Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

That uncomfortable subject, religion …

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Things have been a bit quiet here recently, but in case you wondered, that’s because most list authors are Christians and this is the Triduum (last three days) of Holy Week.

Some are busy with religious matters and others won’t post on principle. I am also indexing a book (always a rush job in principle because the index is the only thing that keeps a book from the press at that point – so no one cares that it’s Holy Week for me).

But as this is Holy Saturday, I am going to talk briefly for a moment about … Religion.

One of the dumbest things I hear “new atheists” say is that faith means “belief without evidence.”

I don’t know what kind of a sheltered life such people can have lived, but their views might have something to do with tenure at tax-supported universities.

Religious doctrines are believed for a variety of reasons. For convenience, I’ll refer only to my own, Catholic Christian, tradition, and this is by no means an exhaustive list, just five reasons for now:

1. Some doctrines are based strictly on evidence. The existence of God, for example, is attested by the nature of the universe. A revealing moment in the Expelled movie was when arch-atheist Richard Dawkins admitted to Ben Stein that space aliens creating life and multiple universes were alternative ideas he’d consider.

What? That’s the best they’ve got? Well, let’s see if I can fiddle the dial and find the Back to God Hour. Glad it’s still on the air …

2. Some doctrines are based on logic. For example, why are there not Two Gods? Well, what happens when the irresistible force meets the immovable object? The point is, it can’t happen. So there are not Two Gods. Or Many.

3. Some doctrines are based on reason. One of the sillier new atheist arguments is “Who designed the designer?” Well, any series can have a beginning. If, as most now think, the Big Bang started the universe, there must have been a wider context. It is reasonable to think this context was the will of God, based on the fine-tuned universe we actually see.

The question of God’s origin, if even askable, lies outside this universe and outside anything the human mind can think. That is why God was traditionally called, in philosophical contexts, the First Cause. That’s like the number 1. Don’t ask which natural number comes before it. The answer is none.

4. Some doctrines are based on the testimony of reliable witnesses – sane, stable people with no record of deceit, who would rather lose their property, liberty, or life than deny what they saw or heard, and have nothing to gain from promoting a story that would cost them all that. The usual way they explain it is “We must fear God rather than men.”

5. Some doctrines are based on experience – a form of evidence. I have observed that a great many people who come to an active faith later in life had an experience that they could only account for by returning to the practice of their faith (or finding a new one). An unexpected healing, perhaps?: The doctors have pronounced the patient’s case hopeless but the patient has decided to try prayer and repentance, and suddenly the burden of illness lifts. After that, the patient takes little interest in the views of new atheists, or the views of any atheists at all, on a permanent basis.

By the way, since I am here anyway, this may be a convenient time to make a “hint” announcement: I will shortly be offering a contest in which interested contributors may win a free copy of the Expelled vid or other works, as arranged. I will ask a question, based on a news story, and all responses will be judged. I will try not to be too partisan; I am mainly interested in rewarding the best contribution in 400 words or less.

More details later, once I get this index out of my life.

Comments
Re #106 "It’s clear that pretty much nobody around Jesus expected him to be killed, so they didn’t interpret anything now said to prophecy a suffering or dying Messiah in those terms." David. I am thinking of the predicted resurrection. The people around may not have been expected him to be killed at that time, but they must have expected him to die one day and once he did it seems quite possible that his followers would have been aware of the prophecy - or possibly it was just those who wrote the gospels who were aware of it.Mark Frank
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
Sorry. The phrase "above the course of time" should read "over the course of time."vjtorley
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT
Mark Frank I agree with you that the suicide study I cited proves nothing whatsoever about Christianity. I also agree with your admission that "you could make a good case that it is the Muslim tradition that keeps suicide so low in the Middle East." That was all I wanted to show: Islam has saved millions of lives above the course of time. Let's give credit where it's due. You rightly point out the region's poor "treatment of women and other extreme losses of freedom." Still, at least they don't kill their baby girls - a practice which is still widely prevalent in certain countries: http://www.gendercide.org/case_infanticide.htmlvjtorley
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
Mark Frank [106], I don't know: that's a good question. It's clear that pretty much nobody around Jesus expected him to be killed, so they didn't interpret anything now said to prophecy a suffering or dying Messiah in those terms.David Kellogg
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
05:28 AM
5
05
28
AM
PDT
On the signifance of prophecies Has anyone done a list of prophecies in the Bible that have not come true? Prophecies are often self-fulfilling. If someone was aware that Jesus was due to rise from the dead then they would interpret what they saw or heard from others in that light.Mark Frank
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
vjtorley #100 "2. Suicide. Bertolote and Fleischmann, in “A Global Perspective in the Epidemiology of Suicide”, point out that in Muslim countries (e.g. Kuwait) where suicide is most strictly forbidden, the suicide rate is close to zero (0.1 per 100,000). The suicide rate is highest in atheist countries such as China, where it is 25.6 per 100,000. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. If they were living under the atheistic regime of China, 390,000 of them would be killing themselves every year, or 39,000,000 per century. Anything that saves that many lives has got to be socially beneficial." This is very crude. Suicide is almost unknown in the Middle East but is also very low in Latin America. It is rather high in atheist China (13.9) but also the USA (11), France (17.6) and Sweden (13.2) and extraordinary high in Russia (32.2) and strongly catholic Lithuania (38.6). The correlation with religion is extremely weak and of course correlation does not mean causation. I admit that you could make a good case that it is the Muslim tradition that keeps suicide so low in the Middle East. But you have to trade that against the treatment of women and other extreme losses of freedom.Mark Frank
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
03:47 AM
3
03
47
AM
PDT
PS: A few notes on modernist and hyper-modernist [much more accurate than "post modern"] theology.kairosfocus
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
JTaylor (& StephenB): I observe your exchange over OT prophecies and in particular Is 53. Now, from C1, this -- and NB in light of the existence of C2 BC DSS Is MSS and the Septuagint, this cannot credibly be claimed to have been edited after the fact -- has been perhaps the most used OT prophecy that has been used to highlight the significance of advent of a suffering, dying for sins and griefs, rising messiah. And, indeed, this OT passage has been a keystone in the theology of redemption and atonement. Now, too, there has been an attempt to brush it aside as in context speaking of Israel as nation, not an individual. However, the fact is, that the passage extends both back up into 52 and onward into a later part of 53 [there are amusing stories on how the chapter and verse divisions were made in ways that so often are plainly arbitrary . . . ]. Once we look at that wider context, some very interesting features come out: ________________ ISA 52:13 See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. ISA 52:14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness-- ISA 52:15 so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. [What globally celebrated feast did we just have? Why?] For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. ISA 53:1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? [ . . . ] ISA 53:4 Surely he took up our infirmities [Cf Mt 8:15 - 17] and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. ISA 53:5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. ISA 53:6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. [ . . . . ] ISA 53:8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. ISA 53:9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked [cf. Jesus' condemnation in exchange for a malefactor and crucifixion between thieves], and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. [Cf Pilate's judicial findings on sentencing him to death] ISA 53:10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. ISA 53:11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. ISA 53:12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. ________________ No wonder, then that in the classic NT summary of the gospel we see: 1CO 15:1 Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. 1CO 15:3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared . . . [lists the chief "official" witnesses: Peter, James [Jesus' brother], the twelve [less one of course . . . ], 500+ at one go, all the apostles, Paul himself] ___________ Now, JT, how many individuals -- note the highlighted contrasts above -- despised and rejected by men have been offered up as god's servant as a sin offering and as a wounded healer, died and yet prolonged their days and carried a message to the nations that has even brought kings to respectful silence? How many such individuals have had upwards of 500 eyewitnesses to their resurrection, and in that context upwards of twenty of which are identifiable by name: the circle of women led by Mary Magdalene [not listed in the C1 list as women were not official witnesses then], the 12, the brothers of Jesus, and Paul the former arch persecutor? Do you see why Is 52 - 53 is the brightest gem among about 500 prophecies on the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth? And, do you see why it is not so easily brushed aside as you imagine? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT
BTW, Lutepisc, Thanks for the compliment. I never studied theology in school. I just read a lot. My brother-in-law is in seminary at Talbot, and we discuss these issues often, and he gives me sources to read, and other times I find out on my own. Oh, he's also an attroney, and knows a good argument. He taught an excellent sunday school class on the book of Daniel. Fascinating stuff.CannuckianYankee
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT
Lutepisc: “Cannuckian Yankee: You’ve been paying attention in school! Thank you for your painstaking list of resources. They’re excellent! Would that JTaylor would pay attention…” JTaylor: "I really don’t appreciate this. I have tried to answer your questions, but obviously since my replies don’t fit your preconceived ideas, you seem fit to insult me. Glad you’re moving on to live your life." I'm not reading it as an insult, JT. I'm not certain he had that in mind. It sounds more like a soft-spoken wake up call. I left a list of sources, which you apparently ignored. I'm not in the least surprised by this, since my experience with atheists over the years shows that they discount Christian sources quite often without reading them. Not saying that's the case with you. Perhaps you have read them, I don't know. I have come across many skeptics who read Christian sources, but often end up trying to debunk them, and quite often they are not the best sources - Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel and others. I try to leave you with more scholarly sources than them, while I myself appreciate their writings as well. But then you left us with sources such as Elain Pagels. I have her book "The Gnostic Gospels," and while I find her account of the discovery of these gospels in Egypt in the 1940s to be fascinating - the story of Mohamed Ali, who in order to avenge his father's death, had just finished murdering a man when he and some others discovered the books in a clay jar, and how his mother burned some of the books in order to kindle a fire. This is an interesting account by all means, but then Pagels turns around and plays fast and loose with the New Testament Texts and with the history of Christian belief. For example, she states that the gospel accounts picture Jesus after the resurrection as both in the flesh, and as some kind of unrecognizable personage in order to argue that early Christians did not necessarily believe in a literal resurrection in the flesh or at least that the gospel accounts don't need to be interpreted as literal. (see pg. 5-6 of chapter 1). This is simply not the case in context. But this is precisely what she does in order to make her point - she quote mines from the gospels and Acts, rather than read them in context. Thus, while pagels is busy winning book awards, her scholarship is shoddy. She's inteligent, I'll grant her that, but she is not a good source for anything regarding early Christianity. She should stick with the subject of the Gnostic gospels and what they contain, rather than attempt to distinguish what the early Christians believed. After all, the Gnostic gospels were 300-400 years removed from the New Testament, and more full of preposterous myth than anything I have read. I have "The Nag Hammadi Library," edited by James M. Robinson. Interesting, but by no means authoritative on the acts or sayings of Jesus, nor the beliefs of the earliest Christians. Allow me to offer you some far better and more scholarly sources on Early Christianity: By Larry W. Hurtado - "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity." Hurtatdo does not play with the facts. He analyses and critiques in context with the scriptures, and offers a wealth of information from a number of perspectives. It offers a much more exhaustive perspective on the early Christian believers. By Everett Ferguson - "Backgrounds of Early Christianity" By Adolf Schlatter and translated by Andraes J. Kostenberger - "The Theology of the Apostles" And I might add, that since Paul wrote the earliest works of Christian literature as far as we know, you might want to look into the following: By N.T Wright - "What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus Really the Founder of Christianity?" Wright is a world authority on the writings of Paul. I only hope that these are helpful for you to gain insight into early Christian beliefs.CannuckianYankee
April 14, 2009
April
04
Apr
14
14
2009
02:02 AM
2
02
02
AM
PDT
JTaylor (85) Thank you for your response. 1. I readily acknowledge that my story about George (who told me that everyone in his country had witnessed something supernatural during their lives) was hearsay, but I wasn't trying to prove anything with my story, except that miracles are more widely reported in many other cultures. In other words, the point I was making was a sociological one. If someone who appears to be a credible, sane and honest person tells me that everyone in his culture claims to have witnessed a supernatural event of some kind, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to believe that person's testmony, regardless of whether we credit the events in question. 2. Why didn't Jesus condemn slavery explicitly? Good question. Realistically, I'd say that if He had, Christianity wouldn't even have gotten a toe-hold in the Roman Empire. It was bad enough that it was seen initially as an exotic foreign cult, unlike Judaism, which was accorded legal recognition because it was the religion of the Jewish people. Had Christianity explicitly condemned slavery as well, it would have been seen as seditious and socially destabilizing, and snuffed out. Instead, Christianity had a remarkably easy run. What's really amazing about the martyrs is how few of them there were: just 5,000 in the space of 300 years. Christianity managed to stay under the radar, and when it later became dominant, it quietly effected a social transformation in Europe, so that by 1100 A.D. slavery had been virtually eliminated throughout the continent. So I would argue that Jesus put forward a general guide to living (the Golden Rule, which he later amplified to "Love one another as I have loved you," in John 13:33), in the hope that His Church would later realize what He meant, and act accordingly. To my mind, the great merit of this "softly, softly" approach is that without it, few of us would be free today. It is a great shame that after eliminating slavery in Europe, Christians subsequently found excuses to enslave the peoples of Africa and the New World, but those abominable crimes cannot be blamed on Jesus Christ. Anyone with even a minimal knowledge of the Golden Rule would have known that those crimes were truly evil. Nor is it likely that Jesus could have prevented the excesses of the Conquistadors by speaking out more forcefully against slavery and other evils. When people are governed by greed and dazzled by the lure of gold, they tend to stifle the voice of their conscience, for the sake of convenience. Mark Frank Regarding the detailed miracle evaluation procedure which I proposed in #81, you wrote:
You could apply something similar to estimating the probability of seeing aliens in the course of your life time. Use a similar set of surveys about "alien sightings" and rule out 'dogmatic alien sceptics'. I imagine you would be amazed at the lower bound on how many aliens we see in an average lifetime.
Actually, I would say (in all seriousness) that my procedure could be used to gauge the credibility of UFO sightings. However, you misunderstand the meaning of the lower bound. The lower bound I proposed does not tell us how frequent the event in question actually is. Instead, it's a lower probability bound to be used when evaluating which reports of the event in question are worthy of credence - which is different from which reports are true instances of the event in question (God alone knows!) Regarding UFOs, I don't think the naturalistic explanations that have been proposed to date can cover all cases - and I have my doubts about the belated CIA admission that the unexplained sightings were either military planes or weather balloons with mannequins riding in them. There are a number of sightings by highly credible observers (pilots) which don't fit into any of these categories. See the following: http://ufos.about.com/od/currentuforeports/f/pilots.htm and judge for yourself. Does that mean we should start believing in aliens? No. But it does mean that it would be rational to start believing in UFOs. UFOs are just that - unidentified flying objects. I personally don't buy the alien explanation, as I don't see any particular reason to believe it. But I would say that there is something going on which is beyond the ken of present-day science. Now, if a person wants to adopt a similar "agnostic" line with the Resurrection of Christ, then I would say that he/she is at least being fair-minded. It's when I hear people breezily dismiss the apparitions as collective hallucinations that I start blowing raspberries. There is one difference between the Resurrection and UFO sightings that I would draw attention to, though. There are well-attested sightings of UFOs, but none of the beings piloting UFOs saying where they are from. Hence agnosticism is reasonable. Jesus, on the other hand, had a lot to say about where He was from. JTaylor
In the end if a miracle is a "an effect which is beyond the power of either natural causes or of any agents we know of, in the natural world" shouldn't it be objectively measurable and independent of eyewitness accounts?
No problem. You want objectively measurable miracles? There are dozens of them. Read about them if you dare! Try these ones: http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/engl_mir.htm CannuckianYankee
The problem is that apologists get boggled down with issues of eyewitness accounts, without looking at the larger picture - prophecy, the existence of God, the reasonableness of redemption, Jesus view of himself as an historical figure, and that view being confirmed by history, etc...
Hear, hear! I have to say that if the Gospel accounts of the Resurrection were the only pieces of evidence I had for Jesus's life, there's no way I'd believe the Resurrection. Instead, I'd simply shrug and say, "OK, something inexplicable happened in 33 A.D. What it was, we'll never know." It is only because of reading about Jesus' life and teachings in the Gospels as a whole and the letters of St. Paul, as well as studying the religion of the people of Judah and Israel in the Old Testament, that I feel impelled to get off my lazy behind and make a commitment to belief in Jesus. Before you make such a commitment, you have to consider the man Himself, whom He claimed to be, and the beliefs of the Jewish people to whom He preached His message. That's the big picture that needs to be taken into account, as you rightly point out. JTaylor
There's a lot of talk about eyewitness testimony. I'm afraid though I'm stick stuck on whether the Gospels were actually written by eyewitnesses...
You quote Elaine Pagels as asserting that they were not. Certainly her view is a common one among New Testament scholars, but there are some "heavy hitters" in the world of New Testament scholarship who think otherwise. I refer you to the following links. http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/the-four-gospels-and-the-one-gospel-of-jesus-christ/ http://www.bethinking.org/resource.php?ID=233 http://www.christian-thinktank.com/stil23.html The fact that Martin Hengel, emeritus professor of New Testament and early Judaism in the University of Tubingen, Germany, and possibly the most learned New Testament scholar alive in the world today, is prepared to robustly defend of the general trustworthiness of the early Church Fathers' testimony to the origins of the Gospels, should tell you something. Hengel also contends that stronger cases can be made for Matthew, Mark and Luke as the actual authors of the first three Gospels than much modern scholarship allows. I suggest also that New Testament scholars are predisposed to disbelieve in the reality of miacles. Author Anne Rice, a former atheist who returned to the faith in 1998 and who wrote her first novel about Jesus, entitled Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, in 2005, stated in the Afterword to her book that she came to realize that many scholars actively dislike Jesus, while reading their works as research for her book. In a susbsequent interview with the Chicago Tribune she stated:
I think Bible scholarship — skeptical Bible scholarship — started in earnest in the 18th Century, and it started on the premise that Jesus is not God. Many of the Bible scholars I read are skeptical, age-of-reason-type people, trying to show that the Gospels, in their view, don't make sense, and there were no miracles, no virgin birth. It's no more than a set of opinions, a set of opinions that have a skeptical worldview. It claims to be science, but what's being used is a lot of speculation. There's a huge bias to it. I examined all these arguments and found them to be very shallow and very flimsy and assumptions built on assumptions built on assumptions. This is a field where everything is mixed up — religion, history, politics — and people have strong feelings, and often irrational feelings. The skeptics, I found, are as irrational as any religious person might seem.
Finally, JTaylor, you write:
It's unfortunate, but no special pleading can alter the sad truth that human beings are quite capable of believing in all sorts of falsehoods even for very long periods of time.
Here you are correct. However, I would like to suggest, that if Christianity is false, you should nominate a worldview which is closer to the Truth, and which has had a more beneficial effect on humanity. What beneficial effect? I'll mention just two effects of the three Abrahamic religions: reduction in female infanticide and prevention of suicide. 1. Female infanticide. It turns out that each of the three monotheistic religions - and none of the others - elevated the status of women in the areas where they spread and flourished. Case in point: in the Roman Empire, the male head of the household could order any female living in his household to have an abortion. What's more, a married woman who gave birth had no legal right to keep her child unless the male head of the household picked it up and set it down on the family hearth. Otherwise the child had to be placed outside in the street, where it would either die of exposure or be picked up by some unscrupulous rogue and sold into slavery. Girls were exposed far more often than boys: research has shown that the ratio of men to women in the Roman Empire was at least 120:100. (For documentation, check out "The Rise of Christianity" by Rodney Stark [HarperOne, 1997]. Given these facts, it's not hard to see why Christianity, a religion which inherited from Judaism an ethic which was utterly opposed to infanticide, proved immensely popular among Roman women. Islam also succeeded in drastically curtailing female infanticide; however, the pernicious practice continued in India and China. "So what's your point?" I hear you ask. Here's my point. Population of the Roman empire: about 60 million people. Annual number of births (assuming say, 40 births per 1000 people per year): about 2.4 million, or 1.2 million boys and 1.2 million girls, of whom 200,000 were killed. Enter Christianity: up to 200,000 girls' lives saved per year, or 20 million per century, or 200 million over a period of a millennium. Do the same math in Arab countries as well, and you get even more girls' lives saved. Still think religion doesn't matter? 2. Suicide. Bertolote and Fleischmann, in "A Global Perspective in the Epidemiology of Suicide", point out that in Muslim countries (e.g. Kuwait) where suicide is most strictly forbidden, the suicide rate is close to zero (0.1 per 100,000). The suicide rate is highest in atheist countries such as China, where it is 25.6 per 100,000. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. If they were living under the atheistic regime of China, 390,000 of them would be killing themselves every year, or 39,000,000 per century. Anything that saves that many lives has got to be socially beneficial. Think about it, please.vjtorley
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
11:28 PM
11
11
28
PM
PDT
----JTaylor: "Elaine Pagels writes that “the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark… ”Are there any good unbiased sources (not Christian) that refute this? (all the sources I have found agree with Pagels). Now, JT, my good man, I don't think that the atheists, apostates, and heretics are going to be the very best sources for confirming orthodox interpretations. Perhaps all your sources agree with Pagels because they just might [keep this at a whisper] run in the same Gnostic circles.StephenB
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
11:17 PM
11
11
17
PM
PDT
Lutepisc: "Lutepisc: “Cannuckian Yankee: You’ve been paying attention in school! Thank you for your painstaking list of resources. They’re excellent! Would that JTaylor would pay attention…” I think perhaps Lutepisc is frustrated because of my refusal to acknowledge that the story of Jesus and his followers is somehow special and the reason for its success could only be attributed to the resurrection. That because Jesus allegedly rose from the death (for which there is not a scrap of physical or contemporary evidence for) it sparked this movement that has been with us for two thousand years (I guess if it hadn't been this it would have been something else). My point is that we know enough about the psychology of belief and the examples of other religions and cults to realize that we do not need the resurrection to be real for people to fanatically belief something that in all likelihood never actually happened. Is it possible that we have been duped for two thousand years and that we have built institutions based on legends and events that never actually happened? Yes, it is entirely in the realm of possibility. It's unfortunate but no special pleading can alter the sad truth that human beings are quite capable of believing in all sorts of falsehoods even for very long periods of time.JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
OK, now I've read the rest of the posts. Interesting discussion! Re: Isaiah 53, there are very early references in Christian literature to the "suffering servant" as Jesus. Consider for example Luke 8:26-35. Re: the authorship of the gospels...yes, all have been disputed. So what? The author of the fourth gospel, for example (we could call him Bruce, Dustin, or Taylor, since he doesn't identify himself anywhere in the gospel...but what the heck, let's call him "John," since that's what he's been called since ancient times) nevertheless says that he speaks as an eyewitness. Many of the books traditionally attributed to Paul are undisputed...particularly the earliest ones, which date to 20 years after the crucifixion. (Incidentally, Paul says that three years elapsed between his own encounter with the risen Christ and his first conversation with Peter [Gal. 1:18]. He adds that 14 more years elapsed between that visit and his second visit to Jerusalem [Gal 2:1]. That means that Paul was persecuting those who were proclaiming the resurrection just a very short time after the crucifixion.) And, of course, the source "Q" which is relied upon by both Matthew and Luke antedates them, yet is considered reliable by both of them.Lutepisc
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
07:03 PM
7
07
03
PM
PDT
Lutepisc: "Cannuckian Yankee: You’ve been paying attention in school! Thank you for your painstaking list of resources. They’re excellent! Would that JTaylor would pay attention…" I really don't appreciate this. I have tried to answer your questions, but obviously since my replies don't fit your preconceived ideas, you seem fit to insult me. Glad you're moving on to live your life.JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
I’m sorry you are frustrated with my reply - I thought I was reasonably clear in my response.
No need to flatter yourself, JTaylor. I wasn’t frustrated with your response. I was frustrated with your failure to understand my point. Is that somehow unclear?
Religious history has show us over and over that despite the most serious and what outsiders would perceive as a death blow to a person’s faith, people carry on believing. Look at the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their multiple predictions of the End of the World. They still carried on and still do today.
A non-event such as the non-ending of the world in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is hardly a fit comparison in kind, quality, or intensity with what Lapide is addressing. If the Jehovah’s Witnesses had had their leader unceremoniously and cruelly nailed to a crucifix like an insect specimen after their secondary leadership had denied him, abandoned him, and scattered in fear...then we would have something to talk about. But only if that same secondary leadership were to be found soon thereafter, boldly proclaiming a victorious message and promising that same victory to the rest of the world. We would have to ask: What has happened here? Cannuckian Yankee: You’ve been paying attention in school! Thank you for your painstaking list of resources. They're excellent! Would that JTaylor would pay attention… To everybody who’s posted since then: sorry, but that’s as far as I’ve read for now! I’m eager to read on...but I do have a life...Lutepisc
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
05:35 PM
5
05
35
PM
PDT
There's a lot of talk about eyewitness testimony. I'm afraid though I'm stick stuck on whether the Gospels were actually written by eyewitnesses... Elaine Pagels writes: "Although the gospels of the New Testament-- like those discovered at Nag Hammadi-- are attributed to Jesus' followers, no one knows who actually wrote any of them. Elaine Pagels writes that "the first Christian gospel was probably written during the last year of the war, or the year it ended. Where it was written and by whom we do not know; the work is anonymous, although tradition attributes it to Mark..." Are there any good unbiased sources (not Christian) that refute this? (all the sources I have found agree with Pagels).JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
I don’t think we should be obsessing too much over the problem of eyewitness testimony in the context of Christ's resurrection. Witnessing an empty grave or the risen Christ [on his return] is not at all the same thing as picking someone out of a police lineup. As I read the studies, the question is not about the reliability of eyewitness testimony, as such, but rather the quality of the circumstances in which the eyewitness finds himself. If you are fifty feet away from someone whom you have seen once, your chances of making a mistake are quite high. If, on the other hand, you are five feet from someone daily, you are not likely to err. That was the whole point of varying the quality of the distances and texture of the environments, at least in the reports that I read. Eyewitness testimony is great evidence under the right conditions. If someone gets raped often during the day, she will identify the right guy; if she was raped at night by someone wearing a mask, she has problems. The issue, as I understand it, is not about eyewitness testimony; it is about circumstances. In fact, there were many who saw Christ daily, witnessed his death, and knew where he was buried. His disciples didn’t raise the stone, and they knew that Christ’s enemies did not raise the stone. So, when all of them, friend and enemy alike, saw the empty tomb, that is very, very good eyewitness testimony. Similarly, when Christ returned after the resurrection, hundreds saw him and could identify him as the same person. So, again, the chances for a mistake were practically non-existent. If you see someone walking through a wall one moment and then see him eating the next moment, and, if you already know who this person is, and, if you saw him crucified, you are not going to make a mistake. Please!StephenB
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
I'm afraid as a Christian who accepts miracles, I would have to agree with Mark Frank and JTaylor as far as miracle claims, but to an extent. For example, I believe that much of the televangelist type of miracle claims are bogus. There are natural and economic explanations for them. However, as far as the miracles recorded in the bible, I would have to be more open minded, because a resurrection would not have a natural explanation, and God is capable of raising the dead, and prophesying a resurrection thousands of years beforehand, and causing history to mark that historical event as a focal point, and keeping the account of that event preserved throughout history, and....... There's so much more to the resurrection than meets the eye. On the other hand, a Benny Hinn type miracle is easily negated on the grounds that Hinn himself is guilty of heretical teachings, and claims of healing can be explained otherwise. Do I believe that miraculous healing takes place? Of course, but I would be more inclined to accept that miracles occur directly from God, rather than through any self-proclaimed prophet like Hinn. So I don't think that eyewitness accounts are sufficient. They are valid, but something else extraordinary must be available as evidence. I view the resurrection as just such an event that has multiple extraordinary proofs in addition to eyewitness accounts. The problem is that apologists get boggled down with issues of eyewitness accounts, without looking at the larger picture - prophecy, the existence of God, the reasonableness of redemption, Jesus view of himself as an historical figure, and that view being confirmed by history, etc... Atheists attack the singular arguments, such as the eyewitness acounts, and believe by destroying each singular argument, they destroy the whole. This is not the case with the resurrection. One would have to explain away a whole lot of biblical prophecy, including Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks and so forth, and its fulfillment in Jesus entry into Jerusalem, as well as the cosmological argument for God's existence, and all of the other arguments from history and archeology in order to break down the whole of the argument for the resurrection. It is complex, and I don't think that a simple argument against eyewitness accounts can have any bearing on the whole of the evidences for the resurrection. Any one of the arguments - eywitnesses, etc, are predicated on the whole, and you can't break down the whole by showing incongruities in any one of the parts, because those incongruities are not necessarily the case. You can show that some eyewitness accounts for any given event are bogus, but you can't show that all eyewitness accounts are so. Hence, you cannot break down the resurrection by denying the efficacy of those accounts.CannuckianYankee
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
StephenB @80. Thanks for your reply. Obviously we both each have our different perspectives when it comes to interpretation. I can quote refutations, and so can you. But I will do is take a few of the examples you quoted me and do my own analysis (I'll have to dust off my Bible!), but it might take a day or two. Naturally I will do this from a layperson's perspective since I'm not a qualified Bible scholar, but I think that should still be valid.JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT
Re: 81 The Miracle Survey I agree with Mark Frank - indeed it is an impressive piece of work. But it seems to focus solely on eyewitnesses. Assuming that miracles usually involve some physical manifestation, shouldn't this also be taken into account and appropriate experts brought in to examine the physical manifestation? In the end if a miracle is a "an effect which is beyond the power of either natural causes or of any agents we know of, in the natural world" shouldn't it be objectively measurable and independent of eyewitness accounts? Or do you include "miracles" of a more psychological or mental nature?JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
02:09 PM
2
02
09
PM
PDT
Re #81 vjtorley That's a fascinating comment on how to calculate the probability of a miracle. You could apply something similar to estimating the probability of seeing aliens in the course of your life time. Use a similar set of surveys about "alien sightings" and rule out 'dogmatic alien sceptics'. I imagine you would be amazed at the lower bound on how many aliens we see in an average lifetime.Mark Frank
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
Flaminia said: "I am of the opinion that the iPod IS a miracle. For, knowing how God halted a major project of human technological advancement at the tower of Babel with a single, artfully bloodless gesture, I hold to the theory that God in his wisdom and grace permits and gifts humans with leaps of creative and scientific achievement that He could just as easily hold back. Even our intelligence is a gift." Well, the operation of an iPod may seem quite remarkable, but unlike purported miracles they can be explained purely through natural processes. The science that goes into an iPod has developed other time, often through trial and error. I see absolutely zero evidence that any supernatural entity has any hand whatsoever in either the holding back or the development of the technology that goes into a device such as the iPod. It kind of reminds me of the "miracle on the Hudson" - which frankly was an insult to the skill and training of the flight crew.JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT
Allanius said: "Dear would-be forensic manuscript scientists: please identify the dates of the first complete manuscripts (or even substantial fragments) for the Iliad, the Symposium, the Metaphysics, the Aeneid, the Annals of Rome, the Metamorphoses—or in fact any book written before 1000 AD. The smug tone of your critique shows nothing more than your own preening ignorance." As I've pointed out previously nobody is asking anybody to make a radical life-altering decision based on the Aeneid or the Iliad. If you want me to completely change my worldview, the way I live, in fact my very purpose for living all based on a historical manuscript, then you can bet your life I will expect a higher degree of authenticity and veracity.JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT
VJTorley said: "I’m afraid you can’t use an imaginary number, because it’s not between 0 and 1." I was making a joke. VJTorley: "I once lived on campus with an international group of students. There was a guy named George from Cameroon, and he told me that every African he knew had witnessed something supernatural - whether good or evil." Sorry, but that's just classic anecdotal hearsay (try that in a court of law and see how far you get with it). VJTorley: "More serious is the Christian Church’s failure to outlaw slavery until the time of Wilberforce. Slave traders commonly cited Scripture in defence of slavery. How could God allow that? Why didn’t He express Himself more clearly?" I know you go on to answer this. But this is a classic case of where Jesus could have simply said "Slavery is an abomination". But instead he said "Blessed are those slaves whom the master will find on the alert when he comes..." (Luke 12:37). Jesus didn't exactly help matters did he? Think of all the pain and suffering that might have been avoided. You can't blame everything on poor interpretation.JTaylor
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
vjtorley and allanius, great posts.tribune7
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
12:28 PM
12
12
28
PM
PDT
allanius @82. A most insightful post!StephenB
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
First of all, “faith is a gift.” Savor the mystery. Second, mauger the muddiness of proofs 2 & 3, Denyse’s basic proposition holds true: evangelists of atheism have a straw man on their altar. Let’s start with the extant manuscripts canard. Dear would-be forensic manuscript scientists: please identify the dates of the first complete manuscripts (or even substantial fragments) for the Iliad, the Symposium, the Metaphysics, the Aeneid, the Annals of Rome, the Metamorphoses—or in fact any book written before 1000 AD. The smug tone of your critique shows nothing more than your own preening ignorance. Next, why do you insist on confusing mental sloth with depth? God is not who the New Atheists think he is. He is also not who many “Christian” scribblers say he is. God is quite immune to the limitations of human discourse (see Job). Countless examples could be given, but they would require a good deal more mental effort than is seen in Dawkins, Provine, Harris and their sheep. Next, Catholic doctrine is in fact quite reasonable and bears no resemblance to the jejune caricatures of its detractors (and no, I’m not Catholic). Isn’t interesting that our uber-critics always seize on one or two outstanding inconsistencies they believe they’ve identified in church doctrine? This sort of thing spreads like a virus on the Web, where ADD is rewarded. But at the risk of repeating ourselves…sloth should not be confused with depth. Next, experience of the reality of God is not limited by any means to miraculous healings. What’s really at stake is the following statement: “All things work together for good to those who love God.” Evidence abounds for the thoughtful traveler, but principally for his own edification. Besides, why cast his pearls before swine? Finally, Christianity, in the words of its founder, is a Way, not a collection of doctrines. This “way” is really quite sensible—see, for instance, the book of Proverbs, which does not contain a single word of bad advice for how to live a happy and prosperous life. But it also transcends argument because it is rooted in the value of life, not judgment.allanius
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
10:00 AM
10
10
00
AM
PDT
JTaylor: Thank you for your post. In response to my earlier question...
But if you are willing to concede that the probability of a miracle is greater than zero, then my question is: how much greater do you think it is? I’d like a number, please, or at least a method for calculating one.
...you wrote:
Obviously if I reply zero I’m probably going to be accused of not being open-minded. On the other hand I would have absolutely no idea how I would go about calculating a number. Can I use an imaginary number?
I'm afraid you can't use an imaginary number, because it's not between 0 and 1. The number i is the square root of -1, so it's not even on the real number line. I suspect you mean an infinitesimal number, which is defined as a number which is not zero, but which is smaller than any quantity greater than zero, no matter how tiny that quantity may be. Now, it is important to bear in mind that infinitesimals are a mathematical construct, used by some mathematicians as an aid to explaining key concepts in calculus. Now, in a universe where exact measurements were possible, perhaps one could make sense of the idea of assigning an arbitrarily small probability to a miraculous outcome. For instance, if the natural constants such as the cosmological constant were so finely tuned that even the minutest deviation on either side would cause the universe to collapse, then obviously the odds of a universe being suitable for life would be infinitesimal. If you were prepared to countenance infinitesimally improbable events as miracles, then you might consider the creation of that kind of universe as a kind of miracle. (Actually, St. Thomas Aquinas would say that creation itself was not a miracle, strictly speaking, as miracles are supposed to take place within the created order.) A diehard skeptic would reject even this kind of miracle, of course, by postulating a multiverse to explain the improbable event away. But in our universe, such precision of measurement is impossible, as you will be well aware from studying the smudgy world of quantum mechanics. So I'm afraid that infinitesimal probabilities are not open to you. You'll have to stipulate a number which is measurably greater than zero. If I were an honest, open-minded skeptic, how would I select a measurable, non-zero cutoff probability for a miracle? Here's how I'd do it. (I just thought of this, so here goes. By the way, I'm sincerely sorry if anyone else has had the same idea, independently of me, but I don't think I've read this anywhere before.) THE HONEST DOUBTER'S MIRACLE EVALUATION PROCEDURE Step 1. Conduct a random anonymous survey of people in the culture in which you live, and ask the people in your sample four questions: (1) How old are you? (2) (a) Have you ever personally witnessed an event which you think might have been a miracle? (Definition of miracle: an effect which is beyond the power of either natural causes or of any agents we know of, in the natural world?) (b) If so, how many of these events have you witnessed? (3) If you've witnessed an event which might be a miracle, please describe the event in as much detail as possible. [People who've seen multiple miracles would have to describe each event.] (4) If you haven't witnessed a miracle, are there any circumstances in which you would be prepared to believe that one had occurred, based purely on the tesimony of other eyewitnesses? Anyone who answered "No," to this question I would classify as a dogmatic skeptic. (Example: someone who said, "I'd want photographic evidence." Why would I call that person dogmatic? Because that person could always hypothesize a weak link in the chain of evidence fro the miracle: "OK, the photo is real, but how do we know it was taken at that time and place? We're relying on the photographer's memory, and she may have been hypnotized." There is no conceivable chain of evidence which is totally free from this kind of potential eyewitness contamination, so in the end we have to trust some eyewitnesses at some stage in assessing whether a miracle has truly occurred.) Step 2. Collect the replies to the survey, and then mail out each eyewitness's description of miracle they've seen, to another eyewitness, and ask them: on a scale of 0 to 100%, how sure are you that this was a miracle? Why wouldn't I ask the original eyewitness? Because they might be inclined to be overly certain (100%) of what they saw, particularly if it turned out to be a life-changing event. A good person to ask would be another eyewitness: someone who has no inclination to rule out miracles, but who also has no personal stake in the miracle whose probability he/she is being invited to assess. Step 3. Mail out each eyewitness's description of miracle they've seen, to a non-eyewitness who is not a dogmatic skeptic, and ask them: on a scale of 0 to 100%, how sure are you that this was a miracle? Someone who was not an eyewitness but also not a dogmatic skeptic, would have no particular axe to grind against miracles, and would also have no personal stake in the miracle whose probability he/she is being invited to assess. However, such a person would probably give a somewhat lower probability assessment than a person who had witnessed a miracle. Rather than adjudicate between the two perspectives, I'd be inclined to use them both as upper and lower probability bounds for assessing the probability that an allegedly miraculous occurrence was a miracle. Why wouldn't I ask a dogmatic skeptic for his/her assessment? Because a dogmatic skeptic would answer 0% for purely ideological reasons, which would bias the result. Step 4. I'd collect the probability assessments from the anonymous raters who'd witnessed a possible miracle, and then weight the alleged miracles accordingly. I'd then calculate the number of equivalent miracles for the whole sample of people included in my survey - e.g. A has seen a miracle with a probability of 0.2, while B has seen two miracles - one with a probability of 0.8, and the other with a probability of 0.1, so that makes 1.1 equivalent miracles witnessed by A and B. After calculating the total number of equivalent miracles witnessed by the survey sample, I'd calculate the total number of days each person has lived, from their age, and I'd add all the days together. Then I'd divide the total number of equivalent miracles witnessed by the total number of days lived. This result would give me an UPPER BOUND for the probability of someone's witnessing a miracle on any given day. I could then extrapolate the probability of someone's witnessing a miracle at some stage during their lives, by multiplying this figure by the average human lifespan in days, for the society in which I lived. (It may have occurred to some readers that I might be double counting miracles, as there may have been many eyewitnesses for one miracle - think of the feeding of the 5,000. But this does not matter. I'm not trying to calculate the total number of miracles occurring in people's lifetimes, but the total number of eyewitness sightings. Two people witnessing the same miraculous event still makes two sightings.) (I am assuming, however, that miracles are more or less randomly distributed through time, at least within my own culture. However, this is merely a default starting assumption; further evidence may cause us to question it.) Step 5. I'd do the same thing over again, using the probability ratings provided by the non-eyewitnesses who were nevertheless open-minded to the possibiity of being converted to a belief in miracles, purely on the basis of another person's testimony. This result would give me an LOWER BOUND for the probability of someone's witnessing a miracle on any given day - and by extrapolation, at some stage during their lives. OK. Let's say that the probability that I'll witness a miracle during my life comes to 1% (1 in 100) according to the optimistic upper bound calculation, and 0.01% (1 in 10,000) according to the pessimistic lower bound calculation. Now let's say that I have just had an experience which I think might have been miraculous. Let's say that I'm so impressed with what I saw that I am convinced that this experience beats any other amazing but unexplained phenomena that I may have seen in mt life, so that I can truly say, "IF I've seen a miracle during my life, then THIS event would have to be it." I can now use the lifetime probability bounds, but first, I'll have to factor in my age. Let's say I'm 48 and can expect to die at 80. 60% of my life is over, so I should adjust the upper and lower bounds to 0.6% (6 in 1,000) and 0.006% (6 in 100,000) respectively. Now for the crunch. What I should do is try to look for as many naturalistic explanations as possible for the event I witnessed, and calculate the probability that I would experience each of those naturalistic phenomena during my lifetime (48 years, and counting). I should then add all of these naturalistic probabilities, to calculate the total probability of the event's occurring during my 48 years, given all the known natural phenomena that might account for it. Let's call this total N. Now, if N is greater than 0.6%, then I'd be irrational to believe the miracle; a plausible naturalistic explanation (or at least, a plausible disjunction of naturalistic explanations) is at hand. However, if N is less than 0.006%, then I'd be equally irrational not to believe the miracle, there being no plausible naturalistic account, or even a range of accounts that looked plausible when taken together. If N is between 0.006% and 0.6%, then we are in the grey zone, where reasonable people might offer different assessments of what I should believe, given what I have witnessed. Applying this kind of logic to the Resurrection, a Christian might well decide that while there are naturalistic explanations for what happened, their probability falls well below his/her lower bound for belief; hence, these naturalistic scenarios should be rejected as even more implausible than a miracle. (Remember, a Christian is likely to live in a community where people frequently claim to have encountered the miraculous in their lives, so their informal "sample" will be different from that of the skeptic's circle of friends, none of whom are likely to have witnessed anything extraordinary. At this point, all a skeptic can reasonably object to in the Christian's argument is the sample itself. The skeptic could suggest that the Christian should "ask around" more, to get a more balanced picture. The Christian might accept this challenge.) By the way, I question your assertion that miracles are infrequent. I once lived on campus with an international group of students. There was a guy named George from Cameroon, and he told me that every African he knew had witnessed something supernatural - whether good or evil. It's only in our own blinkered culture that we've learned not to notice these things, thanks to a lifetime of scientific brainwashing: "There ARE NO ghosts / witches / fairies." "If I can't see your invisible friend, then he's not real." "You must have been seeing things." "You've got an overactive imagination." "Don't be silly. You're making it up." "Things like that don't happen. They're impossible." If you are still skeptical about the frequency of miracles, I suggest you try out the survey procedure I suggested, as a kind of sociological experiment. The results will surprise you. Finally, you also wrote:
If this God is so great and powerful, would it (should it?) have been in His power to ensure that His message reached us in a less untainted manner (or at least in a form that could not so very easily be mistaken for a human-made concoction?). I find it hard to reconcile this with a truly benevolent God. Rather than His "Word" being a clear and unambiguous presentation of salvation and hope, it appears to be muddled, human-made, inconsistent, contradictory, and sometimes even irrelevant to our modern lives. Is that really what God intended?
I do sympathize with your objection: I felt it very strongly before I converted back to Christianity. I'd like to make four comments here. First, the objection assumes that each individual has to decode Scripture all by him/herself. But most Christians don't read Scripture like that; they interpret it in the light of how the Christian community has traditionally understood it. I should add that Jews don't read Scripture like that, either. Second, the Bible wasn't written for you. It was written for people the world over, spanning three millennia and dozens of different cultures. And it was written by people whose mindset, language and culture were all utterly different from our own. That means two things: (i) there is NO SUCH THING as "the plain sense of Holy Scripture"; (ii) parts of Scripture will necessarily go over our heads, given the psychological distance between the culture in which we live and the culture in which the Bible was written. Third, misunderstandings of Scripture are no big deal unless they actually translate into bad behavior by religious believers. For practical purposes, it doesn't matter too much whether Jews and Christians regard the story of Abraham being asked to sacrifice his son Isaac as an allegory or an historical incident, so long as they don't actually sacrifice their own sons. More serious is the Christian Church's failure to outlaw slavery until the time of Wilberforce. Slave traders commonly cited Scripture in defence of slavery. How could God allow that? Why didn't He express Himself more clearly? Fourth and finally, I would suggest that the real problem with atrocities committed by believers in the name of Scripture is not the lack of clarity of God's message, but the hardness of the human heart. Even back in the fourth century, many Christian Fathers wrote about the importance of treating slaves as human beings and fellow servants of Christ. And Jesus Christ himself said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" and even "Love one another as I have loved you." Had Christians practiced the words of their Master that down the ages, many unspeakable atrocities might have been avoided, during the turbulent history of the Christian Church. The same goes for the Church's attitude towards patriarchy and sexism. I hope these comments help.vjtorley
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT
------JTaylor: “There are of course many other resources that do refute the prophecies, and convincingly so.” I would be interested about knowing how one refutes a prophecy that becomes manifest in time/space/history. It seems that the most anyone could say is that the prophecy is unclear and subject to interpretation, or that Old Testament passages were redacted after the fact. The latter point would constitute the most egregious kind of fraud, and, as it turns out, didn’t happen and couldn’t have happened. History is inconveniently chronological, so, I don’t think there will be many credible refutations forthcoming. -----I would simply remind My own take on it is one of context. It’s easy to find verses in the OT that appear to fit what then happened in the NT (i.e., cherry picking or quote mining). But I think there’s a lot of post-hoc reasoning taking place (probably not that different from what we see happening with Nostradamus). I am sympathetic to your notion that due caution is in order on matters such as these. Indeed, the world is already heavily populated with those who believe strongly in religious propositions that cannot be justified rationally. However, in this case, the quantity of prophecies is so impressive and the formulations are so specific, the conclusion seems inescapable. Divinity is at work. -----“I suppose the prophecy that Christians like to quote this most is possibly the one from Isaiah 53. Firstly the surrounding context around 53 is not about prophesying a Messiah but about Israel the Nation (the suffering servant). Furthermore the reference to a ‘virgin’ is better translated as ‘young women’. And apologists have much more to say on this too.” After having waded through almost five hundred of these prophecies, I have found a few that can be interpreted in a variety of ways and a few others that seem unclear. Still, the vast majority seem obvious enough that we do no need exegetical theologians to perform their hermeneutical surgery on them for us to understand the meaning. So, my response would be, de-emphasize the few that confuse and emphasize the many that don’t. The one thing I would not recommend is discounting the many clear ones on the strength of a few that appear vague, especially since even vague ones make sense if understood in the right context. With regard to the claims against a virgin birth translation, there are contradictory objections which hold that the virgin birth inspired pagan myths. I don’t think that the notion of a “young woman” would have generated copycat religions and Gnostic variations. -----“And I think we could apply this methodology to all of the others. I think we’d find the same thing we find in Isaiah 53 - that the first in question is not introduced in a prophetic context (e.g., “it shall come to pass), but the verse is in the midst of another context and is being interpreted (post-hoc) in a prophetic way. Here’s a better link that sheds more light on this” To me, this passage does just the opposite. Among other things, it contains several references about the one who was “pierced, “bore our grief,” and was “wounded for our transgressions.” confirming the idea the suffering servant really does refer to an individual and not a nation. This takes us back to the facts alluded to earlier. We have 459 prophecies about Jesus Christ in the Old Testament, all of which became manifest in space/time/history. The idea that this could have happened by chance strains credulity. No other religion tells us that the redeemer is coming, describes the circumstances of his arrival, and then plays itself out exactly in that way. In all other cases, someone just shows up and says, “trust me.” So, it seems reasonable to say, even to skeptics, that this religion is not one among many, but one of a kind.StephenB
April 13, 2009
April
04
Apr
13
13
2009
07:46 AM
7
07
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Leave a Reply