That was not the twelve, it was one among them (Thomas). A person who appeared to be more sceptic than the rest. Jesus showed himself to Thomas but did not thank him for his demand to see and touch before he believed.
There are no reports that the others (the rest of the twelve + Paul) demanded to see Jesus. Jesus decided to appear to them, at least partly because of the special tasks the persons were given. The apostles were the key witnesses of what they had heard and seen, with the personal consequences of suffering and being killed because of their faith.
By the way, how would you know if the person appearing to you is Jesus?
Thomas knew because he had lived with Jesus for years before the event.
But God could have created the conditions for a self-organizing process that did not require all this suffering, injustice, and death.
No. Omnipotence means that God can do anything, provided it is logically possible. And a universe that does not depend on predation, cannibalization, indifference, coldness, and entropy would certainly have been possible without violating either free will or the need for challenges in order to grow as individuals. I do not feel challenged when I contemplate the horrors that occur in nature; I feel horrifiedâespecially because they are not the result of free will, as human evils are. A hyena slowly devouring a baby deer is not committing a moral evil; it is simply acting according to its nature. Yet that very nature is intrinsically structured in a way that brings about pain and death.
This is true in the case of human evil. But the universe itself appears sociopathic in natureâcold, indifferent, brutal, harsh, and amoral. Just like Satan.
A God of love simply would not allow all this suffering to occurâplain and simple. That is why I believe that all the suffering and indifference we see in the natural world and the universe are the result of a demonic rebellion and that the universe would have been very different without it. It is also why I find that theologianâs arguments very compelling; I arrived at a similar view even before becoming aware of them.
Also, God can intervene in evolution, just like He did when he ensouled the first rational humans. What you are talking about sounds more like the god of the deists than the true God Who revealed Himself in Jesus Christ
Again, this works for human evil. Not for natural evil.
This is highly questionable. It may be an orthodox opinion, but it is still open to serious doubt. This is evident from the fact that many theologians hold that the angelic rebellion occurred at the beginning of time. Moreover, demonic possessions were reported long before Christ came. Just be aware that this opinion of yours is definitely questionable (just like mine), even if you are entitled to it.
It is also true that they all fled, except for John. Yet later, they became willing to die in order to bear witness to the Gospel. Peter went from denying Jesus three times to asking to be crucified upside down in Rome for one reason and one reason only: he had seen and touched the risen Jesus and understood who He truly was. And the latterâunderstanding who He truly wasâwas a consequence of the former: having seen and touched the risen Jesus. Thomasâs case was different, as he remained skeptical despite the testimony of the other disciples, whom he knew to be reliable. Yet none of them would have become martyrs had they not seen the risen Jesus.
Also John fled, all the synoptic gospels agree on this. The gospel according to John does not tell who fled but hints that John was afterwards following Jesus with Peter (probably at a safe distance). I have read speculation that the young man mentioned in Mark 14:51-52 could have been John. John was a young man at that time (guestimates around 18-27 years) and according to tradition, lived until the end of the century (died around the year 100 CE, at the age of 90+ years).
Seeing and talking with Jesus certainly affected Peter but according to the first chapters of Acts, the crucial difference that changed the behaviour of Peter was what happened during the Pentecost: the receiving of the Holy Spirit.
But an omnipotent God could have ensured that death was painless, and that neither predation nor excruciating suffering existed.
But that is because this world is marred by sin. Adam and Eve, the first rational humans capable of entering into a covenant with God, were living in a kind of heavenly state, but this was disrupted by their sin.
If myâand othersââspeculation is correct, namely that the present state of the universe is also a consequence of angelic sin, then the universe might have turned out very differently. We, as human beings, live in a fallen world because we bear the consequences of sin. Who is to say that the universe is not as it is because of the satanic rebellion?
That rebellion was immense, especially since angels are far more culpable than humans, being wiser and more intelligent. The Bible even suggests that they are ontologically superior to us (Hebrews 2:7: âYou made them a little lower than the angelsâ).
For this reason, it makes sense to me that their sin would have had profound consequences. Moreover, their greater intelligence and wisdom help explain why a single sin was sufficient for their condemnation: their will is not weakened by frailty in the way ours is (which makes their sin far graver in its consequences).
I meant that John was the only one who remained at the crucifixion.
Sure; even though the received the Holy Spirit even when the risen Jesus appeared to them. John 20,19-22: âOn the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, âPeacebe with you!â After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.
Again Jesus said, âPeace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.â And with that he breathed on them and said, âReceive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyoneâs sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.â
The Pentecost was certainly crucial but the resurrection was even more crucial, and in fact Saint Paul said that if the dead are not raised we might as well eat and drink (that is, indulge in unbridled pleasure) for tomorrow we will die.
Maybe we have a differing use of words here. For biologists, such as klw and me, predation is a word that means that a creature consumes living creatures that may or may not be killed before the consumption. In the widest sense, it is a relationship where one individual benefits (+) and the other suffers (-).
Unless all creatures die because of heart attacks, old age or hunger, predation is the most common way how creatures die.
Classifying predation as âevilâ is a curious sign of how humans have alienated themselves from the rest of the creation. âGoodâ in the sense of Genesis 1 may be understood as âworks as intendedâ that can include predation.
Suffering in the sense of feeling pain is basically a beneficial reaction that helps creatures to note and avoid serious damage or destruction. Psychological suffering may sometimes have a similar function: it can be a sign that something in the environment or body is not ok and should lead to a response to avoid the causes of the suffering.
In that sense, suffering itself is not âevilâ although suffering may sometimes be caused by âevilâ.
Regarding this, the book of Tobit (which is accepted as divinely inspired by both the Catholic and the Orthodox Church) is very clear
Tobit 3:8: âSarah had been married seven times, but the evil demon, Asmodeus, killed each husband before the marriage could be consummated. The servant woman said to Sarah, You husband killer! Look at you! Youâve already had seven husbands, but not one of them lived long enough to give you a son.â
Tobit 3:17: âRaphael was also ordered to expel the demon Asmodeus from Sarah.â
And the book of Tobit has been written centuries before Christâs incarnation.
So yeah, the idea that the angelic rebellion occurred after Christâs birth is definitely questionable.
And yet we know that the in the world to come there will be no predation anymore, the wolf will live with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the goat. Which means that itâs highly unlikely that predation is seen as something inherently good in Godâs eyes. Furthermore, predation itself is only a word: itâs the pain that comes with it the real issue. And we know that animals feel real, proper pain.
Reproduction and death go hand in hand. If there is no reproduction, also death may become unnecessary.
The âwolf will live with the lambâ is a metaphor. If death/predation ends, there will be no more reproduction = no more lambs. Otherwise, such conditions would lead to great suffering because the space becomes too crowded with individuals.
I added some words about pain and suffering to my previous message. You just responded so rapidly that your comment came before I had saved the edit.
A scenario where all creatures die because of heart attack or old age would certainly not have been impossible, for God. This is what i meant: predation, and most importantly the excruciating suffering that comes with it, was not intrinsically necessary, certainly not for a living and omnipotent God. Which brings me and others to believe that there are other reasons to explain the current order of things.
In addition, the entire universe is governed by entropy, which to me is the exact opposite of a âlovingâ principle.
The universe naturally drifts toward disorder and decay.
Because of entropy, everything:
breaks down
deteriorates
eventually dies
This includes living organismsâso entropy is tied to aging, disease, and death.
A loving God would want flourishing, not decay.
This is what led me and others to beliefs that the current order of things is far different from Godâs original will. And this is why demonic action and rebellion can help explain why things are the way they are.
I donât know. I do believe that there will be animals in the world to come, and I donât think there will be predation or death. What you said is certainly true in the present order of things, but I believe God could have created a very different orderâone that does not rely on death to be sustainableâand we may well see such an order in the world to come. Of course, all of this is speculative; we have no way of knowing the truth until we arrive there. We can only speculate about it.
I agree with what you say here. But I think your disputant has a more detailed conception of God than any mortal being is entitled to. I blame it on Bible worship and refusing to acknowledge that every mortal prophet is expressing something implicitly true which resists straightforward prose. No prophet is an eye-witness for God, just a poet who uses language to conjure implicit understanding even in some who cannot do so themselves.
Going back to this quote, I think describing creation as the ordination of a ruler again takes what is implicitly true and twists it until it becomes explicitly false. Whatever God may be, He doesnât create through dictatorial power like a puppet master. He creates the possibility of what may become but doesnât seek to determine how it turns out. We are not free from free will.
I think you are correct in connecting the free will with the topics of creation and suffering. Some combinations are not compatible.
If there is free will, it will lead to wrong decisions that cause suffering.
In a similar manner, letting the universe to develop according to the natural laws of physics will occasionally lead to local destruction. If beings with free will are âin the wrong place in the wrong timeâ, they suffer - an earthquake or eruption of a volcano is harmful for the persons that happen to be at the site of destruction.
Jesus could suddenly appear in my living room and show me his crucifixion wounds. Very simple. According to the Gospels, none of the Twelve (except maybe John) and Paul believed Jesus had resurrected until he (allegedly) appeared to them. Think about this: If the Gospels are historically accurate, Paul had access to the empty tomb and over 500 eyewitnesses who allegedly saw the resurrected Jesus at one time and place. Yet, he did not believe until a talking bright light appeared to him on a dark desert highway. Why? Was he stupid? Or, maybe there was no rock tomb or 500 eyewitnesses?? If Paul needed an appearance of a talking bright light to believe, so do I.
Absolutely. But this means that humans can do evil and suffer, free will doesnât explain the existence, much less the necessity, of natural evil, and evil that makes suffer innocent beings like the animals.
Not merely occasionally. Entropy entails that the entirety of physical reality is, in a fundamental sense, oriented toward decay, disorder, and eventual dissolution. I do not wish to impose my beliefs on others; however, Ipersonally find it impossible to reconcile this with the existence of a perfectly loving Godâunless one posits that some event occurred which altered the original state of the universe and the manner in which it was intended to function.
How can you love a God who created a world of horrific mass suffering that operates according to the brutal randomness of evolution? Fear him, yes, but love him? I donât get it.
The Word IS God. If we are in the Word, we are in God.
This sets up a standard higher than God â which means it isnât talking about the God of the Bible. It also assumes that the one making the statement is sufficiently all-knowing to judge the situation accurately.
What we observe deserves some kind of explanation.
One way to react is to blame the falls (heavenly creatures, or humans) or the acts of âevilâ. The interpretation you advocate seems to be such a way to respond to phenomena you do not like, like increasing entropy.
Another way to react is to accept that God created this kind of a universe, for whatever reason. We should adjust our interpretations to this fact.
It seems evident that there are âevilâ things or acts in the current reality, and there is the hope and trust that God will change both us and the conditions in the coming Kingdom of God. It does not mean that phenomena like entropy, decay or predation would be inherently evil. They are part of the creation and God called it âgoodâ in the creation story of Genesis 1.