Jesus’ Characteristics and History as presented by Matthew
1. He was conceived by God through Mary.
2. He performed miracles.
3. He spoke to the Scripture.
4. He spoke as though he had authority.
5. He called the disciples to continue his teachings.
6. He was a prophet.
7. He was crucified.
8. He was resurrected and walked the earth in physical form.
Jesus and the Old Testament Prophecies
Matthew was obviously written for a primarily Jewish audience. So, it should not come as a surprise that it is the most laden with Old Testament verses and references. Much of Matthew is comprised of fulfillment passages, where the acts of Jesus are directly said to be fulfillment of OT prophecies. Matthew goes well beyond OT prophecies in his fulfillment passages. He cites OT verses that are not direct prophecies – verses that illustrate to him that Jesus is unquestionably the embodiment of the Word of God. Many scholars feel that this is Matthew’s own commentary and that this is why these fulfillment remarks vary from the other gospel accounts. I think this is probably the case; though, Jesus’ own assertions that He was the messiah likely prompted these passages. It’s likely, too, that the Biblical accounts of Jesus’ encounters with the Pharisees were not the only events of that kind, so it may be that Matthew was able to attribute to Jesus those qualities that Jesus verbalized as lacking in the Pharisees.
When Matthew speaks of fulfillment, I think it’s clear that he believes Jesus to be the messiah and that the fulfillment of OT prophecies coupled with the embodiment of Scripture is his way of presenting the most convincing case for Christ to the Jews. In large part, I think these verses should be viewed as tools to help better understand the mindset of Matthew.
1:23
"Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
2:13
Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, "Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him." And he rose and took the child and his mother by night and departed to Egypt and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, "Out of Egypt I called my son."
4:12
Now when he heard that John had been arrested, he withdrew into Galilee. And leaving Nazareth he went and lived in Capernaum by the sea, in the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali, so that what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled: "The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, the way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles—the people dwelling in darkness have seen a great light, and for those dwelling in the region and shadow of death, on them a light has dawned."
8:14
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "He took our illnesses and bore our diseases."
12:15
Jesus, aware of this, withdrew from there. And many followed him, and he healed them all and ordered them not to make him known. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah: "Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles. He will not quarrel or cry aloud, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets; a bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not quench, until he brings justice to victory; and in his name the Gentiles will hope."
13:34
All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable. This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet: "I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter what has been hidden since the foundation of the world."
21:1
Now when they drew near to Jerusalem and came to Bethphage, to the Mount of Olives, then Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, "Go into the village in front of you, and immediately you will find a donkey tied, and a colt with her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, you shall say, 'The Lord needs them,' and he will send them at once." This took place to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet, saying, "Say to the daughter of Zion, 'Behold, your king is coming to you, humble, and mounted on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a beast of burden.'"
26:47
While he was still speaking, Judas came, one of the twelve, and with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people. Now the betrayer had given them a sign, saying, "The one I will kiss is the man; seize him." And he came up to Jesus at once and said, "Greetings, Rabbi!" And he kissed him. Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you came to do."Then they came up and laid hands on Jesus and seized him. And behold, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his ear. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must be so?" At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples left him and fled.
27:3
Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned by betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since it is blood money." So they took counsel and bought with them the potter’s field as a burial place for strangers. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me."
Several of these passages attribute the fulfillment quotations to Jesus Himself. In later weeks, I will compile a list of these passages to aid in the examination of the Old Testament.
Jesus the Prophet
Jesus prophecizes both the destruction of the temple and His own death.
24:1
Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down."
26:1
When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, "You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified."
26:20
When it was evening, he reclined at table with the twelve. And as they were eating, he said, "Truly, I say to you, one of you will betray me." And they were very sorrowful and began to say to him one after another, "Is it I, Lord?" He answered, "He who has dipped his hand in the dish with me will betray me.
26:34
Jesus said to him, "Truly, I tell you, this very night, before the rooster crows, you will deny me three times. "Peter said to him, "Even if I must die with you, I will not deny you!" And all the disciples said the same.
The Crucifixion
27:32
As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross. And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, "This is Jesus, the King of the Jews." Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, "You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross." So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, "He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, 'I am the Son of God.'" And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.
Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" that is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, "This man is calling Elijah." And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. But the others said, "Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him." And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit.
And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, "Truly this was the Son of God!"
The Resurrection
28:1
Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. But the angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you." So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them and said, "Greetings!" And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me."
The Great Commission
28:16
Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him, but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
The “Great Commission” surfaces in each of the gospels. Jesus called upon the disciples to continue His ministry. And it would seem that they did so with fervor.
Difficulties in Matthew
Jesus the Nazrene (2:23)
There are a few OT passages that Matthew paraphrases (e.g. Micah 5:2, Isaiah 9:1). There are a few potential explanations for why Matthew would “be called a Nazrene,” but the most likely one seems to be that Nazareth was a bit of a dump and “Nazrene” would have been a scornful term. This fits well with the prophetic idea that He would be “despised and rejected.”
Three Days and Nights
Matthew is clear that Jesus rose from the grave on the third day; yet, Christ said that he would be “three days and three nights” in the earth. In other Biblical passages (i.e. Esther), it is clear that “three days and nights” does not mean 72 hours; rather, it means any part of three days/nights.
Most of the passages sometimes thought to be inaccurate are believed to be so in comparison to the other gospels. These I will discuss in a few weeks.
Time and time again, Matthew demonstrates that he believes Jesus to be the messiah. The gospel does not offer up explanations to commonplace events; rather, the events of Matthew would be viewed as supernatural in any era (including today). If Matthew’s account is truthful, the events he describes are simply beyond us. Much of the common accounts we'll discuss more in a few weeks, after we have had a chance to view each of the gospels.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
47 comments:
Lack of “literal history and investigative methodology” (The Naïve Disciples). Let’s take a look at what might have really happened if Jesus performed no miracles:
Reported:
4:23-24
And he went throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and healing every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all Syria, and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he healed them.
Actual:
And he went throughout [some of] Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom and [treating] every disease and every affliction among the people. So his fame spread throughout all [the synagogue] (presuming that a medicine man wouldn’t really receive a great deal of fame), and they brought him all the sick, those afflicted with various diseases and pains, those oppressed by demons, epileptics, and paralytics, and he [said they would heal in time, and some of them did].
Reported:
8:1-4
When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, "Lord, if you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; be clean." And immediately his leprosy was cleansed. 4And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them."
Actual:
When he came down from the mountain, [some people] followed him. And behold, a leper came to him, saying, "[Jesus], if you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, "I will; [take a bath]." And immediately [Jesus moved on]. And Jesus said to him, "See that you say nothing to anyone, [since nothing happened here. And don’t] show yourself to the priest [or] offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them."
Reported:
8:5-13
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, appealing to him, "Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, suffering terribly." And he said to him, "I will come and heal him." But the centurion replied, "Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, but only say the word, and my servant will be healed…. And to the centurion Jesus said, "Go; let it be done for you as you have believed." And the servant was healed at that very moment.
Actual:
When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him.
Reported:
8:14-16
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He touched her hand, and the fever left her, and she rose and began to serve him. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.
Actual:
And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever. He [dampened her forehead and blew on it a little], and [said, “Come quick and feel her forehead. It’s cool to the touch”], and she rose and began to serve him [for some reason]. That evening they brought to him many who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the [people] with a word.
Reported:
8:23-27
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing." And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm. And the men marveled, saying, "What sort of man is this, that even winds and sea obey him?"
Actual:
And when he got into the boat, his disciples followed him. And behold, there arose a great storm on the sea, so that the boat was being swamped by the waves; but he was asleep. And they went and woke him, saying, "Save us, Lord; we are perishing." And he said to them, "Why are you afraid, O you of little faith?" Then he rose and [said, “I’m sure it will clear up in a little bit”]. And the men [said], "What sort of man is this?"
Reported:
9:1-8
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming." But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts? For which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he then said to the paralytic—"Rise, pick up your bed and go home." And he rose and went home. When the crowds saw it, they were afraid, and they glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
Actual:
And getting into a boat he crossed over and came to his own city. And behold, some people brought to him a paralytic, lying on a bed. And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven." And behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, "This man is blaspheming."
Reported:
9:18-26
While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in and knelt before him, saying, "My daughter has just died, but come and lay your hand on her, and she will live." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a woman who had suffered from a discharge of blood for twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter; your faith has made you well." And instantly the woman was made well. And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And they laughed at him. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this went through all that district.
Actual:
While he was saying these things to them, behold, a ruler came in, saying, "[unintelligible]." And Jesus rose and followed him, with his disciples. And behold, a [crazy] woman came up behind him and touched the fringe of his garment, for she said to herself, "If I only touch his garment, I will be made well." Jesus turned, and seeing her he said, "Take heart, daughter." And when Jesus came to the ruler’s house and saw the flute players and the crowd making a commotion, he said, "Go away, for the girl is not dead but sleeping." And [he] laughed at [them]. But when the crowd had been put outside, he went in and took her by the hand, and the girl arose. And the report of this [funny incident] went through all that district.
Reported:
9:27-34
And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him, crying aloud, "Have mercy on us, Son of David." When he entered the house, the blind men came to him, and Jesus said to them, "Do you believe that I am able to do this?" They said to him, "Yes, Lord." Then he touched their eyes, saying, "According to your faith be it done to you." And their eyes were opened. And Jesus sternly warned them, "See that no one knows about it." But they went away and spread his fame through all that district.
As they were going away, behold, a demon-oppressed man who was mute was brought to him. And when the demon had been cast out, the mute man spoke. And the crowds marveled, saying, "Never was anything like this seen in Israel." But the Pharisees said, "He casts out demons by the prince of demons."
Actual:
And as Jesus passed on from there, two blind men followed him.
As they were going away, behold, a man was brought to him. And the man spoke.
I go back to the point that the accounts were written when witnesses were still alive. Mythology gets struck down pretty quickly when eyewitnesses are present. Perhaps Jesus would gain a few inches during the telling of His acts; I doubt, however, that a medicine man would become a God in the midst of detractors unless there was a ring of truth to the accounts. I just don’t think it’s prudent to assume that the disciples didn’t believe the accounts as written. If Jesus performed no miracles, these accounts are completely nuts! They’re not bad documentation practices. And certainly there’s no reason to build a religion from this. If the disciples didn’t believe that Jesus performed miracles, there’s no reason for them not to simply move on with their lives like the other Jews who either didn’t believe the miracles or attributed them to the work of demons.
If we analyze Matthew like we would any other ancient work, we might ask what the most likely scenario is. But it’s not a main point for us I think.I’m not sure if there was a soupcon of sarcasm with that remark, but obviously you’re equating “most likely” with “most naturalistic”. If you assume that only the natural is possible then nearly the entirety of the Bible lies outside the “most likely” category by your pre-defined standards, and there’s really no reason for further debate. In my experience, this is generally what the majority of these arguments break down to: It can’t be true because it can’t be true. Jesus can’t be God, because even God can’t be God. If you saw David Blaine levitate on TV, the most likely scenario would be some camera trick. I get that. If you saw it in person, the camera trick would not remain the “most likely” explanation. So, you would search for the next, and the next, etc. But what happens when you run out of explanations? There is a point at which the supernatural becomes the most likely explanation.
Let’s look at the miracle of Jesus resurrecting someone from death. In the case of Lazarus, it is made quite clear that he was dead. Rotting, stinking dead. In-a-tomb-wrapped-with-cloth dead. Wait-three-days-to-deter-notions-of-the-spirit-reentering-the-body dead. Dead. Jesus comes. He’s no longer dead. So, what’s the “most likely” conclusion if you were one of the witnesses? They’ve given you that in the form of the New Testament. So, our job should be to analyze the eyewitness testimony, and to compare that testimony to other sources. That’s what I’m trying to do. We’re two (and sometimes three) steps removed from the acts of Jesus, so I understand a certain level of doubt inherent with our position, but I think you’ll find that the gospels are pretty credible when it’s all said and done.
I don’t think Christians lied outright, though I could be wrong.We’ve debated this one before, but I just don’t understand your stance. If Jesus performed no miracles, and the gospels report hundreds of miracles, call it what you want (mistaken, mis-reporting, naïve), but they’re lying. You’re making the leap that anyone who believes a psychosis or deafness is the result of sin and/or demon possession would be susceptible to believing that no miracles could be “misconstrued” as hundreds of miracles. If Jesus was not a miracle-worker, the gospels are a big, filthy lie. Jesus’ reported works weren’t commonplace. The explanations for things that weren’t understood were often of a supernatural nature. But, in 2009, if you read the accounts of Jesus’ miracles, and you really believe they happened as described, you would be forced to conclude that they were supernatural works as well.
A completely speculative example concerning the Matthew birth narrative:
1. I believe Jesus is the Messiah
2. I think the OT makes it clear that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem.
3. Even thought Jesus is from Nazareth, I will write that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, because obviously he must have been. (Plus I have heard it from others in the Christian gathering in my town)That I get. If you know that Jesus is God, you know that the Old Testament is true, and the Old Testament tells you that the messiah was born here, came from a virgin/maiden, etc, and you decide to incorporate that into your story, that could be an un-witnessed event that isn’t necessarily a lie. That’s a good, solid theory that I think I’ll explore some after the gospel posts.
If the argument is that the four gospels are different because they were checked by eyewitnesses, then once again we can turn to the source and redaction analysis and see that it seems likely that the four gospels are inter-dependent on each other and not four independent accounts in of themselves. Plus, internal validation is suspect, by its nature. Also, the gospels were probably written in different communities throughout the empire, possibly with different traditions.And the hoards of other converts? Those who didn’t believe that Jesus was the messiah? Aren’t they eyewitnesses too? The gospels and Acts speak to thousands upon thousands of witnesses and the growth of the early church makes this a very likely claim. Wouldn’t they be in a position to refute so-called miracles if the events weren’t miraculous? Without the eyewitnesses, there’s no reason to think that Christianity wouldn’t go the way of any other cult out there at the time. The witnesses weren’t limited to the four.
“But some doubted”. Some of the eleven doubted. What does that mean?I don’t know. I imagine that a lot of them had some pretty strong emotions regarding the apparent abandonment by Jesus. It would be a strange position to be in.
Also, Christianity’s relationship with martyrdom is unique in some ways. The followers of Christ looked at his crucifixion and instead of abandoning their mission, they began to see it as the point of Christ’s mission.I don’t doubt that some saw martyrdom as the ultimate act of defiance and perhaps even sought martyrdom once Christianity had gained its foothold. On the other side of that coin, though, as Christianity grew, the Romans started to get a bit of an itchy “trigger finger”.
"My point in all this is not that you are wrong, but rather, can’t you understand why a modern-day, reasonable person, without a prejudice towards Christianity, might look at the evidence and not be convinced? Even if a person thinks that it might be possible for a supernatural event to occur, then what kind of evidence would be required to make that leap? A handful of questionable “eyewitness” accounts, that actually don’t claim to be eyewitness accounts (except John, the last gospel to be written)? Especially when those accounts are from ancient peoples and when we know that people back then used much symbolism and felt free to invent their own stories to express the spiritual truths they experienced?"
I didn’t begin my study of Christianity years ago with a “prejudice towards Christianity”. I began with more of a disdain for religion in general. It was after I began to look at the evidence that I truly opened my mind to the possibility. So, to answer your question, I can indeed understand why a modern-day, reasonable person, without a prejudice towards Christianity, might look at the evidence and not be convinced. That being said, I know that modern day, reasonable people ignore evidence all the time when it conflicts with preconceived ideas. Reasonable people in American right now are ignoring decades of proof that socialism doesn’t work. The only thing that I can do is present the evidence that drew me to Christ in what I feel is a straightforward way. I can’t address every objection to Christianity after each post, but I’m trying to build information so you can see what I saw.
What is disconcerting is that after each post, you’re seemingly not looking for the most reasonable explanation; instead, you seem to know that Christianity is not the most reasonable explanation, so anything that fits with Christianity is likely wrong. You downgrade the early church to a few “questionable ‘eyewitness’ accounts” without even allowing me to explore the historical truths that coincide with these accounts. We’re a third of the way through a very long, in-depth examination. I presented a case why I believe there’s no reason to believe that the gospel writers were making up a Jesus story. That’s not the most likely situation. As you indicated (and I agree), martyrdom would indicate a strong belief. That’s what I’ve been writing about. These people believed. There’s no reason to compare them to every wacko in the media over the last four decades… you could denigrate any group by comparing them to another. They believed.
Also, let’s stop with the ancient, naïve people. Did they offer up supernatural explanations to natural phenomena? Yes. But that is not at all what we’re talking about. If you read the New Testament in 2009, and you believe that the acts of Jesus are true, you would reach the same conclusion: miracles.
Walking on water.
Calming seas.
Healing the incurable.
Resurrecting the dead.
These are miracles in any era. These are the acts… not the potential explanations for the acts.
Skyhook,
Welcome back. I haven’t spoken to all of the historical evidence yet, but it is important to establish that the eyewitnesses are trustworthy first and foremost, because they act as our historical eyes and ears. If no one wrote of the events, there wouldn’t be a whole lot to verify (or disprove). It wouldn’t be prudent for me to toss aside our best accounts right out of the gate. And it will be much easier for you to examine critically the accounts as written in the gospels. The great thing about the gospels is that much of the writings cite specific historical periods, specific places, and specific events that are verifiable. I know you’ve likely thought what is this guy going to write for another 35 weeks? There are four gospels, only one Paul, and none of it will ever amount to proof of anything. The Bible is a fantastic historical resource, with tons of information. Luckily for us, though, the Bible is not our only resource.
We’ve talked at length about thermodynamics and relativity, and I don’t believe any Biblical accounts work against these theories. I certainly don’t believe that any event having taken place in the last two millennia could be combative to the theory of natural selection (a theory that I have not spoken against). Germ theory basically says that germs cause disease, right? The writings never cover how diseases are cured in the Bible, so I’m not sure there’s anything antagonistic there either. Pasteur himself was a Christian. I’m unaware of any historic scientific principles (e.g. evolution, relativity, germ theory, thermodynamics, gravitational theory, etc) that must be “falsified” in order to believe in Christ. If you want, just think of God as one who can work within and control quantum mechanical probabilities.
I apologize for the length of these thoughts. I appreciate the opportunity to REALLY think about subjects like the supernatural. Thanks for the chance, Randy.
“If Jesus performed no miracles, these accounts are completely nuts! They’re not bad documentation practices. And certainly there’s no reason to build a religion from this. If the disciples didn’t believe that Jesus performed miracles, there’s no reason for them not to simply move on with their lives like the other Jews who either didn’t believe the miracles or attributed them to the work of demons.”
“I doubt, however, that a medicine man would become a God in the midst of detractors unless there was a ring of truth to the accounts.”
I tend to agree here. There must be a ring of truth. What is that ring? The miracles stories described here are writings of Christians in various communities who exchanged stories about Jesus. Are they eyewitness accounts? They do not claim to be.
How do we explain miracle stories? There are many attempts. I have read accounts which accept Jesus as a literal miracle worker; Accounts of Jesus as a herbal healer drawing on the knowledge of his religious sect using natural medicines to cure the blind of conjunctivitis, etc; Accounts of Jesus’ miracles as symbols (he caused the blind to see, the deaf to hear, people to understand); accounts of Jesus where his later followers mythologize him - a common practice for followers of anyone in the ancient era, so many Hellenistic hero stories; Accounts of Jesus as the radical social revolutionary who healed people’s illnesses by accepting them into society; etc etc etc.
How do we explain miracles performed by Vesapian as recorded by Tacitus and other Roman historians? How do we explain the miracle stories recorded at the healing temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus? How about the rain miracles attributed to Honi the Circle Drawer in Judea? How about the miracles which happen everyday in today’s world to people of all different religions? I don’t know.
But here are some things we do know: Ancient people communicated through mythology. The power of the human mind is extreme in both accomplishing physical feats and in altering perception. Jesus was not accepted as Messiah by the majority of his contemporaries. Those who presumably knew Jesus best, people from Nazareth, are described as not believing in Jesus’ miracles and seeing no miracles . Others in Jesus’ day were thought to be able to exorcize demons. Sickness and natural calamity in the ancient world were attributed by many to deities. The gospel writers believed in the miracles of Jesus. Paul, our earliest Christian writer, had little interest in the pre-resurrection Christ of history - he mentions no miracles. To him, Jesus was proven as Messiah because God raised him up into heaven from the dead - and God did this because of Christ’s righteousness and it was the sign of the beginning of the end of time. I’m sure there are many other factors to consider.
“you’re equating “most likely” with “most naturalistic”
Is this not a good starting point?
I know you feel that additional evidence contributes to the idea that the “supernatural” is the best explanation for some phenomena. A couple of problems with this physical logic.
First, the supernatural has not been shown as necessary to explain anything except the Bible itself. With the beginnings of the universe, life, morality, etc. there are huge gaps in our knowledge. So why postulate the OT God as the cause? To prove the Bible.
Secondly, I feel that you are using the impossible to prove the impossible. (paraphrase) “mass delusion is impossible, therefore physical resurrection must have occurred” Well, how about reversing that sentence “physical resurrection is impossible therefore mass delusion must have occurred.”
I don’t believe the Jesus movement was total mass delusion. I’m just demonstrating the problem of using the impossible as a proof for the impossible.
“But what happens when you run out of explanations? There is a point at which the supernatural becomes the most likely explanation.”
But what does “supernatural” mean? It physically contributes nothing to explanation. And we already have no explanation. A friend described the claim of supernatural this way - “explaining the unexplainable with no explanation.” Secularists and Theists agree that there are many things we do not understand. They may even agree that there are certain things that, by their nature (and ours), we are unable to understand. That is as far as reason takes us. But then a theist labels that lack of understanding as an act of God, and plugs in a deity into the equation, which does nothing to alleviate the missing explanation. Doesn’t this violate Occam’s razor?
Once again, I don’t have a problem with approaching God as spiritual, as a leap of faith - but everything here attempts to avoid faith and spirituality and replace it with a “scientific” approach that seeks to "institutionalize" holes in knowledge, then it inserts imaginary philosophy into the holes which contributes zero to any augmentation of physical understanding.
The reason why is because, from a modern viewpoint, it is quite easy to disregard ancient writings as mythology, or as natural phenomena explained in supernatural language. It is easy to do this without the idea of the supernatural. It is even easy to do this if the supernatural is just viewed as unlikely. Even conservative Christians claim that God rarely intervenes to violate his created natural laws. So the supernatural is, at the very least, unlikely, and since we have shown that the claim “supernatural” offers nothing to further explain physical phenomena, but rather focuses on the lack of explanation and then seeks to posit a speculative anthropomorphized deity behind it, we can see that the point of the concept “supernatural” is not to explain physical phenomena (like it WAS in the ancient world) but is rather used to justify the writings of ancient people as literal history from a modern perspective.
I pray to God everyday. But I do not have a dogma against those who don’t. That is because I think there is only one reason to believe in God - if you want to.
“So, our job should be to analyze the eyewitness testimony, and to compare that testimony to other sources.”
This is where textual criticism also becomes important. Where did the writers, “2-3 steps removed from Jesus”, get their information? It’s hard to know, but when we can see that Mark has been copied (and corrected grammatically and theologically) by Matthew (and Luke), then we see how the stories take shape.
Here’s a basic example of Matthew correcting Mark’s rustic grammar:
Mark, when speaking of the widow’s mite, writes, “everything she had her whole living”. Matthew fixes the grammar writing, “all the living she had.” Just an insignificant grammatical fix for Mark’s coarse writing. These are all over Matthew. He also “enhances” Mark’s accounts making Jesus slightly more supernatural as pointed out in earlier posts.
Matthew uses 600 of Mark’s 661 verses in his story.
We might add that the second-century churchman Papias writes that Mark recorded his story from Peter’s recollections (according to Eusebius anyway), but that he did not have it “in (proper chronological) order”. Why would Matthew have the same sequence of events? Either Papias was totally or partially wrong on Mark’s sources (or Eusebius was) which is distinctly possible, but still - if we think Mark is close to Peter’s recollections in any way, but it is out of order, then why does Matthew (and Luke) duplicate that order of events? Just an interesting point.
This is all just the tip of the iceberg in analyzing the interdependence of these texts.
Also, I’m sure we both agree that later Christians continued to mythologize Jesus more and more through the extra-canonical gospels. You are suggesting that those “2-3 steps removed” from Jesus would not mythologize (for instance, author of Mark, Matthew), but that those 3-4 steps from Jesus (Gospel of Truth, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, etc.) would. If the authors of the gospels had the disciples to correct them, then wouldn’t the next generation of Christians have the authors (and readers) of the gospels to correct them? Aren’t we really just dealing with a culture that favored theme over literal history quite a bit? People wrote "histories" and attributed ideas to historical figures to justify positions in their current environment.
The truth is that there were several strands of apostolic authority, and several different groups of early Christians. One of many examples - The early, prominent Christian lead Valentinus wrote (probably) the Gospel of Truth, an extra-canonical gnostic work. Valentinus was a disciples of Theudas who was in turn a disciple of Paul.
Now I’m not suggesting that there weren’t arguments in the second century about these works. Ireneaus couldn’t stand Valentinus - but then again we have many, many disagreements in the first century too. The author of Matthew seems to hold Torah Law as important for Christians. Paul definitely disagreed! Peter disagreed with Paul on this. Many in Corinth didn’t believe in the resurrection of the dead. Christians who did not believe in the resurrection! Paul had to correct them in 1 Corinthians 15. Claims of false apostles are rampant in the NT.
So there have been disagreements for as long as there has been Christianity.
“The explanations for things that weren’t understood were often of a supernatural nature.”
As they still are by many.
“the Romans started to get a bit of an itchy “trigger finger”’
Too true. Sadly. New religions were illegal in Rome, and they dealt with them brutally.
“And the hoards of other converts? Those who didn’t believe that Jesus was the messiah? Aren’t they eyewitnesses too? The gospels and Acts speak to thousands upon thousands of witnesses and the growth of the early church makes this a very likely claim. Wouldn’t they be in a position to refute so-called miracles if the events weren’t miraculous?”
Not sure of your point here. People believed in miracles back then. People in Nazareth, possibly those who knew Jesus best since that's his hometown, seem to be portrayed as not being “in” on the miracles. Mark has Jesus trying to keep it all a secret. Many Jews did not accept Jesus as Messiah - either they didn’t see miracles, or if there were miracles, they weren’t enough for many of them.
As far as refuting Christian claims, consider this quote from Edwin Yamuchi in The Case for Christ, "When people begin religious movements, it's often not until many generations later that people record things about them"
Robert L. Wilken, a Christian historian, notes, "For almost a century Christianity went unnoticed by most men and women in the Roman Empire. ... [Non-Christians] saw the Christian community as a tiny, peculiar, antisocial, irreligious sect, drawing its adherents from the lower strata of society."
“Reasonable people in American right now are ignoring decades of proof that socialism doesn’t work”
I don’t feel this is a good example - especially when considering how the current state of capitalism got us into the financial mess. A healthy mix of socialism (military, public schools, traffic lights, regulations) and capitalism (private business, rewarding entrepreners) is hard to achieve. This is also an ironic point, as the early Christian church shared communally (for a while) - a socialism without government coercion (which is the necessary part of economic socialism which I too find problematic)
“you’re seemingly not looking for the most reasonable explanation”
“you seem to know that Christianity is not the most reasonable explanation”
I disagree. I think Christianity is the most DEFINITE explanation. But that doesn’t mean I accept the gospels as literal fact. I believe in spiritual truth (what that is - a huge subject for me). I also believe in literal, physical truth - but attempts to extrapolate that come from the theological, spiritual truth the evangelists present us.
“There’s no reason to compare them to every wacko in the media over the last four decades…”
That’s true. Except that in the early Christians' time, non-Christians viewed them in a similar fashion. That is no judgement in my book, just saying.
The first century was not a universal place, it was specific, and I don’t feel I’m “Looking down” on first century jewish peasants for their supernatural (by our standards) explanations for the experiences of their day. Early Christianity was probably started by illiterate Jewish peasants, the lowest stratum of society, the “salt of the earth”. I am not trying to patronize them. I’m trying to understand their worldview and their language. I really, really hope that people 2,000 years from now will look back on our time and try to understand us in light of the incredible technological advances they will enjoy.
“If you want, just think of God as one who can work within and control quantum mechanical probabilities.”
Have you read “Finding Darwin’s God?” good book. The author speculates on God being active in the quantum realm. I liked the book a lot, but I still wonder, why do we have to relegate God to the gaps? Why does evidence for God have to be in holes or errors in his own system of creation? Isn’t God here, ready to be experienced now, instead of in some distant episode in the past or in some violation of his own created natural law?
In all this I write, my point is not to prove a religion wrong. Rather, I am challenging the attitude that a literal interpretation of Scripture is the most reasonable solution from a naturalistic perspective.
I don’t even really rule out the supernatural in my book - my point is simply that when we invoke the supernatural, all logic flies out the window. Imagine the world as a computer program and the programmer intervenes to change things. He/she could do this at any time, changing evidence, changing “the past” (from his perspective), creating evidence, planting dinosaur bones, etc. etc.
Does the spiritual, the holy, have to be separate from the naturalistic world? The slew of philosophical implications need to be considered when claiming supernatural - and when claiming a purpose for the supernatural.
Difficulties in Matthew
three days and three nights - symbolism, fair enough. Symbols were a huge part of communication back then. What else is symbolic? Where do we draw the line? I give a lot more power to symbols these days than I used to. A lot more.
Randy, I thank you for your work, and for giving me the opportunity to really study the idea of “supernatural” and what it contributes to any pursuit of physical explanation. Because of the nature of spiritual truth (however we define that) I believe that some sense of paradox comes with the territory. In a sense I can believe in Jesus' miracles and yet question their literal fact. I can see an atheists’ excellent points clearly and yet pray to the interface for God which exists in my mind. My argument mostly concerns attitude in pursuing these matters. I don’t believe that a physically logical position requiring spiritual belief is tenable since the nature of spiritual belief is personal, and different from physical law, if it exists. If it only exists physically, then seeing something as “spiritual” or not is a matter of perspective.
A thought to consider from John Donne:
"There is nothing that God hath established in a constant course of nature, . . . but would seem a Miracle, and exercise our admiration, if it were done but once."
Another thought to consider - what we know is that the Jesus movement attracted people to it, especially those from the lower class. Miracles alone would not do this - but a relevant, life-changing message would.
I hope we can get a beer soon, debate a little and laugh a lot!
I agree that it is important to establish how much trust is reasonable when it comes to eyewitness evidence. Looking into effects of priming, memory contamination, forgetting curves, encoding interference, recall interference, effects of emotion on memory, selective attention, confabulation, etc., would be a good start. There are mountains of science and research into this – but all we are doing is looking at the Bible. Trying to validate the Bible with the Bible; and for what? So we can validate the unnecessary postulation of a specific mythical god as a causer.
Or what about empirically validated memory biases – consistency bias, egocentric bias, sharpening, misinformation effect, positivity effect, rosy retrospection, source confusion, suggestibility, and so on. These empirical biases do not tell us that eyewitness testimony is worthless, but they do let us know to consider it very carefully. They demonstrate that eyewitness testimony is not an inerrant record and is necessarily subject to various contaminations. It offers reasonable doubt. If you want to persuade this group (is 2 a group?) of critical thinking readers/commenters, it would go a long way to see you take a critical thinking approach. Please, establish how much trust is reasonable to put into eyewitness testimony, especially in the case of delayed recording (on the order of decades) of emotional events, that in many cases, are passed between people “telephone” style.
I also need you to explain how the death, resurrection, and ascension to “heaven” of a physical body (roughly 45kg O, 13kg C, 7kg H, 2kg N, 1kg C, 1kg P, and 1 kg other elements) does not violate the second law of thermodynamics or relativity. I operate on the knowledge that death is a state of ceased metabolism, a state where energy is no longer put into the system, a state where a body is no longer able to fight off the persistence of entropy. If Jesus died on a cross at time T, then the entropy of the carcass increases from T to T+1, T+2, … T+n. If you claim, and you do, that Jesus was up and walking around at T+3days, then the entropy has decreased with no input of energy. Call it an act of God, FSM, a miracle, or whatever; it is still a violation of the second law. You may not believe that the Biblical accounts work against thermodynamics, but your belief is founded in desire alone.
Ascension to heaven. There may be room for ambiguity here, so it would be very helpful if you could clear some of this up. I understand that God is where heaven is and we have discussed at considerable length that you believe God resides “outside” (which is nonsense) of the universe. For Jesus (estimated 70kg of matter) to travel from somewhere near present day Iraq to “beyond” the edge of the universe, it would require travel at speeds that exceed that of light. This does not sit well with relativity (not to mention the energy requirements or increase in mass…) Call it an act of God, FSM, a miracle, or whatever; it is still violates this solidly grounded theory.
You say “the writing never covers how diseases are cured in the Bible.” I look no further than a blog posted by you just 10 days ago to find ”…who were oppressed by demons, and he cast out the spirits with a word and healed all who were sick.” In an easy to understand way, this line states that disease was caused by the oppression of “demons” and cured by casting out “spirits” with a word. Perhaps we are to take “demons” and “spirits” to be infectious microorganisms? If we do this here, surely we will not be able to remain consistent later. If we are to take demons and spirits to be anything other than infectious microorganisms, then we falsify germ theory.
Once again, I know that you say you have not spoken against evolution by natural selection, but this is simply not the case. This discrepancy may be due to your naïve understanding of the theory as demonstrated in week 9. You have explicitly stated that “macro”evolution would be evidence against God. I would like to note that the prefix in quotes is entirely unnecessary as the only difference found between “macro” and “micro” evolution is that of time and not something to do with the theory of natural selection. It is the same process.
You have also stuck your neck out against evolution by natural selection when you post passages from the Bible that describe the fantastic events of a global flood and major extinction event (the biggest one ever– even though there is no record of it!), occurring somewhere within the last ~10,000 – 50,000 years. Not only do you post such passages, but you also state that the impossibility of such an event is sufficient evidence against the absolute and divine truth of the Bible as a whole.
On top of all this, why would I want to think of God as one who can control quantum mechanical probabilities? Where is the evidence for this!? Perhaps I might want to do this if I was in a position where I needed to reach to validate an ancient text I am biased towards, but I am not in this position. Viewing God like this does not lend utility in addressing new evidence, nor does it add any predictive value. Ockham’s razor will be more like Ockham’s butter knife after it is done slicing all of this up.
Steven-
In regard to miracle stories:
1. The gospels are not Hellenistic. They are Jewish. Taking them out of their Jewish background in order to compare them to Greek mythology is a mistake.
2. Have you read Tacitus’ account? It is full of sarcasm and intentionally paints Vespasian in a negative light. He does not cite his sources and even suggests lightheartedly that they are unreliable. Tacitus’ motive here is obviously not to relay a miracle story that he actually believes. Not to mention, it was quite common practice for emperors to pay authors to write these types of stories/ kill those that didn’t acknowledge these “truths.” This is a poor parallel to the gospels, as are most supposed parallels…
3. “Paul…mentions no miracles. To him, Jesus was proven as Messiah because God raised him up into heaven from the dead.” I’m confused. How is that not a miracle?? Also, Paul claims that all of his knowledge about Jesus came directly from the risen Jesus. Is this not miraculous either? Also, keep in mind that Paul’s goal is not to document the events that occurred. Paul is writing letters to the church… the miracles are understood to have occurred; otherwise there wouldn’t be a church!
Supernatural/Natural
1. Equating “most likely” with “most naturalistic” is circular logic. It’s not a starting point at all. See 2-5.
2. “the impossible to prove the impossible” It seems that one of these things that we think to be impossible is in fact…possible. After all, something had to have happened. There is an explanation. If you prefer to believe in mass delusion, that’s fine, but that is also a supernatural occurrence, because we all know that mass delusions don’t occur naturally.
3. “I am challenging the attitude that a literal interpretation of Scripture is the most reasonable solution from a naturalistic perspective.”
Well, no, with that precursor (naturalistic perspective), Scripture is not reasonable. Excluding the supernatural as a possibility certainly would lead one to exclude the supernatural as an explanation.4. “I don’t even really rule out the supernatural in my book - my point is simply that when we invoke the supernatural, all logic flies out the window.”
Hmmm… only if naturalism= logic. Again, if you change the definition of logic to equal naturalism, then yes, the absence of naturalism would equal the absence of logic. But why are we redefining terms again? Math is not physical/materialistic, but it is certainly logical.
5. "There is nothing that God hath established in a constant course of nature . . . but would seem a Miracle, and exercise our admiration, if it were done but once."
Exactly. So here is the catch 22 for the naturalist: Scenario 1: Jesus performed ordinary feats and claimed to be God. Naturalist conclusion: He cannot be God because he did not do anything out of the ordinary. Scenario 2: Jesus performed miraculous feats and claimed to be God. Naturalist conclusion: These miraculous things cannot be done because they are not ordinary. Therefore, they were not done and Jesus is not God. NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE, THE NATURALISTIC PRESUPPOSITION PRECLUDES GOD.
God
1. “I pray to God everyday. But I do not have a dogma against those who don’t. That is because I think there is only one reason to believe in God - if you want to.”
I can think of one additional reason to believe in God, that perhaps you haven’t considered. If it’s true! (If it’s not true, then you may as well be praying to “My Buddy” or my favorite, “Kid Sister.” My god..my god, wherever I go, heeeee goes. My god…my god…my god and me!!! Kid Jesus…)
Gospels
1. “You are suggesting that those “2-3 steps removed” from Jesus would not mythologize (for instance, author of Mark, Matthew), but that those 3-4 steps from Jesus (Gospel of Truth, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, etc.) would.”
It takes time for legend to form. The Biblical gospels can be dated to within decades of Jesus’ death. The gnostic gospels are dated much later, indicating that it is much more likely that they have been tainted by legend. Legend does not form within decades…with witnesses alive.
2. “The truth is that there were several strands of apostolic authority, and several different groups of early Christians. One of many examples - The early, prominent Christian lead Valentinus wrote (probably) the Gospel of Truth, an extra-canonical gnostic work.”
Again, this dates much later than the canonical gospels. Surely you wouldn’t tear down the reliability of eyewitness accounts dated within decades of an event and then accept writings from over 100 years later as authoritative? There is a reason scholars and historians spend time analyzing in attempt to determine the dating of these writings. Earlier is better!
Ancient Idiots
“The first century was not a universal place, it was specific, and I don’t feel I’m “Looking down” on first century Jewish peasants for their supernatural (by our standards) explanations for the experiences of their day. Early Christianity was probably started by illiterate Jewish peasants, the lowest stratum of society, the “salt of the earth”. I am not trying to patronize them. I’m trying to understand their worldview and their language. I really, really hope that people 2,000 years from now will look back on our time and try to understand us in light of the incredible technological advances they will enjoy.”
In 2000 years, I’m sure they will be able to fill the “gaps” of knowledge that we have now. They’ll definitely have an explanation for walking on water and turning water into wine. The truly amazing thing will be figuring out how Jesus knew about all this technology back then, yet no one else figured it out until 4000 years later! That, in itself, seems supernatural…
Difficulties in Matthew
1. As far as idioms go, it’s not a matter of “drawing a line.” It’s a matter of understanding the language of the time. If I say it’s raining cats and dogs, anyone that speaks English in 2009 knows that’s not a literal statement. If I say that I own two cats and two dogs, then it is pretty obvious that I’m intending to state a literal fact. We are not “claiming symbolism” when it suits us. We are trying to look at the language honestly and trust the historians and those who have studied Greek/Hebrew more than we have. And they say that certain phrases are obvious idioms.
Final Thoughts
“Another thought to consider - what we know is that the Jesus movement attracted people to it, especially those from the lower class. Miracles alone would not do this - but a relevant, life-changing message would.”
But the message was- die to yourself, become a servant, take up your cross, surrender your control, repent of your sins, love your enemies, put others above yourself, you are a sinner by nature and need a savior. People HATE this message today, especially the idea of sin. I’m not sure people would have been any more attracted to it then…without the miracles.
Skyhook,
I’m sorry my welcome upset you.
“There are mountains of science and research into this – but all we are doing is looking at the Bible. Trying to validate the Bible with the Bible; and for what? “
I think I addressed this in the previous response. The Bible contains the eyewitness accounts, so it’s the best starting point. The more credible the witnesses, the more credible the Bible. That’s all. The Bible is not “all we are doing”.
One of our alternative resources is the massive growth of the early church. You hear eleven people shouting “Godzilla! Godzilla!” then you see hoardes of people running insanely through the streets. Don’t ignore the people fleeing. Run, man!
The telephone argumentHere’s another analogy that is often incorporated and not at all consistent with the early church. They actually met in large groups or "churches." If you meet in a study group after a college lecture, it’s hardly a game of telephone. In fact, if you compare notes after class, you'll likely recreate the original lecture with a rather impressive accuracy.
Laws“…it is still a violation of the second law. You may not believe that the Biblical accounts work against thermodynamics, but your belief is founded in desire alone.”
By this definition, inplantation and fetal development is also a violation of the second law. No one said that there was no impetus.
“…God resides “outside” (which is nonsense) of the universe….”
And the pre-universe we spoke of weeks ago? Relativity – a scientific principle you were adamant we not abandon – tells us that the universe had a beginning. So… are you saying that whatever was “before”/"beyond" the universe when there was no universe is nonsense?
“If we are to take demons and spirits to be anything other than infectious microorganisms, then we falsify germ theory.”
I don’t know that demons and germs are mutually exclusive. Demons were “understood” at the time to be the cause of illness. It makes sense, then, that you would describe healing as the casting out of demons. There are also numerous diseases that are not caused by germs (think mental illness, birth defects, blindness, dumbness, etc… the last two are oft mentioned in the Bible).
Evolution“Macro” is just a way to deliniate. You understood, did you not? The fact of the matter is that no one contests “micro.”
FloodWe’ll get there.
Ockham’s Butter Knife"On top of all this, why would I want to think of God as one who can control quantum mechanical probabilities?"
I don't expect you would. I just meant that you could then consider the possibility, whereas now it seems that you feel supernatural/miracle/God = impossible.
Whoa, Randy. I did not mean to send you into a fit of rage.
I am viewing the eyewitness evidence in the same manner that we would in a criminal trial. Eyewitness accounts, or alleged eyewitness accounts, are a fine starting point, but at least you could comment on the pitfalls one encounters when placing a large amount of weight on delayed memory recall.
By your logic, I assume you ready to run to the airport “Godzilla” style to become a follower of at least one of the thousands growing religions found present day. Surely you have an interest in the millions of eyewitnesses who claim Sathya Sai Baba, a southern Indian guru, was born of a virgin, has the ability to change water into other liquids, the ability to heal, the ability to manifest objects, and the ability to multiply food. Sathya Sai Baba is not fringe conjurer, he reportedly has some 6 million followers; many of whom I am sure would be willing to die or be tortured for.
You are willing to believe such miracles are possible and are within the realm of our physical laws, however you are not willing to entertain the possibility that they are occurring today in India. Somehow miracles occurring thousands of years ago are more plausible than those occurring in present day. It is as if having less access to evidence makes miracles more plausible!
The reason I bring this up is to show that the type of evidence you bring to the table is not enough. It is not enough for you or me or anybody claiming to value science, reason, and logic. Are we still holding to courtroom standards here? Testimony decades after an event is pretty much worthless in a court of law.
Due to the fact that there is an unbroken chain of living cells, fetal development does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. You are dodging the point. A dead carcass reanimating with no input other than God-magic is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
Yes, I am saying it does not make sense to talk about before/beyond the universe since time/space is the universe. By definition, we have no data about that which is not our universe, if indeed we can even say this much.
Demons are not the cause of illness, infectious or otherwise. We have empirically validated explanatory theories that do not rely on spirits, demons, or anything that can be cast out by a word or a mere touch of the hand. This type of healing violates such theories; one example is the germ theory of disease.
The distinction made by scientists with respect to micro and macro is one that differentiates larger scale accumulation of change over longer periods of time that produce markedly different features. It is not that they argue that one is unsupported speculation. Micro/macro evolution is contested like the lunar landing is contested. Being contested in itself does not lend validity to the “contest”; it is the content of the dissention.
Maybe the thing you do not understand is that “macro”evolution came first. Darwin’s theory explained biology on a large scale. Large scale evolutionary change is what was documented throughout the 19th century, and it was Darwin’s proposed mechanism that unified the observations. If you think macro evolution is legitimately contested, I urge you to pick up a modern textbook, visit with a professor of biology at a local university, or go out and review the evidence for yourself.
I do not find supernatural/miracles/gods to be impossible. I find them to be greatly improbable. If you explain the improbable with the improbable, you are left with no explanation.
Miracle stories
1. Much of the NT is Hellenistic. Judaism was strongly influenced for years before the first century, this is evident by Paul’s view of “flesh vs. spirit” - just one example.
2. Absolutely right, point conceded. I was just writing different examples of miracles offhand.
3. Also true, of course Jesus’ resurrection was a miracle to Paul. But we’re discussing the healing/nature miracles. Probably not a super relevant point for me to bring up.
Supernatural
1. This is not correct as there are many naturalistic explanations that are possible. Besides, what is mass delusion? Do you not define all other religions as mass delusions?
“Math is not physical/materialistic, but it is certainly logical”
Sure, but isn’t math contingent on natural laws like cause/effect and merely labeling the fact that if we group 2 apples and 3 apples together we call it 5? Plus logic is completely contingent on time - a sequence of thoughts - cause/effect. These are all ideas put forth as naturalistic on this blog.
I do think that logic/thought as spiritual is an interesting idea - but at the very least it’s interrelated to naturalism. A secularist might put forth that our logic has developed from observing the predictability of the natural world.
“NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE, THE NATURALISTIC PRESUPPOSITION PRECLUDES GOD.”
I think this accurately describes the dilemma of “proving” God by naturalistic means - the thesis of this blog. Once again, even if the supernatural is possible (not as something we don't understand, but as something completely apart from physical reality) surely it is unlikely. Therefore the "eyewitness" testimony of ancient people is not enough for secularists. it seems more likely that these events did not literally happen from a naturalistic perspective.
Obviously we’re debating what’s true or not! My view is simply that those who want to believe in God must take a leap of faith - as there is no compelling reason to believe from a naturalistic perspective.
I sing the “My buddy” song all the time to Seve.
Those dolls look a little disturbing in retrospect....
None of the gospels authors claim to be eyewitnesses. And why do later Christians mythologize Christ? Can you imagine someone writing a mythological account of Abraham Lincoln today, not as fiction but as history? It’s not something our culture does so much, so I think the culture back then was different. If the culture itself was different, then this would include the second and third generation of Christians, not just starting with the third or fourth.
“ancient idiots”
I’m not insinuating that all the recorded miracles were natural occurrences interpreted supernaturally by early Christians - that’s just one of many possibilities. I was commenting on the fact that we are not demeaning a 2,000 year old worldview by claiming that we have advanced.
“I’m not sure people would have been any more attracted to it then…without the miracles.”
People are still attracted to it today without the miracles. (unless you’re a Benny Hinn follower.....)
Another thought - There were many revolts against Roman rule in Israel, many more than against any of the other foreign powers which ruled Israel for centuries and centuries. The mass commercialization, by Rome, of the Judean agrarian society left many subsistence farmers and itinerant people in a state of desperation. The peasants of Galilee lived in unimaginable conditions. The time was ripe for Jesus’ kingdom of God movement.
“One of our alternative resources is the massive growth of the early church”
Like Mormonism, like Islam, etc. as Hook pointed out.
“So… are you saying that whatever was “before”/"beyond" the universe when there was no universe is nonsense? “
Skyhook covered this well too. “Plugging in” the God of the Bible into this hole in our knowledge can be seen as nonsense because the idea has zero explanatory power from a naturalistic perspective. It only adds more complex unexplainables into the equation. The only clear reason is to explain the God of the Bible. It’s a leap of faith, not a path based on a naturalistic perspective. Claiming naturalistic evidence for the truly supernatural is fallacious. The relevance of evidence is based solely on naturalistic relationships.
“I don’t know that demons and germs are mutually exclusive.”
I totally agree with you here.
“A dead carcass reanimating with no input other than God-magic is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.”
I am interested in people’s views on their own resurrection. Do you think that when you are raised, your physical, decayed body will be part of that? Paul described Jesus as the “firstfruits” of the more general resurrection (Paul already believed in the resurrection of the dead because he was a Pharisee). I think he saw his own resurrection (and all CHristians) as of the same nature as Christ’s. Yet most Christians I know believe that they have an eternal soul that is separate from the body (a more gnostic approach) and that they will go to heaven immediately after death, in spirit form. Interesting.
Miracle stories1. “Much of the NT is Hellenistic.” Yes. But we were discussing the Gospels, which are Jewish. I just meant that we should view the Gospels in respect to their Jewish context and not try to impose an entirely Greek context onto them.
Supernatural1. You have now used the phrase “from a naturalistic perspective” 20 or so times. So just to clarify, no one can prove the supernatural “from a naturalistic perspective.” It’s an oxymoron and you have misunderstood if you think that is the goal of this blog. Randy is attempting to demonstrate evidence (which is obviously natural) to show that the supernatural is worthy of consideration and as we believe, the most likely explanation of the events. He has never stated that he can or will prove anything. And as I stated in my last post, a committed naturalist is in a position in which he is unable to accept the supernatural no matter what the evidence. So no amount of “proof” would be sufficient anyway. (The only "proof" a naturalist would accept is the occurrence of lots of other people rising from the dead, in which case the resurrection of Jesus would cease to be a miracle at all and therefore become meaningless and prove nothing! It's completely circular.)
2. “This is not correct as there are many naturalistic explanations that are possible.” Still waiting to hear those explanations!
3. “Besides, what is mass delusion? Do you not define all other religions as mass delusions?” Mass delusion, while impossible, is the theory that many people (disciples and other eyewitnesses) had a false vision (or delusion) of the risen Christ all at the same time. No, I do not consider other religions to be mass delusion. Having a false belief is very different from experiencing a simultaneous communal delusional vision.
Gospels1. “None of the gospels authors claim to be eyewitnesses.”
Luke claims to have gathered together all of the best and most reliable information, including eyewitness accounts. All of the authors were either disciples or in close relation to a disciple.
2. “And why do later Christians mythologize Christ?”
Historians state that it takes over a century for legend to form. This is because eyewitnesses have to die off before it is possible for myths to begin spreading. Therefore, it is nearly impossible for the canonical gospels to be mythology while it is highly likely that the gnostics developed legend.
3. “It’s not something our culture does so much, so I think the culture back then was different.” The difference is the technology. In our day, when eyewitnesses die off we still have printed newspapers, photos, and videos to hold a story intact.
Ancient IdiotsI hope you caught my sarcasm here. :) I’m not expecting any explanations for walking on water. That’s my point, actually. These miracles are not natural occurrences that are easily explained by technology now. They are as supernatural today to us as they were to those poor uneducated ancient folk.
Resurrection“I am interested in people’s views on their own resurrection. Do you think that when you are raised, your physical, decayed body will be part of that?”
Biblically, it seems clear that our bodies will be transformed and we will be raised with those new bodies. However, it also seems clear that this will not happen until the second coming of Christ.
Randy and Kristin,
Very entertaining read this week, I'm beginning to come to terms with your fundamentalism, and through that lens, your faith is as beautiful as a handcrafted suicide vest.
Kristin said:
"In 2000 years, I’m sure they will be able to fill the “gaps” of knowledge that we have now. They’ll definitely have an explanation for walking on water and turning water into wine. The truly amazing thing will be figuring out how Jesus knew about all this technology back then, yet no one else figured it out until 4000 years later! That, in itself, seems supernatural…"
What a precious thought. I don't think I could of come up with a better example of the hazards of religion infecting an otherwise capable mind. How is your blind faith not fundamentalism?
Vernicus,
I guess sarcasm is lost on some people. I was worried that might happen with this group and addressed it in my more recent post.
Intro
I believe that the thesis of this blog is that naturalistic evidence can point to supernatural causes. The problem, of course, is that a supernatural explanation contributes nothing to greater understanding, so why proceed with this hypothesis? And where did the supernatural explanation come from? Admitting to not knowing something, or even being mystified by something, is different than putting an imaginary explanation with zero explanatory power as a cause and claiming the problem solved. This is the realm of the leap of faith - it is a clear departure from the chain of cause/effect, naturalistic evidence, assumed chronology, etc.
I’m not against the leap of faith. But it cannot be presented from a logical point of view. Logic is about demonstration and inference - which is contingent on natural laws and the predictability of the physical universe, which are violated if the supernatural is present.
“no one can prove the supernatural “from a naturalistic perspective.” It’s an oxymoron”
Exactly. You can’t get there from here.
But here we go .....
“Randy is attempting to demonstrate evidence (which is obviously natural) to show that the supernatural is worthy of consideration and as we believe, the most likely explanation of the events.”
If you can’t prove it, does that mean there is reasonable doubt?
Even if I SEE God, that is still naturalistic evidence, and I am relying on naturalistic logic/time/empiricism etc. to draw a conclusion that has nothing to do with naturalism. It’s bizarre. I’m not saying I wouldn’t do it, but it would be a leap of faith, leaving logic behind, unless it could be shown that God is able to accomplish His purpose within the natural law he created.
But I tend to favor the term “intangible” as more reasonable than “supernatural.” For instance, if Jesus did rise physically from the dead, couldn’t God have created into natural law a system by which this would have been accomplished - especially since God knows all and is all-powerful?
Ancient people had no science. The supernatural was used as a physical explanation for physical phenomena. The supernatural was right over their heads and all around them, not outside the universe. Since we do not rely on supernatural explanations for physical phenomena, then why postulate the supernatural in the modern world? One reason may be to preserve the feasibility of ancient writings. I know I sound like a broken record, but it’s fascinating to me. I’m not even against the supernatural per se, I’m just against the claim of arriving at the supernatural through naturalistic evidence.
Concluding questions:
1. If the supernatural cannot be proven through the natural, is there reasonable doubt?
2. How does logic function apart from naturalism?
“But we were discussing the Gospels, which are Jewish”
They were certainly both Jewish and Hellenistic in my ways - particularly Luke and John.
“Other explanations for the NT”
- That would take a lot more writing than I can give right now. It’s very complicated to sort through redacted “history” trying to see what happened, but educated people come up with great, inspiring stuff. But it is not necessary for anyone on this blog to theorize about other explanations for the NT since reasonable doubt concerning the thesis of this blog is all it takes to accomplish the goal of showing dogma on this issue to be unwise.
“Mass delusion, while impossible, is the theory that many people (disciples and other eyewitnesses) had a false vision (or delusion) of the risen Christ all at the same time.”
We must remember that physical resurrection is also impossible. And the visions of Christ “all at the same time” are stories in the NT that are all different.
“Luke claims to have gathered together all of the best and most reliable information, including eyewitness accounts. All of the authors were either disciples or in close relation to a disciple.”
The claims of apostolic authorship are church tradition, and secondary at best. Peter’s association with the author of Mark, for instance, is based solely on a second century text as reported by Eusebius in the 4th century.
Luke does make the claim you mentioned to his patron, Theophilus. And perhaps it’s an accurate one. Maybe he did his best according to the standards of his day. But read Luke’s accounts in Acts as opposed to the same accounts reported by Paul in his letters. Very different. (Paul’s visions, meetings in Jerusalem, etc.) Luke harmonizes things nicely, presenting a Christian heroic tale in Acts, which does not resemble the in-fighting described ruthlessly by Paul in this letters.
And also, think about it, was Luke there to record Simeon’s song after he met the infant Jesus at the temple? There is a specific song written in the gospel. Did he have a text of Festus and Paul’s conversation which he transcribed into Acts? Surely not. This is story.
“However, it also seems clear that this will not happen until the second coming of Christ.”
So do you believe that you will be spirit existing with God right after you die, or will you sleep until the resurrection? I’m not trying to “go after” your beliefs on this. I’m just really curious as to what different people think on this issue.
Telephone argument. Talk about inconsistent analogies! These are not university academics comparing notes after class. These are illiterate goat herders! Well, they may not all be goat herders, but they are certainly more like goat herders than they are academic students comparing notes after a lecture.
More to the point, does recalling in a social setting actually improve recall ability? An honest approach would be to demonstrate rather than to merely assert it. Consider Asch’s research into conformity in the 1950s. Asch demonstrated that participants often change their differing opinions to reflect that of the majority when confronted with opposing views.
In one test, Asch set up an experiment where he had a group of ~10 people look at two cards, one with a single line and another with three lines of varying length. One of the three lines was the same length as the single line and the other two were longer and shorter. The task of each individual in the group was to verbally announce which of the three lines matched up with the single line.
Where the experimental part comes in is that all of the group members are in on the experiment, except for one participant. The first few times, the confederates would verbally announce the correct answer and the groups would do great. Then, the confederates would all indicate that one line, say the longer one, was the match. What do you think happened?
The participant significantly conformed to the majority. On solo trials, the participants had roughly 1% error in line judgment and when in the experimental condition, Asch observed an error rate of approximately 37%. This is a major effect.
I can only imagine how much this effect would be magnified if instead of simply recalling the length of lines, a group was recalling events they hold dear. Any statement holding their precious event in a positive light certainly would get a different treatment than one that brings the story back to regular proportions.
Obviously this experiment is not the end of what we need to consider if we are to critically evaluate the enormous claims being made here. But it certainly is a start. If one person was to make an embellishment in his initial recall, the effect demonstrated above could serve to preserve this embellishment. Reiterate this process over decades of meetings, and calling this reasonable doubt is quite an understatement.
Skyhook,
I’m glad to see we’re having fun.
Sathya Sai BabaGiven the appropriate evidence, it would be wise to “…entertain the possibility that [miracles] are occurring today in India.” If, on the other hand, a BBC documentary were to… say… catch a particular guru’s sleight of hand on tape, interview his sexual victims, and utterly discredit him, it would also be wise to save the airfare.
Reanimation, et alIn the interest of not going around and around debating whether God used energy to reanimate dead people (a qualification for God to working within II), I’ll let this one drop. I don’t know how miracles are performed.
Eyewitness AccountsAs I asserted before, the more credible our witnesses, the more credible the story. Notice that despite Asch’s research, eyewitness testimony is a huge player in the courtroom. Eyewitnesses with no agenda are particularly valuable. In the case of the gospels, without the apparent miracles of Jesus, I see no agenda to be had. It’s like an anti-Catch-22.
NonsenseI will continue to maintain that it is perfectly sensible to assume that if the universe began (as relativity, cosmic radiation, etc would indicate), then something exists/existed which is/was not the universe. Call it God, an energy reserve, a well of potential, a proto-universe, “Universe Part I”, multiverses… whatever. The universe – which must accord to its own laws, if it is all of existence – cannot have created itself, because universal properties don’t allow for this. Such a belief would be nonsensical. We have no data for what this outer-universe entity is. We only have data for what it cannot be: the universe.
EvolutionI haven’t argued against evolution… only against its inability to describe certain phenomena. After thiat argument, you brought to my attention a theory I had not encountered, and I conceded the argument. I don’t want you to expend a lot of energy here.
Goat HerdersI don’t know about you, but I generally walk into a course with a good bit of ignorance; else, I wouldn’t take the course. The people you’re talking about weren’t mentally retarded; they were just ignorant. In 2000 years, we will have been ignorant to a great many technological and scientific marvels. That doesn’t mean that our ideas/debates are idiotic. Again – and this can’t be reiterated enough – we’re not looking at the explanations alone. We can readily dismiss their explanations for rain or any other natural phenomenon. We would be remiss, however, if we just cast aside the events recorded because they were ignorant in other areas. The miracles of Jesus would still be miraculous today. We don’t need Luke to say, “Jesus made the paralytic walk, and it was a supernatural event.” That He healed is a miracle. Even a goat-herder could comprehend that.
...continued...
Asch“I can only imagine how much this effect would be magnified if instead of simply recalling the length of lines, a group was recalling events they hold dear. Any statement holding their precious events in a positive light certainly would get a different treatment than one that brings the story back to regular proportions.”
This might be valid today, or speaking to Judaism in the time of Jesus. It is, however, circular if referencing the early Christian church. The only reason to “hold dear” to the idea that Jesus is the messiah is that you have encountered evidence of His divinity. Unlike today, there were no Christian homes in which to grow up, so there cannot have been a culture of indoctrination. In fact, if you were a Jew, the story of Jesus was certainly not a “positive light;” you anticipated a messiah that would bring your people (and not the Gentiles) into prominence. Instead, you got Jesus.
Asch’s experiment helps to demonstrate just how difficult it would have been to break away from the “nine” and to affirm Jesus as the messiah. Thousands of years of tradition and millions of fellow Jews would tell you that the messiah should be more of a triumphant military leader. A few followers of a supposed God incarnate tell you otherwise. How much evidence would you require to break away from your brethren and follow Christ? As you alluded to earlier, you’re not jumping on a plane to visit Sathya Sai Baba and neither am I.
Also, how many of Asch’s subjects did he threaten with torture and/or death if they did not conform to the majority? I’ll bet that would have skewed the data to well beyond 37%.
Steven,
“The problem, of course, is that a supernatural explanation contributes nothing to greater understanding, so why proceed with this hypothesis?”
…contributes nothing to natural understanding, you mean (except the knowledge that there is more to life than natural law). If you believe in Christ, you can seek greater understanding of Him through prayer, so there is every reason to proceed… different forum, though.
“Admitting to not knowing something, or even being mystified by something, is different than putting an imaginary explanation with zero explanatory power as a cause and claiming the problem solved.”
As I said before, the only evidence that can be obtained via observation is that of “gaps” in our understanding. It’s easy, of course, to simply dismiss God as being a “god of the gaps”, but I urge you not to be so hasty. As a for-instance, let’s take a look at one of the miracles reported in the Bible and assume the report to be true. Again, Lazarus is a good example that simply does not have a natural explanation:
Lazarus is stinking, no-doubt-about-it dead. Three days post-mortem there is no natural method by which Lazarus would simply reanimate and rejoin the living. So, if he were to do so, we would have to admit to a sizeable gap in our natural worldview. And, if such a gap existed, it wouldn’t be equivalent to the I-don’t-know-where-rain-comes-from gap. I would be a this-is-counter-to-what-I-know-to-be-true gap. What would we be forced to conclude given such a scenario?
If the events as recorded in the gospels are true accounts, they are indeed supernatural works. It’s not the exercise in futility you make it out to be. Is it proof of the supernatural? Define proof.
...continued...
“…leap of faith….” “Even if I SEE God….”
You’re taking a “leap of faith” to believe in evolution, geological science, or anything else that you have not witnessed with your own eyes. You take a “leap of faith” with every source you cite in your arguments. In fact, Descartes would say that you take a “leap of faith” when you believe anything beyond “I am.” The more evidence you acquire, however, the shorter your leap becomes. If you witnessed the miracles attested to in the Bible, I believe you would make that leap… or skip (though I could be wrong).
My goal here is to lay out the evidence that I’ve seen as well as I can. For many of the reasons I’ve given here (and for many more to come), I believe the gospel authors gave truthful accounts of what they saw (or of what their interviewees saw). Given what they attested to, I can only reach one conclusion. That being said, you, Skyhook, Jamin, et al should not be faulted for questioning the validity of these claims. When Skyhook brought up Sathya Sai Baba, it piqued my interest and I went to investigate. I expect no less from you. Still, at some point (i.e. “even if I SEE God”), doubt should give way to evidence.
“…couldn’t God have created into natural law a system by which [physical resurrection] could be accomplished – especially since God knows all and is all-powerful?”
WARNING: I do not make the claim that the paragraph below is a fact-based argument, but a philosophical exercisePersonally (and I know you eat this stuff up), I think quantum mechanics is beyond interesting. Here you have a mechanism by which virtually anything is possible. Wall in your way? No problem! There’s a 1 in 10^80 chance that you’ll just tunnel through. Having trouble with that pesky Second Law of Thermodynamics? No problem! There’s a 1 in 10^85 chance that the valence electrons in surrounding air molecules will provide sufficient energy to reanimate a body and rocket it into space. Maybe He did….
“We must remember that that physical resurrection is also impossible.”
I think Kristin is saying that you’re attempting to have your cake and eat it too. If naturalism is truth, neither scenario works. You can’t claim that the supernatural is unlikely then say that mass delusions are a logical explanation for the origin of the gospels. You’re welcome to pick a supernatural phenomenon to hang onto, but you can’t accept either and still maintain that we shouldn’t look to the supernatural. The strange question that would follow the mass delusion theory is Who or what caused these people to experience life with Jesus via supernatural means? With naturalism as the only possibility, you’re left again with a bunch of liars and a cluster of the most gullible people history has ever known.
...continued...
Errant ReportingOne thing that you do often is claim certain Biblical passages are “different” (which I often read as “contradictory”; else, I see no reason for the references at all) when one only gives more detail than another. The passages you referenced here, for example, are not contradictory.
Any event reported in the gospels that took place before Jesus met the apostles was obviously not witnessed by the apostles or any of the gospel authors. We don’t know who imparted these stories (though Jesus himself would be the most likely culprit). The gospel authors obviously gave only perfunctory accounts of these events. I would guess that they did so because the events were not directly witnessed. However, you made the case before that these may be retroactive accounts based on Old Testament prophecy, and that would also account for a lack of detail.
More fun philosophyI go back to the early posts when we spoke to time and space being components of the universe. If God indeed exists outside of the universe, I don’t think that time has meaning. So, in essence, I don’t think it matters “when” bodily resurrection occurs. If you exist in eternity, have you “always” been in eternity? There is a fun determinist / non-determinist debate that springs from
“The only reason to “hold dear” to the idea that Jesus is the messiah is that you have encountered evidence of His divinity.”
Did Jesus’ followers follow him because of his miracles? I don’t think this is true, for miracles are not enough. If a person was evil, or had no message that resonated, people would just be freaked out by superpowers. It seems to me that Jesus had a message that connected with people “on the margins”. They followed him because of the content of this message. Perhaps he did heal people in some ways, as we have already discussed.
As an aside, church tradition tells us that Peter, Paul and James were martyred. I don’t count Stephen, because Acts does not seem very reliable historically and the author has the story of his martyrdom mirror that of Jesus. Who else were martyred of the original followers? I’m not sure if there are any other traditions I’m missing. But still, we also know that many did not follow Jesus as Messiah. Most in fact. Did they not believe the miracles? Did they not see any miracles?
People followed Christ because they had motivation to do so, or they thought they did. This is true of anything, of course. Looking at the conditions of Galilee in the 20’s, we see destitution. Jesus gathered these types of people, the dispossessed, the marginalized. He told them that they had access to the Kingdom of God. In fact, they were closer to it than the rich and powerful. The Jewish God of justice was on their side, not the side of Rome. That’s awesome.
“(supernatural explanation) contributes nothing to natural understanding”
That’s right.
“you can seek greater understanding of Him through prayer”
Absolutely - but you’re right, different forum.
“Lazarus is a good example that simply does not have a natural explanation”
This passage, only in the book of John, may be a story version of the Lazarus parable in Luke. Note the parallel:
In Luke - “If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, “says Abraham, “neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.”
In John, Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead and still many disbelieve. In fact, his raising of Lazarus becomes the very reason that the Sanhedrin and Pharisees pursue Jesus, which ends in the crucifixion.
This is a more likely conclusion, backed up by textual criticism. Once again, we know that people wrote symbolic stories about Jesus. Need they be confined to only extra-biblical gospels?
“What would we be forced to conclude given such a scenario? “
Once again, as to the “supernatural”, I’m just asking you to consider the implications. The more I think about it, the more the supernatural seems intellectually problematic. I will not say it can’t happen, but when the foundational rules of reality are changed, how can we make any sort of conclusive logical statements about it? It is a bizarre notion.
Seeing something that mystifies you is one thing. But where does the idea of putting a supernatural force behind the action come from? Especially if the supernatural force does not reveal itself through the interconnected reality that rationality itself is based on? I’m not claiming answers, I’m just trying to point out that if the supernatural exists, it’s craziness, man. And we can’t get there (anything goes) from here (logos).
“Define proof”
That which is beyond a reasonable doubt.
“doubt should give way to evidence.”
But Randy, isn’t evidence contingent on the assumption of natural law? What is it based on if it’s not?
“Quantum”
You’re right, quantum is fascinating...... and I love it! Of course, this scenario rules out the supernatural, unless we assert as John Dominic Crossan does that the supernatural is always at work through the veil of the natural.
Also, with those odds, I wouldn’t place too many bets from a historical point of view. But it is very fun to think about. Have you read “Finding Darwin’s God?”
“You can’t claim that the supernatural is unlikely then say that mass delusions are a logical explanation for the origin of the gospels.”
This line of thought was pursued ONLY to point out the fallacy of using claims of the impossible to prove the impossible.
But I understand the attempt to present only two impossible, or supernatural, choices as possible (har) conclusions. Surely this is a false choice though. The first Jewish followers of Christ believed strongly in the movement even after Christ was killed. His spirit still remained with them (“and lo I am with you always”). Later followers literalized these events over time, in their own ways. Their points were theological more than historical. We know people wrote symbolically, and with a different attitude towards history, back then.
“errant reporting”
We can look no further than the birth narratives to see “differences”. That’s a fun discussion if we want to pursue that.
But the examples I pointed out were not about differences. It was just to say - who wrote Simeon’s Song? The author of Luke - or possibly it was a Christian hymn in a community that he took and gave a story to. I’m not trying to point out errant or inerrant reporting in this example - I’m just pointing out that these are stories. What else can we conclude from the very form of them? There is dialogue, formal construction - not attempts to record literal history. How much they draw from literal history is our debate, of course. If we asked the author of Luke where he got Simeon’s song, or if Simeon actually sang that song, how would the author respond? Interesting to think about.
“leaps of faith”
I agree with you. EVERY thing we consider is contingent on certain premises taken on faith such as “my senses are capable of giving me accurate info” etc. Luckily we all agree on many of these premises. I have no problem with the leap of faith - but some leaps are based on the existence of natural laws all around us. Other leaps of faith that deny those natural laws are perhaps in a different category. But still, I have no problem with what Skyhook might call an “extraneous” leap of faith. But, we can’t take those leaps and then make naturalistic conclusions based on them.
“If you exist in eternity, have you “always” been in eternity?”
I too have wondered if those who believe they will exist eternally have a problem with the fact that their memory tells them that they did, in fact, have a beginning. The notion of consciousness continuing after death is interesting to consider, but “eternal” life, in the sense of infinite life apart from time or “outside of time” is like saying outside of ......all things! 100% beyond our ability to consider. I agree that it’s fun to try though. Concepts like “eternal” and “supernatural” are way more bizarre than they appear. We’re just used to them, I think, from their frequent use. Forrest Church describes eternity as a “depth of time” instead of a “length of time.” That’s one way. Fun point, Randy.
Concluding thoughts:
1. If we can’t prove the supernatural through naturalistic means, then that in itself creates reasonable doubt. This shows that, at the very least, a lack of dogma concerning religious conclusions is advisable, even if this is theologically problematic for the notion of salvation based on a correct interpretation of history. Does God “damn” the historian that gets it wrong? Especially if there are enough reasonable doubts to get it "wrong"?
2. Logic is contingent on natural laws - predictable consequences, cause and effect. The supernatural is by its nature unpredictable and outside the purview of logic. As to supernatural conclusions - we must either reevaluate those conclusions towards naturalism, claim that we don’t know for now, or leave behind logic in making claims.
3. If there were legitimate miracles, beyond explanation and unique to Jesus, and people saw them, why did most of the Jewish people not accept Jesus as Messiah?
4. How does naturalistic evidence function in an absence of natural law?
Steven,
If you set your premises to support your conclusions, your conclusions have a tendency to be “correct.” You have implored me to “consider the implications” and I’ll implore you to do the same. Let’s look at the main premise you set forth (from which, your other premises follow) and a few other premises you can find in most general physics textbooks:
Steven’s Law: “Logic is contingent on natural laws.”
The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy: In a nutshell, the matter of a system (e.g. the universe) can be converted into energy and visa versa; however, matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
The Big Bang Theory / General Relativity / Cosmic Background Radiation observation: The universe began.
IF:
The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is true AND
Natural law is the only truth (i.e. the universe is the only system):
The mass/energy currently in existence has always existed. Why? The universe cannot have created itself; else, it would violate natural law.
So, we’re forced (by logic) to conclude that General Relativity and the Big Bang are false, as they clearly state otherwise.
Conversely, IF:
The Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy is true AND
The Big Bang Theory / General Relativity / Cosmic Background Radiation are true, we can use logic to conclude that something external to the universe (i.e. something “supernatural” by definition) existed/exists which allowed the universe to form.
Another way of stating this (again, assuming the universe began) is: Because the universe cannot form itself (thereby violating the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy), it cannot be the only system. And, any secondary system would be “supernatural,” as it cannot be “natural” or “of the universe.”
One of the three premises above cannot be true. You can indeed use logic to reach a conclusion that the universe is not all that exists (or did exist). So, logic can be used to reach a conclusion of supernatural.
Randy, It’s a clever argument. Here are a few thoughts
1. We seem to be working with two definitions for supernatural. The first is any situation with different natural laws, such as a different universe in the multiverse with say, a slightly lower strong nuclear force or something - or the “proto-universe” before the Big Bang. Note that our current universe would be supernatural from the perspective of another universe, or the conditions prior to the Big Bang.
Then we have definition two of “supernatural” which is an occurrence inside our universe which violates natural law inside our universe. Note that the first definition does not imply violations of any laws, and is only supernatural from the perspective of this universe. The second definition is a different business all together and is the subject of “Steven’s Law” (good grief)
2. In your post, current natural laws are applied to argue for the supernatural state (definition 1) called the “proto-universe”. The same application of natural law is then rejected when dealing with the miracles of the Bible.
3. A further exploration of this - If the proto-universe is supernatural (definition 1), why are you arguing that the Law of Energy/Mass still applies in laying out conditions for the Big Bang? Yet regarding miracles in the Bible, the same laws, here in this current universe, are suspended. So we have a rigorous attempt to enforce natural law in a “supernatural” realm (def. 1) where they possibly do not apply, and a willingness to drop natural law in this current universe where they do apply. Isn’t this backwards?
4. The essence of naturalism is the interconnectedness of all things. In this sense, the proto-universe or other universes in the multiverse are still natural. A supernatural agent works in a disconnected way, completely unconnected to phenomena, and therefore is outside the purview of science.
5. So inside this universe, how does naturalistic evidence function in an absence of natural law proposed by the supernatural (def. 2)?
6. Logic still seems only to function, inside this universe, by assuming the interconnectedness of all things - naturalism. Events disconnected from this connectedness (supernatural def. 2), while I do not rule them out, would surely be beyond our ability to speak to logically, and therefore left to the realm of mysticism.
I would argue that your multiverses or "pre-universe connecting event" is much more disconnected than the "supernatural" things I'm referring to.
The one premise that you show here (though it is unspoken) is that whatever was "connected" to the universe at its inception is no longer connected. I believe this premise to be unfounded. The only difference in our two definitions is that you preclude the extra-universe phenomenon from ever again interacting with the universe, whereas I see no reason for this assumption.
We seem to agree that we can "logic" our way to some phenomenon that is not the universe. You simply assert that this phenomenon either no longer exists or no longer interacts with the universe. May I ask why you make this assumption?
Randy - "I would argue that your multiverses or "pre-universe connecting event" is much more disconnected than the "supernatural" things I'm referring to."
Randy - "the extra-universe phenomenon"
Supernatural (def. 1) is disconnected because it's a different place, right? And we can't speak to those places right now from the perspective of our current natural laws.
A supernatural being operating in our universe (def. 2) would not be subject to natural laws, operating independently. This would be a total disconnect from natural phenomena.
And of course, evidence is entirely contingent on the assumption that all phenomena is connected.
You can argue that I'm "loading" the criteria of proof to exclude supernaturalism (def. 2) but I'm really just trying to point out the limits of science. Science can't comment on something that doesn't operate within its language.
In light of an unexplained phenomena, a religious person might say, "I trust my '6th sense' (or my gut) that something is going on here that is supernatural." Or a secularist might say, "Throughout history, science has steadily 'explained' more and more over time, so I believe we will figure this out at some point."
SIDE NOTE: I don't believe it is in the purview of science to actually "explain" anything. Science just offers ever deeper descriptions of phenomena.
Randy - "We seem to agree that we can "logic" our way to some phenomenon that is not the universe. You simply assert that this phenomenon either no longer exists or no longer interacts with the universe. May I ask why you make this assumption?"
I would say the burden of proof is on you, but proof is not possible without reliable evidence, which the supernatural eschews.
As I have said, I'm not sure that we can meaningfully comment on the causes of the Big Bang at this point. Science may reveal a deeper understanding of this over time. If it does not, then it remains a realm outside our ability to describe.
Why would I assume that a force causing the Big Bang would no longer interact with this universe? Actually, I don't. I'm just saying that if it does, and it operates independently of natural laws (which are required for logic and evidence to mean anything) then it lies within the realm of mysticism. This is not criticism from me. I am a believer in 1st person, mystical experience - as long as it does not supersede 3rd person observation in making decisions that affect others.
From a logical standpoint, naturalism does a pretty great job of steadily describing more and more phenomena. Even if something is unexplainable, it seems more parsimonious to assume what I call "intangible naturalism" ( something natural that we can't understand - either YET or even EVER) than to assume a complete breakdown in the natural world (supernaturalism def. 2).
Is the idea of the supernatural required to believe in God? Especially since we understand so little about the universe?
BTW, Randy. This is good stuff, man. I feel like we're really getting into the bones of some of these arguments.
The greater point I wish to make regarding Sathya Sai Baba is not that I am trying to persuade you that miracles are actually occurring in south India; but rather that mass delusions are. Mass delusions are not only possible, but they are really quite common when compared to well documented or verifiable miracles. In the case of Sathya Sai Baba, we have 6 million followers despite the fact that we have video recordings of the “miracles” broadcast all over the world on television and the internet. One can only imagine a greater following without the unflattering evidence had video recorders not been available in Sai Baba’s time.
What is the leading cause of wrongful convictions?
Jesus (pronounce Hay-soos), a guy in Guatemala, took two pots of water, one 211 and the other 33 degrees Fahrenheit, and poured them together. He then separated them back into two pots but instead of having two pots of similar temperature, he had one pot at 211 F and the other at 33F. This does not violate the laws of thermodynamics because God obviously intervened and we do not know if he used energy or God-magic, or what. I do not know how this was performed, but I will say that it does not violate thermodynamics.
You have not argued against evolution in the same what I have not argued against thermodynamics above.
Why must the Universe accord to its own laws? Maybe I am not sure what you mean by this. Does this mean that if I created a video game where in it, video games necessarily give me the power to shoot fireballs if I jump on them, I must be able to shoot fireballs if I jump on the video game I made? I am guessing video games don’t have to accord to their own laws, so why does the universe? What if the universe were to somehow travel – through superduperspace (e.g.) – are you saying that it would be bound by a speed of 299,792,458 m/s? I am not sure this “Universe must accord to its own laws business” actually makes sense.
“You have not argued against evolution in the same what I have not argued against thermodynamics above.”
I want to make sure that the term evolution in this statement does not overshadow the point I am making regarding violation of thermodynamics, or any well grounded theory for that matter. It does not matter how it was done, if the two pots at the end are drastically different in their temperature, or if a rotting carcass gets up and walks around, thermodynamics has been violated.
Also, I heard there is a guru in Nepal performing miracles. Since there is no video or rumors about his actions in relation to Christian morality, it sounds pretty believable to me....
Steven,
I'm not sure I made my point clear. You used logic to get to something at the "beginning". I just want to be clear that whatever that thing is, it aint the universe. Logic -> non-universe (i.e. not natural or "super" natural).
Skyhook,
DELUSION
Anyone can be tricked. My assertion is that the miracles described in the Bible would be considered miracles now... precisely because they can't be feigned. The "miracles" of your guru, on the other hand, can be and have been. That's where mass delusion and mass trickery part ways. The gospels would have to believe things they could not have seen in a natural-only environment. Baba's followers may have "seen" a 3-ton golden egg appear from nowhere... David Copperfield's audience may "see" the same thing. But, neither audience will see Baba or Copperfield perform the miracles described in the Bible without viewing them from their living rooms.
THERMODYNAMICS
Jésus could, however, boil one pot and refrigerate another, leaving the laws firmly intact. Why are we arguing over whether God could supply energy? It's abundant.
THE UNIVERSE
Also, IF the universe is all there is, it must follow its laws... it's all there is.
Randy,
Do you not consider the two different definitions of "supernatural" to be distinct from one another? - An alternative universe in the multiverse, or a proto-universe with different natural laws, as opposed to something occurring within this universe (or another) that is disconnected from its natural laws?
I think these are different (hypothetical) phenomena, which we are labeling with the same word. What do you think?
I honestly don't think it makes a difference. I get what you're saying, but for our purposes, there must exist something that is not adherent to universal laws. It is this property of non-adherence that makes the supernatural super.
Sai Baba is just one example; his example is no more special than any of the others. Jesus is not the only character to have stories of miracles surrounding him. You can look from current day to several thousand years ago and you will always be able to find claims of miracles and followers – many with multiple eyewitnesses who were there viewing with their own eyes. In many cases, the very same miracles Jesus allegedly performed (water/wine, resurrection, magical healing/exorcism...) are also said to have been performed by others (before and after Jesus), no television necessary.
Randy, when you used the boiling/freezing pots as an example in week 3, we all went along with your demonstration. We all took your words when you said “If you then separate the water again…” that you did not accidentally leave out a step where the water in one pot is then boiled again while the other was re-refrigerated. For if we were to gratuitously add such a step, it we would have foolishly missed your point. Let me assure you that there were no fires or refrigerants near Jesus’ pots after they were initially combined. The only way God could have supplied the energy was through God’s magical energy transfer method.
This is my point. If the only way energy is transferred is nothing but a narrative we tell about a specific deity transferring energy through an unknown method because we don’t know how else it happened, then this is the same thing as saying a law of thermodynamics was broken. My understanding of your position is that it is not possible for the laws of thermodynamics (or evolution) to be broken. Anytime there is an apparent break in the law, all we have to do is apply God-magic to patch it up. This is not reasonable.
Nobody is saying the Universe is all there is; there is plenty we do not know. We are just saying that you cannot talk about what unknown and use terms such as must and still claim to be value science, logic, and reason.
yes, but even naturalists claim the multiverse as a strong possibility and by def. 1, they would claim the supernatural as possible, with the existence of multiples universe, with possibly differing physical laws.
Def. 2 states that WITHIN a certain universe, the laws can be disregarded.
The existence of def. 1 would not make def. 2 a strong possibility.
"Nobody is saying the Universe is all there is; there is plenty we do not know. We are just saying that you cannot talk about what unknown and use terms such as must and still claim to be value science, logic, and reason."
This pretty much sums up my position.
I feel that laws that CANNOT be broken are constantly being referenced to show how it's possible that laws CAN be broken.
Post a Comment