“Because Jesus, by his life and ministry, demonstrates the character of God.”
?
1 Like
There is a difference between history and fairy tale–history happened, no matter how outlandish or unbelievable. A lot of “unlikely things” have happened historically, and the chance of our accepting them is usually proportionate to their proximity of our time frame.
I’m not saying that unlikely things don’t happen, but the more unlikely something is, the more evidence one needs to confirm it happened.
Can one soldier kill the whole battalion of enemy soldiers? Very very unlikely, but perhaps it could be done. I would need details to believe this. On the other hand, someone rising from the dead contradicts everything we know about nature. Dead people don’t show up alive days later. It never happens, so a person claiming it happened needs to get evaluated by a competent medical professional.
I mean, I’m not saying anything new here. This is the same logic that you would apply to the resurrection claims of other religions. I’m simply arguing that Christianity is not special. It originated among the peoples who believed resurrections were possible. As I’ve pointed out numerous times, the Gospels claim people thought Jesus was John the Baptist raised from the dead! So, resurrections is something they would believe even erroneously.
What is more likely? That people erred in believing Jesus rose from the dead (just like some of their peers erred in John the Baptist rising) or that Jesus really did rise from the dead?
If you believe in God a resurrection is possible. If you do not believe in God and only follow nature. Then a resurrection is not possible. God is the key of this discussion.
1 Like
The Resurrection is the God the Father’s Seal of Approval on the life of Jesus. Further it demonstrates the reality of the promise of Eternal Life for God’s People. Thus the Resurrection is not only a historical past reality, but it is a very real present reality of Eternal Life with God the Father right now through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
By faith, you can believe anything. I will grant you that.
That is really helpful Bill. What I would encourage you to consider regarding inspiration is why God would limit His Word to the errant (not just incomplete) belief of the author. If we understand what the Scripture claims about its truthfulness, this could never be! Much of the Scriptural text, particularly prophecy, shows that the truths were well ahead of the author’s understanding.
‘The sum of Your word is truth, and every one of your righteous ordinances is everlasting.’ - Psalm 119:160
Or, as Grudem describes inerrancy in ‘Systematic Theology’: ‘Scripture in the original manuscripts never affirms anything that is contrary to fact.’
I love your response about being in awe of God, the ultimate point of creation! I also love your name here, ‘still learning’ - indeed!
What I struggle with is your leap from micro- to macro- evolution. There is actually quite a bit of difference. The former meets the test of the scientific method, being observable, testable, and repeatable, and does not result in whole new species or forms of life which cannot interbreed. The latter does not meet the test of the scientific method, and claims merely by the speculation of large periods of time that higher forms came from lower forms and that new species were created. The scientific record simply does not support that conclusively, and historically struggling scientists have fabricated some remarkable hoaxes in an effort to convince that it is so. If it were so evident, such hoaxes would not have been necessary, and if it were so evident, the theories of macro-evolution would not be ever changing (not simply ‘evolving’, but rendering past theories incorrect).
Did you come up with that concept yourself?
Based on what? “More likely”? What are your parameters for “likelihood”?
Here’s a historical premise (actually, a series of historical premises, all verifiable historically):
-
A messianic movement in the second Temple period dies with the death of the messiah. The validity of someone as messiah is actually invalidated by his death.
-
A messianic movement may continue if the ersatz messiah has an immediate family member to whom the messianic mantle may be transferred (e.g., the Maccabee brothers…).
-
Messianic claims were made about Jesus.
-
Jesus died.
-
Jesus had a brother.
-
Here’s where it gets crazy: the messianic movement persisted after his death, but the messianic mantle was not transferred to his brother! In fact, his own brother acknowledged that Jesus was still Messiah (not “a messiah” but "the Messiah!) after his death!
-
Even worse, very early after his death, his followers associated Jesus with YHWH himself, although they were fierce monotheists.
-
The movement persisted “against all odds” in the face of a culture (or cultures) that were inherently opposed to the basic tenets of the movement.
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday? Well, That’s Fantastic?
Something “as unique and unusual as the resurrection” must be introduced to explain this bizarre historical anomaly. If not the resurrection (and I’m not saying this “must be the only solution”), then what?
The facts I have outlined are historically verified and undeniable. What’s missing is the explanation. So now we have a bizarre outlandish claim that solves a thorny historical problem. There’s some “extraordinary evidence” right there, and if you dismiss it (because of, say, a priori presuppositions that require you to dismiss something “supernatural”), you are stuck with an extraordinary historical anomaly that itself requires an extraordinary solution.
1 Like
That’s not a leap. It’s a series of incremental steps.
2 Likes
Oh, I agree. But I think there are people out there who deny the resurrection of Jesus but still consider him worth following. I read a book once, I think by Malcolm Muggeridge, in which he described the body of Jesus rotting in mass grave, but still considered Jesus worth following (although I think he “came around” to the idea of physical resurrection later in life).
1 Like
No you can’t. Faith isn’t about gritting your teeth and believing anything and everything.
Added edit: I think @Totti was absolutely correct, though, that God is key to the discussion. You seem to be prone to forgetting that this is a Christian site where most participants already [axiomatically] accept an active God’s existence and (many of us) reject your compulsion to “prove” God on Scientistic terms.
[Edits and additions happened…]
2 Likes
Keep reading my friend, keep reading…
Sounds very much like an ID argument you are making. Very unlikely things happen in evolution all the time. Perhaps your argument will work better among the creationist crowd.
1 Like
Yeah, but see, that’s actually not true. People have created hoaxes about the Bible, too. That doesn’t discredit the Bible. An “evolution hoax” is not crafted in the struggle to verify evolution; it’s crafted to give notoriety to the “discoverer.”
3 Likes
I just interpreted @SuperBigV as paraphrasing the quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” (from Carl Sagan I guess). So I don’t think @Super just made this up. It’s a good sentiment as far as it goes.
1 Like
Of course. But how much evidence is “extraordinary”? Extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence. I’d like to claim that I made that up, but have insufficient evidence to support it–I actually heard/read it somewhere else, but I can’t remember when/where.
Well … sure. The quote is a subjective thought; not a precise quantifiable claim. I wouldn’t have chosen the word “extraordinary” myself, but that was how Carl Sagan originally said it, apparently. The general thought is, the more extraordinary a claim is, the higher your threshold for “sufficiency” will also be regarding evidence for it. We probably all agree on that though we would all have our own ideas about how much is needed to meet “sufficiency” in all the various situations.
[edits for clarity]
I agree, but the tone of the quote (and how it’s consistently dragged into the argument as if it’s some kind of legitimate “final word”) suggests that there is no level of sufficiency for such extraordinary claims. Really, it amounts to a pre-emptive dismissal so as to prevent the quoter from actually contending with existing evidence.
1 Like
I don’t get the reason for your question. No, I’m not the originator of this phrase or concept. I do think, however, that it’s a reasonable proposal. I think it was Richard Carrier who said, that if one claims to have a car, (even if they don’t have a car) then it’s easy for people to accept the claim without much evidence. Cars are very common and it’s not unreasonable that a person would have a vehicle. On the other hand, if a person claims to have intergalactic travel capsule, then you need much more evidence. Because, unlike a car, no one has ever seen such a capsule and so, much more evidence will need to be presented for that claim.
Are you sure about that claim? How many Messiah’s were there AFTER Jesus, do you know? Simon Bar Kohba was a Messiah approx 100 years after Jesus!
You don’t know much about Jesus’ movement. As far as I know, very little is known about the Jerusalem church and what they believed. What we can make out, is that there was a conflicting theologies and interpretations regarding the Law of Moses and beliefs in general.
But here is what I don’t get. the SAME thing could be said about John the Baptist! Belief in his resurrection also persisted, and it’s recorded by the Gospel authors! According to numerous Gospel passages, the people thought Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead. Setting aside their ‘mistake’, we can derive the same conclusion from John the Baptist’s followers too.
As far as is known, there is little trace of this movement in Judea and Galilee! The movement flourished in Rome and Greek speaking regions of ancient Syria and other Roman provinces.
But historically it’s very unlikely that an actual resurrection took place. EVERYTHING the science explained had a natural explanation. Based on our experience, a natural explanation is much more likely!
One natural explanation, is that, like William Lane Craig says of Matt, 27:51-53 Saints resurrection (describing which he uses the word " bizarre" ), was simply a story, apocalyptic literature. Same could have been written about Jesus’ resurrection. It’s just a story.