Too often the existence of God is dismissed on superficial terms. You say there is no proof? You say we cannot know? Here I will list a series of claims about Jesus being the Son of God-God incarnate. These claims lend support to the Christian faith and the existence of God. To start off however, I would like to list a few questions, three questions, that relate to case of Jesus. These will serve as guides for the rest of the discussion. Here they are:

#1. Was Jesus a real person in history?

#2. Who did Jesus claim to be?

#3. Can the resurrection of Jesus be accounted for?

In order for any skeptic to justly deny the existence of God, they must first consider these questions, which form the base of the Christian faith. This is a wake up call if anything that God was on earth and that we can know Him.

Welcome to TWeb, Casa. Your questions are familiar and have been discussed, in one form or another, on this site before. I'm sure you'll find they've been discussed many places. I'll give you my answers.

Originally posted by Casava18

Too often the existence of God is dismissed on superficial terms. You say there is no proof? You say we cannot know? Here I will list a series of claims about Jesus being the Son of God-God incarnate. These claims lend support to the Christian faith and the existence of God. To start off however, I would like to list a few questions, three questions, that relate to case of Jesus. These will serve as guides for the rest of the discussion. Here they are:

#1. Was Jesus a real person in history?

Although you will find atheists who dispute this, I personally think he existed as a person. There seems to me to be sufficient evidence to accept this as highly probable.

Originally posted by Casava18

#2. Who did Jesus claim to be?

Now you wander into a grayer area. The bible debicts Jesus as claiming to be the "son of man" and refers to god as "his father." There is a strong flavor of his claiming to be divine. What is unclear is if these were actually Jesus' claims, or were they a post crucifixion theology that was then retrofitted back to Jesus? I don't think there is any way to know with certainty whether the claims the bible depicts as originating from Jesus were his own.

I have to go with "I don't know" on this one.

Originally posted by Casava18

#3. Can the resurrection of Jesus be accounted for?

And then you slip into even grayer area. One cannot even demonstrate conclusively that the resurrection actually occurred. And if there was a "missing body" there are a host of non-supernatural ways it could have occurred. As for the reports from the "believing community" after the supposed resurrection, again there are a host of possible explanations for where those beliefs and reports originated that do NOT require a supernatural event. So yes, I can provide possible explanations for what could have transpired to lead to the stories reported in the christian bible.

Can I prove which of them was the actual course of events? No. That information is more than likely lost to history. But I see no reason to accept the recounting of the NT as "historical fact" for this part of the narrative.

Originally posted by Casava18

In order for any skeptic to justly deny the existence of God, they must first consider these questions, which form the base of the Christian faith. This is a wake up call if anything that God was on earth and that we can know Him.

To you, perhaps, Casa. And, I must admit, at one time to me as well. No longer. There is a lot of cultural force behind it - but the notion of god simply does not hold together in any belief system I have explored.

Michel

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

Now you wander into a grayer area. The bible debicts Jesus as claiming to be the "son of man" and refers to god as "his father." There is a strong flavor of his claiming to be divine. What is unclear is if these were actually Jesus' claims, or were they a post crucifixion theology that was then retrofitted back to Jesus? I don't think there is any way to know with certainty whether the claims the bible depicts as originating from Jesus were his own.

And I think to suggest that the early Church re-invented the church to suit their needs would imply a incredible level of gullibility among the early Christians. Epsecially when you consider how early after Jesus's death the Chrisitan movement started, and how distastfull the Jesus they supposidly invented would have been to both Jews and Romans.

I think its far, far more likely that Jesus invented the Church, instead of the other way around.

And then you slip into even grayer area. One cannot even demonstrate conclusively that the resurrection actually occurred. And if there was a "missing body" there are a host of non-supernatural ways it could have occurred. As for the reports from the "believing community" after the supposed resurrection, again there are a host of possible explanations for where those beliefs and reports originated that do NOT require a supernatural event. So yes, I can provide possible explanations for what could have transpired to lead to the stories reported in the christian bible.

Can I prove which of them was the actual course of events? No. That information is more than likely lost to history. But I see no reason to accept the recounting of the NT as "historical fact" for this part of the narrative.

Granted there are non-supernatural explanations for these things. However I dont think we should prefer such explanations simply because they dont rely on the supernatural. We need to look at the evidence we have and see which explanation(natural or supernatural) best fits. Most natural explanations I'v found fall flat on at least one point or another(usually more than one), and that Jesus really did rise from the dead is the best explanation for what we have now.

Although, maybe theres an explanation I havent heard that will fit better. Or maybe someday we'll find evidence that will point towards some other idea, but as of right now I see no reason to doubt that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

Originally posted by Sir-Think-A-Lot

And I think to suggest that the early Church re-invented the church to suit their needs would imply a incredible level of gullibility among the early Christians. Epsecially when you consider how early after Jesus's death the Chrisitan movement started, and how distastfull the Jesus they supposidly invented would have been to both Jews and Romans.

I think its far, far more likely that Jesus invented the Church, instead of the other way around.

STAL, the theology of Christianity has been evolving for 2,000 years. It was not a "finished" thing from the moment of the birth, life, or death of Jesus of Nazareth. Paul breathed a lot of life into it. Even in the earliest church there was discord about what the theology was, and fights over the trinity, the divinity of Jesus, etc. By the time the gospels are recorded, the theology of the early church had already seen evolution and articulation.

And over 2,000 years, the evolution has been enormous - as has the fractioning of the church, which began almost from the very beginning. With all due respect, I think it's a little naive to think Jesus left behind a completely defined theology or even christology.

Originally posted by Sir-Think-A-Lot

Granted there are non-supernatural explanations for these things. However I dont think we should prefer such explanations simply because they dont rely on the supernatural. We need to look at the evidence we have and see which explanation(natural or supernatural) best fits. Most natural explanations I'v found fall flat on at least one point or another(usually more than one), and that Jesus really did rise from the dead is the best explanation for what we have now.

Although, maybe theres an explanation I havent heard that will fit better. Or maybe someday we'll find evidence that will point towards some other idea, but as of right now I see no reason to doubt that Jesus really did rise from the dead.

I have to disagree, STAL. I don't reject the supernatural out of hand - but the "supernatural" is exactly that - what transcends the natural. Without a good definition of the natural, and without eliminating natural explanations, we cannot know it is actually supernatural. And ALL supernatural claims I have EVER had interaction with have proven to be false or contrived. I have ZERO evidence that there are real supernatural phenomena as claimed by the bible and so many other theologies and mythologies throughout the ages.

And the so-called "evidence" of the bible is not compelling. I guess I have the same reactions to it that you do - with the opposite result. Every defense of it I have heard is so contrived and makes so many assumptions, I cannot even begin to accept them as true or even possible.

Michel

Originally posted by Casava18

#1. Was Jesus a real person in history?

It seems likely. The story of Jesus conforms to the typical pattern of a messianic cult figure who ran afoul of the authorities of that time. There are many similar cults with cult leaders who exhibit similar behavior.

#2. Who did Jesus claim to be?

It's not possible to separate who Jesus claimed he actually was, and the founders of the Roman christian movement claimed he was years after his death.

#3. Can the resurrection of Jesus be accounted for?

Yes, fairly easily. These accounts were embellished by true believers as the record of the actual events that occured were obscured through the passage of time. The accumulated verbal legends about Jesus were eventually written down years later and simply assumed to be fact.. as they are to this day by true believers.

Originally posted by Carpedm9587

What is unclear is if these were actually Jesus' claims, or were they a post crucifixion theology that was then retrofitted back to Jesus? I don't think there is any way to know with certainty whether the claims the bible depicts as originating from Jesus were his own.

Why not?

"Because I find it incredible" is not an answer.

The whole game of "retrofit" could be played just as readily for any historical figure. If some later Christian could think of Jesus saying X, it's hard to see why Jesus himself could not come up with the same idea. It's also hard to explain why devout Jews would invent such things.

One cannot even demonstrate conclusively that the resurrection actually occurred. And if there was a "missing body" there are a host of non-supernatural ways it could have occurred.

Specifics? Or is that too much to ask?

STAL, the theology of Christianity has been evolving for 2,000 years.

Oh, please. Spare me this rehearsed canard and vague claptrap. Specifics.

By the time the gospels are recorded, the theology of the early church had already seen evolution and articulation.

No. The presentation of the Gospels and Paul is uniform on central points and variable only on peripherals within which there was room for speculation. Pick a core doctrine and explain why not.

I think it's a little naive to think Jesus left behind a completely defined theology or even christology.

I think you need to do a lot more homework.

I have to disagree, STAL. I don't reject the supernatural out of hand - but the "supernatural" is exactly that - what transcends the natural.

No. It is an artificial category invented by secularized thinkers who forced a dichotomy that doesn't exist, based on the identity of the performer.

* Carpe picked up a box. Big deal.
* God picked up a box. MIRACLE! Violates the laws of nature! Haaahaaahaaaa haaaa!!!

I have ZERO evidence that there are real supernatural phenomena as claimed by the bible and so many other theologies and mythologies throughout the ages.

Hume again? Sigh....tropical prince....ice....there's Hume's headstone, to the left.

Every defense of it I have heard is so contrived and makes so many assumptions, I cannot even begin to accept them as true or even possible.

Well then you won't mind a trip to the chopping block with me, will you?

Originally posted by jpholding

Why not?

"Because I find it incredible" is not an answer.

The whole game of "retrofit" could be played just as readily for any historical figure. If some later Christian could think of Jesus saying X, it's hard to see why Jesus himself could not come up with the same idea. It's also hard to explain why devout Jews would invent such things.

The game of retrofit can't be played by multiple disinterested parties however. This distinguishes historical accounts from religious myths like the Bible, the consilience of accounts by parties with no, or widely differing agendas.

And it's rather easy to explain why the obviously non-devout Jews who abandoned judaism to follow Christ would invent such things.

No. It is an artificial category invented by secularized thinkers who forced a dichotomy that doesn't exist, based on the identity of the performer.

* Carpe picked up a box. Big deal.
* God picked up a box. MIRACLE! Violates the laws of nature! Haaahaaahaaaa haaaa!!!

A special category based on the identity of the performer? Explain then why in the absence of proof to the contrary you would not accept both of these claims.

* Jesus raised the dead 2000 odd years ago in Jerusalem.
* Carpe raised the dead yesterday in Decatur.

Yes, fairly easily. These accounts were embellished by true believers as the record of the actual events that occured were obscured through the passage of time. The accumulated verbal legends about Jesus were eventually written down years later and simply assumed to be fact.. as they are to this day by true believers.

Claims found in the earliest Christian writings:

1. Jesus' claim to be Messiah

2. Jesus' claim to be the Son of God.

3. Jesus' empty tomb and resurrection.

Now prove that these were embellishments...

Originally posted by Casava18

#1. Was Jesus a real person in history?

#2. Who did Jesus claim to be?

#3. Can the resurrection of Jesus be accounted for?

In order for any skeptic to justly deny the existence of God, they must first consider these questions, which form the base of the Christian faith. This is a wake up call if anything that God was on earth and that we can know Him.

I have considered those questions. I do not think being a skeptic is a matter of "justice". I do not think "not believeing" is the same as "denying" exactly.
If seer's god showed up on my back porch, and I said, hey, get out of here you insane narcissistic meglomaniac or I am getting my shotgun, then that would be more like denying.

You are asking me to accept a 2000 year old mythological system that is unverifiable, unnatural, unsubstantiated, and based on oral traditions and very similar in some respects to OTHER existing and past religious systems, and to say it is the ONLY possible truth, and then imply my disbelief is somehow an "injustice" to something.

Your statement strikes me as a bit insane.

Originally posted by Zeluvia

You are asking me to accept a 2000 year old mythological system that is unverifiable, unnatural, unsubstantiated, and based on oral traditions and very similar in some respects to OTHER existing and past religious systems, and to say it is the ONLY possible truth, and then imply my disbelief is somehow an "injustice" to something.

Your statement strikes me as a bit insane.

Well prove that it was myth, rather than honest men accurately setting forth truth. We can start there...

Originally posted by seer

Claims found in the earliest Christian writings:

1. Jesus' claim to be Messiah

2. Jesus' claim to be the Son of God.

3. Jesus' empty tomb and resurrection.

Now prove that these were embellishments...

Okay.

Given the tiresome frequency of such claims by the followers of cult figures even today, I'd say it's highly likely that the early christians were no different. Nuff said.

Welcome, Casava18.

Originally posted by Casava18

Too often the existence of God is dismissed on superficial terms. You say there is no proof? You say we cannot know?

I don't think that a lack of objective evidence is superficial. On the contrary, I think it's the entire crux of the matter.

Originally posted by Casava18

In order for any skeptic to justly deny the existence of God, they must first consider these questions, which form the base of the Christian faith.

But I don't think we can consider questions like this in isolation. We can't simply say that the only evidence we have for the resurrection is the Bible and we need to deal with only that to decide what actually happened. Rather, we have an entire framework, a network, of facts about the world. The likelihood of the resurrection having occurred rests on how well it fits into that network while still maintaining consistency. Today we observe that people do not come back from the dead. It does not rain fire and seas do not divide. There is no objective evidence of God, angels, demons, miracles, ghosts or witches. If all this were true, why shouldn't it be plainly obvious? Why do these things always only exist as mysterious, untestable claims?

Originally posted by Sir-Think-A-Lot

Granted there are non-supernatural explanations for these things. However I dont think we should prefer such explanations simply because they dont rely on the supernatural. We need to look at the evidence we have and see which explanation(natural or supernatural) best fits.

I think we're probably going to need a definition of “supernatural” here. As far as I know, supernatural means beyond detection; that which cannot be detected or measured. It these things could be detected and measured, then they wouldn't be considered supernatural, they'd be natural. So I don't think we can go on talking about some supernatural realm as if it's some sort of viable alternative. It hasn't even been shown to exist let alone be the cause of any claimed events.

I do think that we should prefer explanations that don't rely on supernatural explanations. These explanations fit more consistently with the natural world we already know, a world we can observe, test at will, and make predictions about. Appealing to a supernatural cause is not an explanation at all. All you're saying is that some event happened as a result of an unknowable cause. That's no explanation.

Originally posted by jpholding

No. It is an artificial category invented by secularized thinkers who forced a dichotomy that doesn't exist, based on the identity of the performer.

* Carpe picked up a box. Big deal.
* God picked up a box. MIRACLE! Violates the laws of nature! Haaahaaahaaaa haaaa!!!

As far as I know, God is already defined as being supernatural by theists. It's an artificial category invented by them to try to explain where this god is since we can't seem to detect him. Is it your belief that God levitating a box should be considered a natural event and we should consider God to be natural? How shall we define the word “natural” then? God, as defined, is unlike any other natural thing.

Originally posted by seer

Well prove that it was myth, rather than honest men accurately setting forth truth. We can start there...

It's very easy for men to imagine and then write down any fantastical event on paper. But it is very unlikely, based on the whole of human experience, that such events actually happen. So the burden of proof is with you to show it is not a myth.

Originally posted by seer

Claims found in the earliest Christian writings:

1. Jesus' claim to be Messiah

2. Jesus' claim to be the Son of God.

3. Jesus' empty tomb and resurrection.

Now prove that these were embellishments...

Agreed, seer,
These are easily shown from the four canonical gospels.
However, Rationalist and others are skeptical that we can trust everything (or for some of them, anything) in the gospels.
The first claim is unclear to many because Jesus usually called himself "the son of man". To anyone unversed in Bible lore, this seems like a statement of humility. In any case, one can question whether in saying this (if he said it) Jesus was equating himself with the divine person of Daniel 7:13, "the Son of Man".
The second claim hinges mostly on the Gospel of John. Traditionalists (both Catholic and Protestant) shoot themselves in the foot by dating this gospel to the 90's instead of to the 60's where it belongs. By the traditional reckoning, Jesus's "Son of God" claim is not in the earliest documents.
The third claim is not easily provable as being in the earliest documents because so many think of Mark as the earliest Christian writing and ending at 16:8. Luke as author does not claim to be an eye-witness and the Gospel of Matthew does not show the evidences of eye-witness testimony as is found in Mark and John. All these objections can be overcome, and I have done so both here in TWeb and in other publications.
So Rationalist does have a point, and in 1960 I would have agreed with him without reservation. It took me a couple of years of research to get beyond these doubts.
Adam

Originally posted by jpholding

Why not?

"Because I find it incredible" is not an answer.

The whole game of "retrofit" could be played just as readily for any historical figure. If some later Christian could think of Jesus saying X, it's hard to see why Jesus himself could not come up with the same idea. It's also hard to explain why devout Jews would invent such things.

Specifics? Or is that too much to ask?

Oh, please. Spare me this rehearsed canard and vague claptrap. Specifics.

No. The presentation of the Gospels and Paul is uniform on central points and variable only on peripherals within which there was room for speculation. Pick a core doctrine and explain why not.

I think you need to do a lot more homework.

No. It is an artificial category invented by secularized thinkers who forced a dichotomy that doesn't exist, based on the identity of the performer.

* Carpe picked up a box. Big deal.
* God picked up a box. MIRACLE! Violates the laws of nature! Haaahaaahaaaa haaaa!!!

Hume again? Sigh....tropical prince....ice....there's Hume's headstone, to the left.

Well then you won't mind a trip to the chopping block with me, will you?

Chop away, JP. I'll sit over here and watch ---->

Originally posted by seer

Well prove that it was myth, rather than honest men accurately setting forth truth. We can start there...

The events you posit your faith on happened over 2000 years ago, verifying anything about them is very difficult. Even the earliest Gospel was not written concurrent with Jesus's lifespan, but after his death. So what you have is an oral tradition. Humans make things up everyday. Over the course of 2000 years, alot of things get made up.


The only possible PROOF of the truth of your myth would be if a prediction about the future that was very specific came true, in other words something like the return of Jesus or the Rapture, or on an individual basis, I end up burning in hell for all eternity.

If these predictions don't happen, it is further evidence against your book, and your belief system. No matter what pretzels are doing gymnastics in your head, seer, Jesus said he was coming back soon according to your book. According to Revelations, no one in the entire world would be able to miss the second coming.

How many more thousands of years are you going to argue the book is true, when it's predictions don't happen?

Originally posted by sandlewood

I think we're probably going to need a definition of “supernatural” here. As far as I know, supernatural means beyond detection; that which cannot be detected or measured. It these things could be detected and measured, then they wouldn't be considered supernatural, they'd be natural.

I'm actually using the word 'supernatural' very loosly here(I would actually rather not use it at all, however I dont know of a word that better describes the concept I'm trying to get accross), in this case to refer to actions by beings that are not normaly observed.

However as JP pointed out its a false dichomoty. The miralces of God are not any more violations of the laws of nature than we violate the laws of nature when we pick up a box. They're simply God acting in ways he is capable of. Hypotheticly speaking, we could probably reproduce the miralces of God with advanced enough technology(indeed, theres one brand of skeptics that claim that all ofJesus's miralces are the result of some sort of super-advanced alien technology)