So you don’t conceive of him as possessing personhood, agency, will or emotions, for instance?
1 Like
Yes, that’s the biggest problem for me as well. Why does God choose to create a world with such vast amounts of suffering and then, in Genesis, make it sound as if it’s all our fault? Evolution is in many ways an arms race between predator and prey - disease and immune systems. The world may be beautiful and fascinating at times, but it’s also terrible.
The traditional response was that God created man with free will and, with that free will and a little encouragement from Satan, we chose to disobey him, thus plunging the world into the nightmare of the ‘fall’. But that doesn’t wash if we evolved from primate ancestors. And read Romans 9:10-24 to see how high a regard God has for human freedom.
I am a believer, but mainly because of personal experience - and sometimes my faith is stretched very thin.
1 Like
Hmmm, … if you were saying the opposite, then I misunderstood you. I’ll try to unravel my misunderstanding later and by myself, rather than on the “bumper-car” court.
1 Like
I do believe in it. I was just saying it’s always bothered me because it almost feels like this weird extravagant departure. It was almost like it’s goal was to be seen in this mythological way. But I guess Since the Jews may have believed that we were under a dome and heaven was really in the skies behind the clouds it makes sense that he would leave in that fashion. Just gife what we know now it’s weird since we don’t believe that heaven is a kingdom beyond the clouds out of sight.
1 Like
I think one significant influence on all this is the ancient cosmology, which still heavily haunts our language today long after our cosmologies became much more sophisticated. Everybody in church today would know exactly what you meant if you said “I had help from above” … never (Lord forbid!) would you say “I’ll ask for help from below.” Everybody “knows” heaven is “up” and hell is “down” - even now. We recognize it as figurative if pressed about it now, but mere centuries ago and on back into biblical times, they would have been dead serious about those sorts of directionalities. The celestial realm is where angels fly, and God is above that yet. In other words, the higher up you go, the closer to airy, celestial perfection you get. The lower you go (down to earth), the closer you get to the heavier muck and mire of a sinful world. And keep going down below that even, and it culminates in Hell. They didn’t think of earth as “center” (that would be a post-Copernican concept that sees earth as just one planet among many worlds out there, even if it did happen to be the center one.) But no - they thought of it (us) as being at the “bottom” - the dredge of the universe - last stop just above Hades and Hell.
Now … how does this make any sense of the account of the ascension? It doesn’t. I mean - if one wants to concede that they wanted to concoct an elaborate departure story fitting for a God - then of course where else would they have him go but up? But many Christians wouldn’t be comfortable with disciples making that part up, because that’s fooling with literal truth of accounts, and we usually aren’t allowed to venture there on pain of doctrinal expulsion. But trying to put too much doctrinal weight on a literal understanding of one passage such as this does lead to the sort of silliness that has a Soviet Cosmonaut returning after his first venture into space with the taunt: “I didn’t see any god up there.”
[somebody was later said to have retorted… “If you had opened your hatch you would have.”]
1 Like
Started listening to the video and it has certainly grabbed my attention right away! 
My answers to the questions posted…
W L Craig has been wrong about many things and this is certainly one of them, because there are lot’s of people who have not made up their mind. I think that the important question is who or what is God and people are likely to decide whether it exists or not based on their answer to that question.
Science requires faith. For religion to be reasonable it must be consistent with the findings of science.
The God I believe in chose love and freedom over power and control. So He created a universe run by the automatic operation of natural law in which the self-organizing process of life could begin.
Are books simply ink on paper? Consciousness is a property of life, and life is a self-organizing physical process. Most of the life we see and understand is in the medium of chemical processes. The “soul” is an invention of a number of religions which believe in things like reincarnation and the Gnostic belief that this fragment of the divine was trapped and imprisoned in a physical body. The spirit is not a part of the mathematical space-time structure of the physical universe, but it can take its form and essence from the choices of a physical living organism.
Nothing. If there is such a thing, then it has no part of the measurable universe.
We tend to accept by faith the recommendations of religion regarding sexual behaviors which it claims to be harmful to our spiritual well being.
I would hope that people would not put any faith in the claims of religious people and organizations who ask people to participate in such things.
It can be all of these things.
It can be moral if this is something which people do to themselves. This is in fact what we see in the world so often, people making some portion of the earth a hell for themselves and/or others. How can it not be moral for people to face the logical consequences of their own choices.
After watching the video I see that the questions were more of a summary of the video and part of the suggestion that this is the sort of thing a class on apologetics should explore rather than the things in W L Craig’s book. This would be a much better title for the thread: What questions should a class on Apologetics explore?
Here is a suggestion: How about looking for the questions that the various books of the Bible are addressing and talk about those. Of course this doesn’t apply to all the books of the Bible but it does to some of them.
1 Like
I like all the points in this post! Thanks. Well put.
No guarantee that I can dispel your self-acknowledged confusion, but here’s my response. First, I think it might be useful to identify the topics raised in your questions.
- What is a spirit?
- Can a spirit relocate, transform into something else, or evaporate/dissipate/vanish?
- Is our universe three dimensional? Or does it have more than three dimensions?
- When do anthropomorphic/terrestrial descriptions refer to actual persons, places and events, and when are they metaphors or allegories for other concepts?
- How do Jesus’ post-resurrection events tie into the foregoing: i.e. were they metaphors or allegories, or were they actual events?
re: #s 2, 4, & 5. My position is that Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances and his ascension were mot metaphors, allegories, or creative fiction; they were literal, physical, material events; that Jesus literally ascended: from the ground, up, until he was out of sight.
I realize that the post-resurrection accounts are from different sources and can evoke a desire to reconcile them and the temptation to discount or “interpret” one or all of them, but I remember events from my youth which my brothers and I witnessed together. And listening to us talk about those events, one might wonder how many actually happened and whose version was closest to being accurate. So, the different post-resurrection accounts don’t trouble me: the Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus
- Regarding Jesus’ post-resurrection activities:
- Mark 16:1-8. An angel appeared to Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome; but Jesus does not appear to them.
- Mark 16:9-20Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first who tells others; then he joins two men walking in the country, later to the eleven disciples; and finally “is received up into heaven”.
- John 20. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene who doesn’t recognize him at first; then to the disciples minus Thomas in a room with closed doors; then to the disciples including Thomas.
- Matthew 28. Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene and “the other Mary”, and later to the eleven disciples in Galilee. No ascension is mentioned.
- Luke 24. Two angels appear to the women at the tomb; but Jesus does not. Later, Jesus joins Cleopas and another man on the road to Emmaus, who don’t recognize him. Jesus was at the dining table with the two men and then vanished from their sight. Subsequently, he appeared to his disciples, then “While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven.”
- Acts 1:3. “After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days …” “After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them.”
- 1 Cor. 15:3-7. “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [Paul]”
- Philippians 3:20-21. But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself." (Paul)
- Summary: Initially not recognized after his resurrection, Jesus appears as a man, but was transformed from “being a man” as we understand a man to be into a spirit, capable of being recognized and relocating in 3-dimensional space like a man (i.e. walking on land), and capable of materializing and vanishing at will, and capable of relocating off the ground and then vanishing in sequence, i.e. ascending into a cloud overhead/being taken up into heaven. Those events were–I say–literal, physical, material events and were neither metaphors nor allegories.
(To be continued)
2 Likes
I think the point about Jesus not being recognized is a good one. It certainly seems to be a common point throughout the diverse portraits. I would qualify the reference in Mark 16:9-20, however, since most scholars think the Gospel ended with verse 8.
Vinnie
1 Like
Good points. I don’t have a problem with the Resurrection (there were at least 10 other resurrections in the OT and NT, not counting the multitudes who came to life again after Jesus died). I just don’t know if the actual ascension, which seems to convey information that doesn’t make sense, was apocryphal or not. I do believe in the Resurrection.
Regarding the question on the spirits and presence–I was following a bit of a philosophical red herring for fun more than anything, I think.
C S Lewis had a meditation about how he would have been surprised if the Russians had found God in space.. I found it interesting as to the 3rd and 4th points
I am curious which faith questions would be best, in your opinion, to address in a church apologetics class?
Thanks.
- IMO, “our” universe is the only universe there is. Because the notion that there are more than one universes is speculative and because one universe is sufficient to contain the whole of Reality, including God, no other universes are needed.
- Pythagoras (c. 570 - c. 495 B.C.) is credited with calling the universe: ὁ κόσμος [ho kosmos], because he viewed the universe as a complex and orderly entity or system, as opposed to chaos.
- The Cosmos is a set of things once called atoms (i.e. uncuttables/indivisibles) which are enaged in an ongoing process called: “moving through the void”. In order to describe the behavior of the atoms–i.e. in order to speak sensibly about motion–it is necessary to begin with postulating the existence of two metric spaces. Only then are there distances and durations, so that one can divide one by the other and thus compute a speed, without which no speech about motion is going to have any meaning. It is not strictly necessary that one of the metric spaces, i.e. Space, have only three dimensions and the other, i.e. Time, have only one dimension. However, those dimensions are sufficient and are all an atom needs to have one position somewhere in Space at any single instant of Time.
- Space is a set. The elements of space are points. Space is the set of all points. Any two points are some distance each from each, each such distance being r meters for some non-negative real number r.
- Time is a set. The elements of time are instants. Any two instants are some distance each from each. each such distance being the product of a non-negative real number and a unit of distance, such as .03 days or 2,592 seconds.
- There is nothing wrong with the notion of space that occurs in classical mechanics, by which I mean Newton’s absolute space, which does not move or expand or change in any way with the passage of time but serves, together with time, as the standard by means of which changes in positions, sizes and shapes are measured. There is not and never has been any evidence of any kind that even suggests that this notion be called into question, much less any evidence that contradicts it. There is no valid philosophical objection to it either, since it is not known to involve any inconsistency.
- There is nothing wrong with the notion of time that occurs in classical mechanics, by which I mean Newton’s absolute time, which passes at a uniform rate everywhere in Space and serves as a standard for measuring the rate of change of anything that changes. There is not and never has been any evidence of any kind that even suggests that this notion be called into question, much less any evidence that contradicts it. There is no valid philosophical objection to it, either. It is not known to involve any inconsistency.
- However, previously, when I proposed an infinite and eternal universe (i.e. a universe in which atoms move through Absolute Space during Absolute Time) [Source: On the intersection of an Infinite and Eternal God and Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity], the response of a Biologos forum member was:
“In science the notion that space or time are absolute are shown to be incorrect in so far as we can measure them …” which appears to me to mean: Absolute Space and Absolute Time are false concepts because we can’t measure them; in which case I suppose “God” must be a false concept because we can’t measure Him.
(To be continued)
Granted. Of course the notion that the universe is unique is equally speculative.
- You must not be a fan of Occam’s Razor; and
- If the universe is infinite and eternal, why would one need more universes and where would you put them?
You’re right. All I’m certain of is that the decision between there being one unique universe or a multiverse* must be essentially indeterminate if Occam’s Razor is needed to make the decision. May as well flip a coin.
I don’t know the first thing about the universe with any certainty. Infinite? Eternal? Beats me. I don’t even need a concept of a universe in my human life and where to put them is not a decision to be made at my level of being.
*I don’t think there is any reason to assume there must be an infinite number of singularity events unless there is only one. Multi just means more than one as far as I know.
1 Like
Another one that has always been weird to me is how it goes out of the its way in the gospels to mention that Jesus withered a tree for not producing fruit despite knowing it was out of season. I completely understand the analogy as far as a tree not bearing fruit as a reference to fruits of the spirit and how it’s withering away and dying was to showcase being destroyed. But it would have made more sense to me if it was not producing fruit in season, versus obviously not producing fruit out of season.
One that has bothered me for a while and ive not really got a good answer on is this one also.
Isaiah 65:17-25
New American Standard Bible
New Heavens and a New Earth
17 “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;
And the former things will not be remembered or come to [a]mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;
For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing
And her people for gladness.
19 I will also rejoice in Jerusalem and be glad in My people;
And there will no longer be heard in her
The voice of weeping and the sound of crying.
20 No longer will there be in it an infant who lives only a few days,
Or an old person who does not live out his days;
For the youth will die at the age of a hundred,
And the one who does not reach the age of a hundred
Will be thought accursed.
21 They will build houses and inhabit them;
They will also plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They will not build and another inhabit,
They will not plant and another eat;
For as the lifetime of a tree, so will be the days of My people,
And My chosen ones will fully enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They will not labor in vain,
Or give birth to children for disaster;
For they are the descendants of those blessed by the Lord,
And their descendants with them.
24 It will also come to pass that before they call, I will answer; while they are still speaking, I will listen. 25 The wolf and the lamb will graze together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox; and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will do no evil or harm on all My holy mountain,” says the Lord.
When I’m reading about the new heavens and earth here, it mentions many of the same things as in revelation. But a stark difference is that it seems to imply on this new heaven and earth there will still be death and descendants which is different from eternal life post resurrection and not being handed over to marriage like the angels.
But I’ve not been able to really dig into it yet.
1 Like
I do. I know that, in the universe that I live in, my wife and dog are my wife and dog, not yours; and your wife and dog are not mine, they’re yours. I conclude that there’s at least one universe, and that the opinion that our universe is unique is not as speculative as the notion that there are more than one universes.
1 Like
- That question was evoked by your questions:
- “Does a spirit ‘go’ anywhere in our three dimensional universe? Isn’t it more of another dimension? In the same way that God doesn’t have physical nostrils, don’t we sometimes use anthropomorphic and terrestrial images to convey a spiritual concept?”
- In my previous responses to your questions, I’ve addressed the questions as if the resurrected Jesus is the one who does all the “going”, “appearing”, and “vanishing”; and I hope I’ve made it clear that, IMO, I take the scriptural references to his actions literally–not metaphorically nor allegorically. Moreover, it’s my position that the post-resurrection, pre-disappearance Jesus was (and still is) a spirit and not what we would call a typical human being, but–as a spirit–he was nevertheless substantial, material, physical, and real, which is what I believe a spirit is.
- If–as I believe–a spirit is substantial, material, physical, and real and is capable of coming and going on earth or appearing and vanishing at will, perhaps you’ll understand why I don’t believe that the account of Jesus’ ascension is apocryphal. Does it stretch one’s imagination? Yes, initially it does, … if one is unprepared for it. That’s why disbelief and rejection are more common than belief and acceptance: lack of preparation.
- My last post to you was preparatory. This post is too. How so? They introduce you to the possibility of things that you may never have thought of or that you might otherwise think are impossible, such as an infinite, eternal Cosmos filled with particles, once called atoms, that we can’t see or currently measure that move through Absolute Space in Absolute Time.
- At this point, it’s important to distinguish Absolute Space and Absolute Time from mainstream science’s “spacetime”. They are not only not synonymous, they are completely different things. “Absolute Space” and “Absolute Time” are abstract nouns that refer to abstract concepts which have no physical, substantial, materiality, as such: they are continua, and cannot be stretched or compressed. Only physical, substantial, material things can be stretched or compressed because they owe their mutability to the fact that they are not continua: like sheets of rubber and pools of water, physical, substantial, material things consist of discrete, moving and interacting parts.
- Once more, for emphasis: The Cosmos is not a continuum. It consists of discrete parts moving through the void, i.e. Absolute Space.
- IMO, when Jesus said “God is Spirit” (John 4:24), he was telling the Samaritan woman that God is physical, substantial, material, real, and capable of doing many marvelous things. That’s neither a metaphor, nor an allegory, nor apocryphal.
If I tried to explain what falling in love is like to someone who never has been in love and has never known anyone well who has, it is more difficult than if he experienced it himself or knew others well who had been so blessed.
I’m a bit confused yet. All your arguments seem grounded in the physical world, which by definition does not include what is supernatural–correct? Again, I’m not arguing the Resurrection.
Thanks.
I have no trouble believing Jesus could ascend into the atmosphere over Judah. He could do it anywhere He wanted. However, there’s no reason to go into space, or to believe that the clouds are His throne, when we know that the universe is not a 3 tiered panorama, there is no raqiyah/firmament, and there is no substance to clouds. It’s about as confusing as the omphalos hypothesis (not that that’s what you’re saying). Thanks.
2 Likes
Let me ask you:
- I have offered you a definition of Absolute Space, which is not a substance. It is, in fact, an abstract concept for infinite (i.e. boundless), eternal, perfect, complete Nothingness without exception, right?
- And I stated that Absolute Space contains stuff that, at its most basic level, consists of little things (once called, by Pythagoras, atoms i.e. indivisibles), all moving through Absolute Space, right?
- If every physical, substantial, material thing in Absolute Space is Something moving through Absolute Space and consists of very small things–called, by Pythagoras, atoms–each occupying one dimensionless point (i.e. without length, width, or thickness) at any instant of infinite, eternal, Absolute Time, and each little thing has some quantity of Mass, then what, pray tell, is Supernatural, if it is neither Nothing (which is not physical) or Something (which is physical)?
I didn’t think you were. However, … let’s look at what Paul wrote in ! Corinthians 15:50-52. “Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised and we will be changed.”
Changed? From what to what? I say: From flesh and blood humans, no?
To–I say–physical, substantial, material, and real, but not human, spirits. How do you propose that that could be done?
Hopefully, you will grasp that, IMO, what you refer to as Supernatural is–in my book–not only possible, but also physical and natural.
- No substance to clouds? What do you think clouds are if they are neither Nothing nor Something?
- I agree that there’s no reason to believe that the clouds are anybody’s throne and that the universe is not a 3-tiered panorama.
- As for whether or not there’s a reason for Jesus to go into space, where else would someone go who told Pilate: "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.” (John 18:36) If Absolute Space is boundless, then Jesus went somewhere in space. Why he went somewhere is moot, although he did say his kingdom is “not of this world or realm”. I figure he went to his kingdom, wherever that is.