Evidence for God from Science

edwardmurphy wrote:

Byblos wrote:This is the kind of revisionist fiction one is stuck with when one denies history.

You're welcome to correct my many apparent misconceptions.

They're not 'misconceptions' ed, they aren't even just factually incorrect. They are outright made-up fictions that bear not a scintilla of resemblance to history.

The fact is the powers that be of the era had every reason to suppress events they deemed threatening to their establishment.

The Jews were expecting a 'king' that will lead them out of roman bandage and saw Jesus who is not only claiming to be a messiah but the Son of God, as a direct threat. You really think they would have had a hand in perpetuating his resurrection? An event that proved beyond any doubt that Jesus' claims were true, which would have put an immediate end to their ruling status? No, of course not, it defies logic to think they would not do everything in their power to keep it quiet and preserve their political and religious positions.

And yet the resurrection account spread like wildfire still.

King Herod was even more so paranoid than the Sanhedrin about the prophesied messiah that he also saw it as a direct threat to his own ruling. This is a man who executed members of his own family to preserve his status. You really think he would not do everything in his power to kill any notion that threatened him like any stories of a resurrected messiah? It defies logic and history.

And yet the resurrection account spread like wildfire still.

The Roman rulers had every reason to suppress the resurrection for, oh so many reasons. First, the soldiers guarding the tomb failed miserably and were certainly executed for it. Second, any perceived threat of a Jewish uprising was seen as a challenge to Rome and immediately and ruthlessly extinguished. Do you really think the roman rulers would not have killed a story that challenged the uneasy peace alliance they had with the Jewish rulers? Makes absolutely no sense.

AND YET THE RESURRECTION ACCOUNT SPREAD LIKE WILDFIRE STILL.

Get your history straight Ed.

Roman records from Jesus time exist even to today. What was Rome during that time is now the most Christian place on Earth. If the home of the Catholic Church (Roman area) had proof of Jesus rising from the dead I doubt they would be reluctant to admit that.

they shouted it from the roof tops ken. to Rome He was just another instigator, a prophet, to them like all other prophets, stirring antipathy spelling their(Roman) doom if not taken care of. and, He won't be alone Matthew 27:52

further more ken, Roman records from Jesus time exist even to today .i want you to find me, google me a recorded Roman instance where anyone was every crucified ... ever ... i can't find a single source of information that actually indicates a crucifixion of anyone anywhere ... and there were hundreds of thousands of persons crucified by the Romans ... where is the verification. after all those cruel deaths there isn't a drop of evidence from the great Roman "paperwork compilers" of all they did ... ?

why are there no records of crucifixions ? how could the great paper shufflers of antiquity not record a single crucifixion. ps: if you do find a record, remember it is only one of, as i said, hundreds of thousands that were performed. perhaps because it was so common an occurance ? perhaps because anyone crucified wasn't worth the ink ? IDK

Nicki: Until the 300s AD the Romans were very unsympathetic towards Christians - this only changed during that century when the Roman emperor became a Christian.

I would seriously question whether or not the emperor actually ever TRULY became a Christian, or whether he instead realized a merging of state with the cloak of Christianity would be a useful way of co-opting the widely held and sincere faith of so many others for political aims. It was soon to pass where officials of the church were appointed by the emperor, and conveniently so.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I will post on Constantine in a new one - here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =8&t=40791

edwardmurphy wrote:

Storyteller wrote:To be fair though Ken, are they really likely to admit that?

YES!!!

Are you kidding? If you kill a guy and he comes back from the dead to say that you were wrong to do it but he forgives you that's going to make an impression. If he was really wandering around the Levant magically curing diseases, walking on water, resurrecting dead people, and shrugging off crucifixion it would be reasonable to expect him to gain an immediate, gigantic, fanatical following. I'm as skeptical as they come, but I'd damn sure accept Jesus's claim of divinity after watching him conjure a bakery and a school of fish out of thin air or bring a corpse back to life. Normal people can't do that now and they couldn't do it then either. Anybody who can is completely unique, amazing, and kind of terrifying.

For that matter, if he was really performing magic all over the place the Jewish priests wouldn't have doubted his claim and had him crucified. Someone who really, truly, literally had magical superpowers would have inspired awe and amazement in everyone he saw wherever he went. If I'm understanding things correctly the rabbis basically said "This guy can do actual magic and he says he's the son of our god, but he's obviously full of crap so we'd better have him killed to protect the status quo." That's ridiculous. What they'd have actually done is screamed "HOLY CRAP, GOD'S HERE!" and hit their knees.

Jesus didn't really come back from the dead to communicate with those who killed him, but he had basically gained an immediate, gigantic, fanatical following; however, nearly all of them seemed to expect him to overthrow the Romans (in their country, at least) and become a great ruler. So to them, everything seemed to have gone wrong when he was arrested and crucified.

The Jewish priests and other leaders, on the other hand, didn't believe for a moment that he was the son of God (it was probably impossible in their minds for God to have a son, especially a human one of humble birth) and it was suggested that he did miracles by the devil's power; they especially disapproved of his healing people on the Sabbath, the day of rest for which they had made up many rules specifying what could and couldn't be done. They too expected God's Messiah to be a great king for their nation and they saw Jesus as nothing more than a blasphemous fraud.

The Jewish priests and other leaders, on the other hand, didn't believe for a moment that he was the son of God (it was probably impossible in their minds for God to have a son, especially a human one of humble birth) and it was suggested that he did miracles by the devil's power; they especially disapproved of his healing people on the Sabbath, the day of rest for which they had made up many rules specifying what could and couldn't be done. They too expected God's Messiah to be a great king for their nation and they saw Jesus as nothing more than a blasphemous fraud.

And so, what does the above tell us? That you'll never see the true God if you refuse to let go of YOUR mental construction of what YOU insist He must be like. Wouldn't you expect, if God is a Being of infinite capabilities, knowledge and power, and as we have, in comparison, the brains and understandings akin to those of worms - would we expect God to be as a man conceives him to be - or even wants Him to be? Or are we close-minded to what He tells us and shows us He encompasses? Got to get rid of the false construct one desperately clings to before you'll consider the REAL Deal - and so many are unwilling to let go of it. But that's it - THAT is the reason so many can't believe.

The question is, why are so many people unwilling to consider a God beyond their own expectations?

The whole notion of the jewish leaders not believing that God could have a son is quite incorrect.
The "two powers" in Heaven theology was around with the Pharisees and Essenes.
It was very common in second temple Judaism and only fell out of favour after the destruction on Jerusalem in 70 AD and with the rise of the Rabbis.
We must see what happened with the eyes of those that were there, how THEY would have understood it, how THEY would have seen it.
It is, however, quite correct that NO EXPECTED the Messiah to be divine, much less deity.
They were of course quite wrong and if that had understood the "son of Man" visions and the prophecies they would have seen that the messiah MUST be Son of God and not just one of His sons but THE son.
Of course Jesus' own followers did NOT grasp this until His resurrection.
The reality is that NO second temple Jew of 1st century Palestine would EVER proclaim someone that had been crucified and killed as messiah, ever.
Much less Son of God incarnate.
UNLESS something happened to make them think that.
They would NOT have WANTED to think that by the way, it was not in their best interest BUT they tought it AND proclaimed it anyways.

Philip wrote:

Nicki: Until the 300s AD the Romans were very unsympathetic towards Christians - this only changed during that century when the Roman emperor became a Christian.

I would seriously question whether or not the emperor actually ever TRULY became a Christian, or whether he instead realized a merging of state with the cloak of Christianity would be a useful way of co-opting the widely held and sincere faith of so many others for political aims. It was soon to pass where officials of the church were appointed by the emperor, and conveniently so.

I don't want to derail this thread, so I will post on Constantine in a new one - here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =8&t=40791

Not To mention that after his death, his son persecuted them all over again.

Also it is a fulfilled bible prophecy that religious jews would reject him. It is actually evidence the bible is true because it is exactly what religious jews did and have continued to do just as God prophesied,so when I see Jewish Rabbi's rejecting Jesus it is evidence the bible is true because they are fulfilling prophecies thousands of years old.

Byblos wrote:Get your history straight Ed.

My point was that if he was running around performing legitimate, undeniable, gimmick-free miracles then they wouldn't have killed him in the first place. Killing a fake messiah to protect your job is no big deal, but killing the real messiah? The actual son of your actual god? Were the Jews exceptionally stupid?

Were the Jews exceptionally stupid?

No, they were exceptionally evil and selfish!

Philip wrote:

Were the Jews exceptionally stupid?

No, they were exceptionally evil and selfish!

Not all of them were - Just the ruling Elite - the Sadducees and the Pharisees.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Byblos wrote:Get your history straight Ed.

My point was that if he was running around performing legitimate, undeniable, gimmick-free miracles then they wouldn't have killed him in the first place. Killing a fake messiah to protect your job is no big deal, but killing the real messiah? The actual son of your actual god? Were the Jews exceptionally stupid?

Your point is meaningless. It goes against the historical account. It's like arguing Alexander the Great was a mythical figure or an alien from outer space. You can argue it all day long but it will remain devoid of any basis in history and reality.

Byblos wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

Byblos wrote:Get your history straight Ed.

My point was that if he was running around performing legitimate, undeniable, gimmick-free miracles then they wouldn't have killed him in the first place. Killing a fake messiah to protect your job is no big deal, but killing the real messiah? The actual son of your actual god? Were the Jews exceptionally stupid?

Your point is meaningless. It goes against the historical account. It's like arguing Alexander the Great was a mythical figure or an alien from outer space. You can argue it all day long but it will remain devoid of any basis in history and reality.

What historical accounts? I've never heard of a single contemporary historical account of any of those events, apart from the Bible. Everything I'm aware of is 50-200 years removed. The only tangible evidence I've ever seen that Jesus might have performed miracles is the spread of Christianity, but by that metric every prophet with a following, from Mohamed to Joseph Smith to L. Ron Hubbard, is the real deal.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Byblos wrote:Get your history straight Ed.

My point was that if he was running around performing legitimate, undeniable, gimmick-free miracles then they wouldn't have killed him in the first place. Killing a fake messiah to protect your job is no big deal, but killing the real messiah? The actual son of your actual god? Were the Jews exceptionally stupid?

Did you read any of the few posts above? They didn't seem to think he was God's son at all - one of the Pharisees suggested he was doing miracles by the devil's power and maybe that's what they generally put it down to.

edwardmurphy wrote:

Byblos wrote:

edwardmurphy wrote:

Byblos wrote:Get your history straight Ed.

My point was that if he was running around performing legitimate, undeniable, gimmick-free miracles then they wouldn't have killed him in the first place. Killing a fake messiah to protect your job is no big deal, but killing the real messiah? The actual son of your actual god? Were the Jews exceptionally stupid?

Your point is meaningless. It goes against the historical account. It's like arguing Alexander the Great was a mythical figure or an alien from outer space. You can argue it all day long but it will remain devoid of any basis in history and reality.

What historical accounts? I've never heard of a single contemporary historical account of any of those events, apart from the Bible. Everything I'm aware of is 50-200 years removed. The only tangible evidence I've ever seen that Jesus might have performed miracles is the spread of Christianity, but by that metric every prophet with a following, from Mohamed to Joseph Smith to L. Ron Hubbard, is the real deal.

The only historians that would be dealing with this would be biblical ones of course.
Just like you don't get historian that specialize in the civil war commenting on ancient greek.