And which “reconciliations”, if made by someone else more sympathetic to Scripture, might you acknowledge as realistic or legitimate alternate explanations, rather than concluding a contradiction? Or would you think for real that these explanations are simply desperate attempts to reconcile a bona fide contradiction?
Well, it’s a question for you. I think the Gospels are full of contradictions but Christians are very creative at reconciling them. This is not limited to Christianity but to religious people in general. I mean, you’d probably agree that the Koran has contradictions and it’s a purely human book. And yet, the contradictions in the Koran will be harmonized by Muslims just as Christians will harmonize Bible contradictions.
Someone already brought up the example of Mark’s Gospel resurrection accounts that are obvious forgeries (i.e. Mark 16:9-20). Did you know that Mark’s Gospel also has Jesus saying… NO sign will be given this generation?
Mark 8:12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does his generation ask for a sign Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” And, maybe NO sign was given? Luke quotes Jesus as saying there will be a sign given. Sign of Jonah.
Again, you can reconcile anything, but in the process, you are creating your own narrative, your own Gospel if you will. And these reconciliations are very obvious to those who are unbiased observes. The religious love them, of course, as they help justify their faith.
Basically, I’m convinced that Christianity cannot be true based on the false promises of Jesus. Marshall Brain’s God is Imaginary website makes a strong point on these. Will Christians be convinced? I doubt it. I think each person needs to decide what they value. Truth or religion. Most value religion (in my experience). I even heard a few preachers say that even if Jesus did not rise from the dead, it’s better to believe that he did.
I think that ultimately this is the value of religion. It gives people hope. Atheists will die and cease to exist. This is sad. Christians never die. They will exist forever in a blissful afterlife for ever and ever and ever. Who doesn’t want to live forever?
2 Likes
Not to me. It kind of misses the point. Without a megaphone I’m not sure how you could even speak to a crowd that large, let alone accurately distinguish between a spread out crowd of 4,000 vs 5,000? I mean, are we to imagine them sitting in nice ordered columns and rows so they could have been rough counted? It says groups of 50 or a 100 in some of these accounts but these numbers are probably to be considered estimates that are vaguer than they appear. Some logistical difficulties would go away if we assumed these were highly exaggerated crowds. Or should we imagine Jesus’ positioning himself in a perfect, natural, acoustic amphitheater? Or maybe he used his powers to just imprint his thoughts on his listeners? How spread out would 100 groups of 50 actually be? Logistically, how long would it take the disciples to pass out the fish and bread to such a large spread out crowd? Per Luke 9:16 Jesus had to break and pass the items to his disciples. How long would it take him to do that for 5,000 fish and pieces of bread? Do the math. Maybe the disciples should have doubled back after serving the last person/group and given them the leftovers for breakfast.
Matthew 14:21 makes it worse: “The number of those who ate was about five thousand men, besides women and children.” (see also 15:38)
1 Like
As a Christian, I say, “Scary.” I am not sure I have ever seen that. But it would ultimately be self defeating and very dangerous. Our kids, at least, would see through us.
Randal Rauser talks about the importance of atheists and Christians for each other. I am grateful for the New Atheists and evolution. My faith has changed a lot–for the better. It has a ways to go to get closer to the truth, but I hope I don’t shirk. It’d be a mess–and my kids, of course, will see right through me. They already do, and keep me more honest than I might have been!
1 Like
Well, if Jesus can walk on water, he can order. the groups of people. Besides, Matthew and Luke don’t say they counted the people. Perhaps it was supernaturally revealed to them. If there is a will to believe there will be a way.
A friend of mine is becoming a Gnostic Christian. He started realizing that the Old Testament God cannot be the same as Jesus. And he doesn’t think NT is without errors. We have many things in common. I actually would e thrilled if there would be a God who is love. But my experience tells me that I’m on my own. If there is a God, he either cannot or will not make himself known.
1 Like
He doesn’t do well with dares or demands or any other dogmatism from us.
[See linked topic: Finding God or him finding us]
1 Like
The same sources that have all these logistical problems with this miracle are the ones also alleging a man walked on water. I’d say you do the math but you are already resorting to a very problematic notion to defend a logistical nightmare. Since I do believe Jesus was God incarnate, I do find it possible he worked genuine miracles but I would never suggest the Gospels present reliable evidence for specific miracles. They do not. There are lots of rejected claims to the miraculous–in antiquity especially.
Also, if you resort to the miraculous explanations every time you encounter a logistical problem you render the text worthless historically. No historian or critical scholar is going to resort to “magic” every time a contradiction or logistical problem arises when analyzing a written work. You are arguing poorly from the presumption of inerrancy and grasping at any logical possibility you can find.
The inerrancy apologist is always standing above you on a never-ending hill which he can retreat up indefinitely. With his theological antivirus software running in the background, there is no error, regardless of how obvious, pious imagination cannot harmonize away. Truth is, there is no possible way to prove an error to a person with a cult-like belief that will grasp at anything to avoid the obvious truth sitting in front of them.
I don’t. Or at least not without a significantly transformative overhaul of how I think and operate in this life. I think older people may be more and more sensitive to the naively youthful character of wishful immortality. It is imagined that the body is the only thing that grows old or tired or broken or in need of rest. And so then if we could just overcome that hurdle - of our own obstinately aging flesh, we would then be freed into a bliss of never-ending life. But that presumes that we would continue to like life such as we imagine we know it (almost always the mindset of somebody still in the throes of earthly pleasures - or at least the hope of more earthly pleasures to come). But our flesh isn’t the only thing we grow weary of (or in); without a total transformation of our evil selves, a forever that is spent with ourselves (and yes - that is exactly how our evil selves would spend it) becomes a hellish state - not a blissful one. Lewis has this insight in “The Magician’s Nephew” where Digory expresses his concern to Aslan that the witch has already partaken of some fruit which will make her live forever. Aslan’s reply is to the effect that “forever, spent in a life of evil is not an enviable place for anyone to be, and ‘already she begins to know that’.”
I’m not ready to be any sort of eternal being until I’ve been cleansed and fitted to it by the only one in whom I invest my hopes. If and when that happens, I trust it will only be a good thing in Christ. Not at all what our poor imaginations can conjur up of such a thing now. Imagine your favorite experience or meal or … whatever. Now imagine an eternity experiencing nothing but that! Uggh. It wouldn’t take long for it to become a hell. Just as the child naively wishing their every meal could be nothing but chocolate. We grow up and know better than the child in that regard. But regarding eternity - we are still that child in the manner of our imagination of it.
Never be satisfied with anything less than that.
6 Likes
I like your tag–I think that all of us honestly are agnostic. I’m not sure what “gnostic Christian” is.
Based on the NT, it can be somewhat of an unforgiving God based on knowledge–making flesh evil in contrast. However, that isn’t want this sounds like. I’m learning on this.
Very convenient. Why would the same excuse not work for the God Baal?
I’m not entirely sure either. As I understand it, he’s following the heretic Marcion’s teachings.
1 Like
Well, if we read the Bible, a life of evil could be right there in the Old Testament. A place where invaders can kill you, your wife and children except they can keep all the virgins for themselves. With explicit blessing from the God of love. This is the Biblical God and whatever eternity modern Christians look forward to will be spent with this God, am I right?
Does what you described sound like a righteous god to you? If not, then be assured at least of this one thing. No true God of Love (such as Christians see in Christ) would be less righteous than you or me. If somebody’s interpretation of any biblically recorded events has them or you thinking that God would rejoice in such things, then be assured that such an interpretation has no truth in it. Woe to us all if we were more righteous than God. But that would be an incoherent contradiction to the very definition / teaching of the Spirit as understood by prophets and Spirit-led church leaders up and down the centuries.
2 Likes
That it would work for Baal apologists does not undermine its validity in any way. An apology is a good place to start when someone screws up. Because an apology is useful for many people in no way undermines its utility. The answer may work for many religions because they share common themes or they don’t posit a primitive, xenophobic, tribal God concerned with giving people theology multiple choice tests. Nor should God ever have to play tricks and roll over for a human. It kind of comes with the definition and distinction between “God” and “Man.” That God was willing to incarnate and humiliate Himself in the person of Jesus speaks volumes to me about his Love and Grace. Jesus is the greatest love story ever told to me and it ended far more badly than Romeo and Juliet but at least it had a second, happier ending.
Your post reminds me of my buddy who’s embracing Gnosticism. I wish you were right and this God would show up in my life in a clear and recognizable way. But based on what I find in the Gospels, I must, if I’m honest, remain an agnostic atheist. Jesus made some promises that a righteous being of his power would have to follow through on.
Think of it this way. Imagine that I found a cure for all childhood cancer. I have tested it with 100pct cure rate. And then I promise that I will cure all childhood cancer, make sure as many parents know about it as possible…and then disappear. Would this be a righteous act?
If Christianity is merely an intellectual exercise, then it’s not worth much.
Wait a minute. I thought science cannot conclude this. How are you making this determination that a God Baal is not real?
By the evidence of God’s providence and by trusting in legitimate testimony.