up". Any particular evidence that you think I'm failing to consider?

Seraph wrote:

ryanbouma wrote:bippy, let me just say I think Seaph is playing with fire and should consider the evidence of a few things more seriously. But the shroud isn't one of them. At least, so I think. Which is why I ask: What's the big deal with the shroud? I haven't read that thread either (like I have the time for that ), but how does having Jesus' body wrap prove anything? Maybe I'm missing something, but it doesn't prove he rose from the dead.

This question is not on topic, so I will quote myself onto that thread for the actual answer. But I've posted here to intervene on the this conversation.

I've been a Christian for about 12 years and have been a member of this site for about 7. I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the evidence for Christianity, especially the evidence put forth by this site, but I'm just not really convinced by it anymore, and find the numerous arguments against Christianity just compelling enough to make the foundation of the whole structure feel like its disappeared. Most of the evidence for the resurrection from accounts of the tomb and claims to see him ressurected fail to debunk the proposition "the authors of the Gospels (probably not the actual apostles) made the whole story up". Any particular evidence that you think I'm failing to consider?

Funny, the apostles testimony in my opinion is what convinced many fence sitter sto come on over to teh Christian side of the fence. i find it amazing that you would say it didnt convince you at all.
The women finding the tomb empty and seeing the risen Christ first is a mind blower by itself and one huge evidence against the apostles making it all up. Its called the historical criterion of embarressment Seraph.

bippy123 wrote: Funny, the apostles testimony in my opinion is what convinced many fence sitter sto come on over to teh Christian side of the fence. i find it amazing that you would say it didnt convince you at all.
The women finding the tomb empty and seeing the risen Christ first is a mind blower by itself and one huge evidence against the apostles making it all up. Its called the historical criterion of embarressment Seraph.

It is not simply people testifying that they've seen Jesus risen form, its a 2000 year old story ABOUT people who testify that they saw Jesus rise. The story itself may not be reliable, let alone the testimony in the story being reliable. We don't know that the women saw Jesus rise, we don't know that the apostles saw Jesus rise, or for that matter even if any of them ever actually claimed to see Jesus rise. Carbon dating of the earliest manuscripts place them at around 200 years after the events took place, it doesn't even look likely the apostles themselves wrote the books. How is that a reliable testimony? Especially for an extraordinary claim like a person raising from the dead?

Btw bippy, despite how sharp and aggressive I'm sounding when arguing about this, I do appreciate you trying to convince me otherwise, I recognize that it's an act of love

Seraph wrote:Btw bippy, despite how sharp and aggressive I'm sounding when arguing about this, I do appreciate you trying to convince me otherwise, I recognize that it's an act of love

Thanks Seraph, but dont worry about being sharp and agressive. mark Antonacci was the same way when he set out to prove to his Christian GF that Christianity was nothing but a fairy tale. He decided to pick the shroud to debunk. Little did he know that what he thought would take 2 weeks to debunk took 20 years and not only could he not debunk the shroud but he himself ended up believing in its authenticity and he eventually down the line ended up becoming a Christian and giving his heart to the lord.

This is why its good that you are sharp and agressive Seraph, its that sharpness and agressiveness thats gonna eventually bring u back home

And your right , I am doing this as an act of love because through Christ I know that every man and woman on this earth is special

You say you've been a Christian for twelve years, but it doesn't really sound like you've ever had a personal relationship with Christ or else this wouldn't be happening. Do you think you could have been the victim of a false conversion? I was. The reason the arguments against Christianity bothered me so much was because I didn't really know Him.
There are plenty of arguments against Christianity, but there are plenty of arguments against those arguments and also against everything else.
Our faith is a reasonable one. In the end it boils down to an emotional thing- as much as us postmodern empiricists hate to admit it.
God simply isn't that easy on us- nor is he required to be.
I would strongly urge you to seek Him. Really seek Him and put in the work. Pray for help. Pray for help wanting help. Cry out to Him.
Swallow your pride, fall on your face and beg Him.

Sorry if I'm coming off as emotional here, but it sounds as if that's exactly what you need.

I've examined much of the evidence myself and have found that the New Testament text is actually a lot more reliable than modern critics give it credit for. For reference, I would highly suggest you read 'How We Got the Bible' by Neil Lightfoot:

It's a pretty high view and easy to understand- though there are plenty of other more in-depth reference books out there.

P.S., Sorry if this post sounds accusatory. I really don't mean it to be. I mostly lurk, but I have enjoyed your contributions to this forum so far. I will be praying that God intercedes on your behalf. Please, ask Him for help.

Rob wrote:You say you've been a Christian for twelve years, but it doesn't really sound like you've ever had a personal relationship with Christ or else this wouldn't be happening. Do you think you could have been the victim of a false conversion? I was. The reason the arguments against Christianity bothered me so much was because I didn't really know Him.
There are plenty of arguments against Christianity, but there are plenty of arguments against those arguments and also against everything else.
Our faith is a reasonable one. In the end it boils down to an emotional thing- as much as us postmodern empiricists hate to admit it.
God simply isn't that easy on us- nor is he required to be.
I would strongly urge you to seek Him. Really seek Him and put in the work. Pray for help. Pray for help wanting help. Cry out to Him.
Swallow your pride, fall on your face and beg Him.

Sorry if I'm coming off as emotional here, but it sounds as if that's exactly what you need.

I've examined much of the evidence myself and have found that the New Testament text is actually a lot more reliable than modern critics give it credit for. For reference, I would highly suggest you read 'How We Got the Bible' by Neil Lightfoot:

It's a pretty high view and easy to understand- though there are plenty of other more in-depth reference books out there.

P.S., Sorry if this post sounds accusatory. I really don't mean it to be. I mostly lurk, but I have enjoyed your contributions to this forum so far. I will be praying that God intercedes on your behalf. Please, ask Him for help.

No problem Rob, I understand the sense of urgency from a Christian with stuff like what I'm going through, as I realize that if the Christian worldview is true, I would be making a grave mistake in identifying as a Deist. I feel as though I definitely had a relationship with Jesus at some point, at least I thought I did. It may well have been "imaginary friend syndrome" though. My own reasoning is what is driving a wedge between me and belief in the resurrected Jesus, not so much pride. I have prayed to God many, many times to remove my doubts, but they just continue to grow. I still have a personal relationship with God and would continue to even as a Deist.

Thanks for your kind words about me as a poster here, I'd probably continue to stick around G&S even if I went full on Deist.

Seraph wrote:

Rob wrote:You say you've been a Christian for twelve years, but it doesn't really sound like you've ever had a personal relationship with Christ or else this wouldn't be happening. Do you think you could have been the victim of a false conversion? I was. The reason the arguments against Christianity bothered me so much was because I didn't really know Him.
There are plenty of arguments against Christianity, but there are plenty of arguments against those arguments and also against everything else.
Our faith is a reasonable one. In the end it boils down to an emotional thing- as much as us postmodern empiricists hate to admit it.
God simply isn't that easy on us- nor is he required to be.
I would strongly urge you to seek Him. Really seek Him and put in the work. Pray for help. Pray for help wanting help. Cry out to Him.
Swallow your pride, fall on your face and beg Him.

Sorry if I'm coming off as emotional here, but it sounds as if that's exactly what you need.

I've examined much of the evidence myself and have found that the New Testament text is actually a lot more reliable than modern critics give it credit for. For reference, I would highly suggest you read 'How We Got the Bible' by Neil Lightfoot:

It's a pretty high view and easy to understand- though there are plenty of other more in-depth reference books out there.

P.S., Sorry if this post sounds accusatory. I really don't mean it to be. I mostly lurk, but I have enjoyed your contributions to this forum so far. I will be praying that God intercedes on your behalf. Please, ask Him for help.

No problem Rob, I understand the sense of urgency from a Christian with stuff like what I'm going through, as I realize that if the Christian worldview is true, I would be making a grave mistake in identifying as a Deist. I feel as though I definitely had a relationship with Jesus at some point, at least I thought I did. It may well have been "imaginary friend syndrome" though. My own reasoning is what is driving a wedge between me and belief in the resurrected Jesus, not so much pride. I have prayed to God many, many times to remove my doubts, but they just continue to grow. I still have a personal relationship with God and would continue to even as a Deist.

Thanks for your kind words about me as a poster here, I'd probably continue to stick around G&S even if I went full on Deist.

Dont Leave us Seraph, sometimes a Christian's faith goes through a desert time. There are many good examples I could give you but the one common denominator from all of their struggles is the question im about to ask you.

Pretend you are coming to Christianity from a totally neutral viewpoint.
Is the Christian God worthy to be seeked with all your heart and worthy to be seeked with all your heart for the rest of your life on this earth?

Seraph wrote:

B.W. wrote:Well, as long as you can see that things from your past influenced your perceptions about God now, then that could answer a lot for you. Maybe by mirroring these into your concepts about God has created a stone wall providing a way for you to try to comes to terms with the events of the divorce and the passing of your father. What I mean by stone wall, is a form of emotional protection, that numbs and says, I will not be hurt (abandoned, guilty, rejected - etc) again. Not sure, but maybe you have pushed people away from you as a sort of test mechanism for trust. This often occurs in cases of trauma and maybe after your encounter with God, you pushed God away and are testing him to see if he will reject you - like....???

I know all of this on a more personal level and you need not answer if you do not like too but after reading your post over the years you been here, it appears to me that you have been devastated, mainly by what you bravely shared and this wound is your main issue. The flirting with Deism is one area that is currently manifesting. Have you considered that you maybe mirroring your parents relationship/rejection of each other, into your idea that God limits relationships with him to those that partake in a seemingly primitive ritual that practically requires one to believe in magic? If this is so when young, what did your magical thinking imagine - how was it dashed? I know that is deep, but please take the time to mull over it a bit because in that you might discover something you haven't thought of before that may help you come to terms with something deep...

Perhaps. There probably is something to that. Still though, I am genuine in my doubts expressed the tirade I went on a couple posts back.

Then I rest the case...

What I stated prior is something to really consider because it impacts not only this but all areas of life. I have seen it countless times in various ways on a person keeping them trapped in repeating cycles of self sabotage, isolation, and on up the scale to the opposite of these extremes. Life is lived in a constant testing pattern. Relationships fall by the wayside or wobble a lot. Lots of doubts. Magical thinking we all think when we are young is dashed in some from or another but compound that with the events you went thru to deal with it, then dashed, has had an effect. Do you think such events would close a person off to God whom revealed himself at one time to them?

For example, the late Christopher Hitchens admitted to victimized by sexual abuse and demanding parents who made sure he would become the top of the social chain. His example shows how very severe abuse can model ones perceptions. Sadly, he never dealt with any of this that I know of and used it to cement his anti-god rhetoric. Such trauma as he experienced leaves one to wonder where God is, why didn't he didn't he stop it and when God used others to answer this, he pushed away the answers with hate - rejecting all. I am not saying you had the same kind of experiences as Christopher Hitchens. What you did have may have caused you to cry out, where's God, etc and etc. In other words, there is a hate-God-for-it-all attitude in you at the same time having, I-need-God-because-I-felt his compassion once. Do you think the hate is pushing you away from experiencing his compassion again and is it possible that you even have tried to conjure up that compassion thru flirting with deism?

Emotions when hindered and bottled up can prevent anyone for helping because it pushes people away. Read Isaiah 61:1-4 and let me know what you think it means?

Let me share two true stories: There was a little kid, who witnessed a terrible divorce between two people he loved the most, his parents. When he was with one parent, he looked at the parent and said, "I hate you - you caused it all," and emotionally ran off. Then that parent died a few days after that, and the other took charge. He lived with that for years, it brought ruin to his life and relationships. Pride wrapped in fear kept him bound hating God and himself, until he reached out and became free from it all through a process of talking and praying thru with a few folks from church. This happened.

Another child lost his father when he was one year old. Never knew his dad. His mother remarried several times to some abusive cold men. Later in life, after becoming married and the baby came, he did not know what to do when his three year old son ran up to him with a book to read and sat on his lap. So he set the son aside all emotionally stirred up. He called and ask me about it. We met and prayed the principles in Isaiah 61:1-4. When his son handed him another book, it reminded him that he never knew a father's love, missed it, craved it, pushed it away out of fear of it. So when his son handed him another book on another day, he sat his son on his lap, embellishing the story pictures, running his fingers across the pages, making funny faces and noises, his little boy laughing with joy - well that healed him.

I am not saying that you are in any of these stories. What I am sharing is that, as you courageously revealed, you too have been wounded and such wound is having its full effect upon you. So if you could just go back and sit still for a moment, recall how God once shown up in your life, ask him to shed his revealing light on why he did not return - deal with it and you might find the Lord again in a manner that answers all the why's you've had in a personal way that sets you free from whatever doubt cycle you seem lost in. Doubt cycles of, "no there is no God, yes there is but, hmmm there must other gods, God can't be, oh he is this and that I don't like...." to soothe away that I-don't-want-to-be-let-down-again...

It is not so much about evil or tragedy but rather how God overcomes these in peoples lives let's us know how real real he is. Mr. Hitchens would not permit this overcoming, nor even allow it, such was the extent of pride to remain wounded so status would not be lost. That status kept him from facing his deepest wound and status acted like a soothing bandage to stay away the pain. The Lord sent him many folks, but he refused these messengers. Don't let evil and tragedy ruin you, steal from you, murder you. God overcomes these and in this we learn how real he is when we turn away from ourselves completely facing him. For many, they can't so this due to choosing the soothing realm of some status to stay away the pain instead of learning they can sit upon the Heavenly Father's lap while he reads you his book, running his fingers across the pages, making funny faces, to see you laugh with joy...

He leaves that choice to each person, remain with the 'I hate you' pain or sit on his lap as a little one...

Matthew 18:3, 4
-
-
-

Seraph wrote:

bippy123 wrote: Funny, the apostles testimony in my opinion is what convinced many fence sitter sto come on over to teh Christian side of the fence. i find it amazing that you would say it didnt convince you at all.
The women finding the tomb empty and seeing the risen Christ first is a mind blower by itself and one huge evidence against the apostles making it all up. Its called the historical criterion of embarressment Seraph.

It is not simply people testifying that they've seen Jesus risen form, its a 2000 year old story ABOUT people who testify that they saw Jesus rise. The story itself may not be reliable, let alone the testimony in the story being reliable. We don't know that the women saw Jesus rise, we don't know that the apostles saw Jesus rise, or for that matter even if any of them ever actually claimed to see Jesus rise. Carbon dating of the earliest manuscripts place them at around 200 years after the events took place, it doesn't even look likely the apostles themselves wrote the books. How is that a reliable testimony? Especially for an extraordinary claim like a person raising from the dead?

Seraph, I don't believe you are correct about the dating of the manuscripts as I believe the gospel of john is the earliest dates manuscript from around 90 to 110 ad. You also need to take I to effect that c14 dating is but one of a few ways to date a writing. The reason why many New Testament historians accept an earlier date for the New Testament is that something like the fall of the Jewish temple in 70 ad was never written about when it happened.

Plus your missing the whole point of the women finding the tomb empty first, and that if the apostles were lying they never would have used such a silly story to have fooled this first century audience. This is the key here seraph in that you need to put your mind into the mind of a 1st century Jewish reader. This is why this criterion of embarrassment is such a powerful testament to the truth of what they are saying about Jesus.

On top of that seraph you need to remember that 1st century Jews (and any other culture of that time) didn't have the luxury of paper to write on . They only had papyrus which was known to go bad fast and crumble. They then had to rely on one of the best oral traditions of all time. Very sharp people mentally who had to memorize their traditions because they didn't have the luxury of having it written down on paper.

Historians also know the accuracy of of that tradition by how long it would take after for a myth to develop and the bible writings were dated way to early to have a myth develop.

These are very important factors that you need to take into consideration.

Take Alexander the Great , his most accurate writings are dated historically 400 years after his existence, and this is very common for ancient figures. What we have about Christ is many times more accurate historically ,a we also have this confirmed by the 2nd century writings of the a apostolic fathers who were the disciples of the apostles.

bippy123 wrote: On top of that seraph you need to remember that 1st century Jews (and any other culture of that time) didn't have the luxury of paper to write on . They only had papyrus which was known to go bad fast and crumble. They then had to rely on one of the best oral traditions of all time. Very sharp people mentally who had to memorize their traditions because they didn't have the luxury of having it written down on paper.

To sort of reinforce this, a heavily used papyrus probably wouldn't last more than a decade. Take the four gospels for example... How many original autographs could there be? Four, obviously.
In order to spread the word, followers of the faith had to make lots of copies to spread them around the Mediterranean. (Risking their lives doing so)
We should find it encouraging that there are many, many different copies. It speaks to the honesty of the scribes.
Our fathers aren't guilty of what Islam is guilty of. (Collecting all versions, choosing one, then burning the rest)
As more and more copies are made, it is only natural that the copies replace the worn originals.

bippy123 wrote: Take Alexander the Great , his most accurate writings are dated historically as all sit 400 years after his existence, and this is very common for ancient figures. What we have about Christ is many times more accurate historically ,a we also have this confirmed by the 2nd century writings of the a apostolic fathers who were the disciples of the apostles.

Even Bart Ehrman acknowledged something similar to this and he is certainly no friend of Christianity. When he debated James White, White asked him a question in his cross examination.
I'm paraphrasing, so forgive me, but it was something like:
"Dr. Ehrman, you once referred to the time between the earliest known manuscript and the life of Jesus as 'enormous.' If you classify that span of time as 'enormous,' then how would you classify the time between someone like Suetonius and the earliest copy of his writings?"

In response, Dr. Ehrman says: "Very enormous. Very, very enormous. Ginormous even."

Rob wrote:

bippy123 wrote: On top of that seraph you need to remember that 1st century Jews (and any other culture of that time) didn't have the luxury of paper to write on . They only had papyrus which was known to go bad fast and crumble. They then had to rely on one of the best oral traditions of all time. Very sharp people mentally who had to memorize their traditions because they didn't have the luxury of having it written down on paper.

To sort of reinforce this, a heavily used papyrus probably wouldn't last more than a decade. Take the four gospels for example... How many original autographs could there be? Four, obviously.
In order to spread the word, followers of the faith had to make lots of copies to spread them around the Mediterranean. (Risking their lives doing so)
We should find it encouraging that there are many, many different copies. It speaks to the honesty of the scribes.
Our fathers aren't guilty of what Islam is guilty of. (Collecting all versions, choosing one, then burning the rest)
As more and more copies are made, it is only natural that the copies replace the worn originals.

bippy123 wrote: Take Alexander the Great , his most accurate writings are dated historically as all sit 400 years after his existence, and this is very common for ancient figures. What we have about Christ is many times more accurate historically ,a we also have this confirmed by the 2nd century writings of the a apostolic fathers who were the disciples of the apostles.

Even Bart Ehrman acknowledged something similar to this and he is certainly no friend of Christianity. When he debated James White, White asked him a question in his cross examination.
I'm paraphrasing, so forgive me, but it was something like:
"Dr. Ehrman, you once referred to the time between the earliest known manuscript and the life of Jesus as 'enormous.' If you classify that span of time as 'enormous,' then how would you classify the time between someone like Suetonius and the earliest copy of his writings?"

In response, Dr. Ehrman says: "Very enormous. Very, very enormous. Ginormous even."

Rob very excellent point about the writers of the New Testament writing scripture at the risk of losing their lives.
I never knew that Ehrman referred to the time span as enormous. James white is a formidable debater . William lane craig also spoke about there being 2 Bart Ehrman's , the good Bart and the bad Bart .

I think Ehrman's problem was that when he was growing up he thought inerrant meant no misspellings. He missed the point entirely .

Seraph,

Just be as honest in prayer about your doubts as you are with us. That's a good start. No one here is going to argue you back to faith.
I believe that God wants to reveal Himself to us in personal ways, and i believe the foundation of this is always through the written revelation.
Ephesians would be a great place to start. It's a short letter and you can read it in one sitting. I'd read it every day, and then begin to take shorter sections and spend more study on them. Why? Because it reveals who the believer is, "In Christ." It's a wonderful blessing.

You can spend hours typing out your doubts here, and then we can post back arguments. That's not going to work. You don't need an argument but a personal confirmation of your faith. So, take the time you are spending here and just be crazy enough to invest that time in Ephesians. Then move on to the Gospel of John. Stop visitng forums that argue one way or the other. Pray, and just be honest about your doubts.

You do want to believe the truth right?