My Beliefs- GDR

On one level I agree but on the other hand I do think that there is value in knowing that there is ultimate value in our choosing to act lovingly and that when the sun burns out, or whatever happens, that our lives we mattered.If Jesus wasn't resurrected then He was simply another failed messianic wannabe leaving behind a large credibility gap. Why would we take what He said seriously. With Gandhi we can at least take the message at a human level without seeing him as delusional. It goes back to that message from Paul that I quoted earlier. I'm not sure what you mean by that but in order to hear the message you have to believe that the messenger is worth listening to. I think we would agree that empirical proof would be considered factual. That doesn't mean that something that can't be empirically proven isn't factual. It simply means that we can't know it in the same way, and that we make up our own minds whether to believe it or not. Certainly it is more than just a narration of events as all the writers wrote with their own personal and cultural biases. In some ways it is how I am writing now. I have my Christian biases and I argue from that POV. However, I am writing from what I believe and what I know to make my point. They believed that the resurrection happened and they gave as good an account of what Jesus said and did as they were able. Sure and some do. There are many differences though. The flood story was written centuries after it is supposed to have occurred and all the geological and DNA evidence refutes it ever happening. The only evidence against the resurrection is the fact that we have not witnessed it happening again and that it requires a suspension of the laws of nature as we understand them. The accounts were written during the life times of some the eye-witnesses and the accounts are written by several different authors. Again though, it can't be proven so we will all choose what we are going to believe about the accounts that we have.

It wasn't just about loving your neighbour. He mad claims about His relationship with God the Father, He essentially claimed to be speaking on behalf of God, He made anti-revolutionary statements etc. I think I understand your inference but I don't see that is what is happening. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but both collectively and individually our motivations evolve. I believed that part of the message is that we are to serve Him by serving all creation as community. THe signature I use is a simple straightforward message of what God wants of us and I understand Christ's message that by serving communally that we our behavioural patterns are positively affected by one another, we can serve more effectively when we serve communally and through worship we learn that we only able to love because He loved us first.As I have said numerous times it is all about having hearts that freely love unselfishly so I don't think that time in church is in any wasted and is in fact an instrument used by God to change hearts.Mind you, I'd agree that it would be better if I were down at the local food bank right now instead of arguing with you and onifre. I should practice what I preach. It is belief in the same way that I know my wife loves me. Some beliefs are more evidenced than others even if the evidence is subjective. Why can't you accept that they were right? For one thing the picture of a the God that we see in Jesus rings true to me in a way that the God that is sometimes depicted in the OT doesn't. It is also less clear what the OT authors actually believed. As I talked about in another thread, ( Message 1 ) their views of what God approved of vary from one author to another and obviously what they wrote was a refection of their cultural biases. The NT writers are consistent about the essential elements, they have no reason to lie, and it is pretty hard to be mistaken about seeing Jesus resurrected after seeing Him dead on a cross and buried. Well I'm quite sure that not all Jews believe in a literal world-wide flood and all the original believers in the resurrection of Jesus were Jewish. The resurrection wins and we didn't even need overtime unlike a couple of hockey teams I could mention. Only after they have collected for all their baby teeth.

Well if it isn't evidence then why have so many historians spent time trying to figure out what we are to make of it? The point was that our understanding of the nature God has evolved. I am not offering it as proof of anything. I am suggesting that IF God does exist, and IF He does reach out to us in some form THEN we can reasonably suggest that our understanding of God's nature is likely to have become more focused on the truth.I don't know that my concept of God is exactly right and I'm pretty sure it isn't as my own views have continued to evolve over the years as I continue to read. I have faith in God as I can best understand Him. I have Faith in God as we see Him incarnate in Jesus but I don't have Faith in God that is a compilation of the god that is sometimes depicted in the OT of advocating for genocide and public stonings. Why is that arrogant. I have my beliefs as we all have and presumably we think we are right. Are you so arrogant to think that your non-theistic views are correct and great minds like Lewis and Tolliken are wrong.I don't believe anyone has a perfect understanding of God but I do believe that the best that we can do is to look at what words we have of Jesus, and then try and sort out as best we can all of the scholarship of the centuries starting with Paul. I am convinced that my wife loves me but I don't know it. (I am using know as in something that can be empirically verified.) It is not the same thing. I might say I am convinced that the Boston Bruins are going to win the Stanley Cup but I don't know it.

Of course the message is important but if the messenger is a crazed individual with a messianic complex we might not to be inclined to believe that our right flank is in any danger at all. He might actually be working for the other side, and it is really our left flank that is in danger. On one level I agree with you but Jesus goes further than that. Yes we should serve the community and I agree that it isn't just Christians that believe that and follow through on it.Jesus' point was that it isn't just what we do but what drives us. He says that it is important that we do it because we genuinely desire to find joy in that service regardless of the approval of others, or for any other reward including from God.As I have said numerous times it is about loving others unselfishly. I agree with that. The thing is though that we are not automatically selfless. In one sense I believe that Dawkins was on to something when he talked about memes. Selflessness, as well as selfishness is contagious. Jesus' claim was that He was establishing a kingdom of followers whose job it was to infect the world with selflessness and that, as you put it well, they would be invisibly empowered by Him working in the background. That doesn't mean that a Christian is going to behave more selflessly than his atheistic neighbour but it should mean that he will behave more selflessly than he would have if he hadn't accepted Jesus as Lord. Sure it is. We can argue about whether Bobby Orr was a better hockey player than Gordie Howe. We can look at the objective evidence such as goals scored etc but then there are the intangibles like how their play affected the physiology of their opposition that help us form our subjective conclusions.The writers of the Gospels wrote their accounts of the life of Jesus. We objectively know that they were written but we subjectively come to our conclusions about the accuracy of their accounts. I believe that all of the Biblical authors, OT and NT, were culturally and personally influenced in what they wrote. That does not mean that what they wrote was either right or wrong. If however, Jesus was bodily resurrected then what the NT writers have to say has to be taken in that light as a more accurate revelation of the nature of God and His desires for our lives. If they are wrong about the resurrection then we are not only wasting our time but as Paul says in ! Cor 15:

quote:

---

14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised ; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless

---

There is really only one flood story and there is the occasional reference to it, as well as the fact that it was written years after it was supposed to have happened. It was also written by a different author. When we read articles in a newspaper we believe some commentaries and we reject others. The Bible in that sense is like a newspaper and yes we have to come to our own conclusions about the individual authors.In a sense I do cherry pick the story of the resurrection as all of what is in the NT hangs on that. Not quite the same thing is it. Magicians all acknowledge it is an illusion. In the case of the resurrection there is no evidence to cover-up. Actually when people started claiming that the resurrection had taken place then why didn't the Romans or anyone else produce the body which would have put an end to the whole thing.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

Just as a matter of interest, Jesus didn’t actually claim to be God but claimed to act as the Father’s emissary in that He embodied God’s return to His people. The claim for His deity came later as the early Christians continued to gain understanding and to work out the meaning and ramifications of what had happened. His messianic claims were not a claim of His divinity. The messiah was to be one anointed by Yahweh which is the claim that Jesus made.Here are a couple of quotes from John.
From John 8:

quote:

---

So Jesus said, "When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am He, and I do nothing on My own initiative, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me.

---

...and from John 14:

quote:

---

28 "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 "Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe. 30 "I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me; 31 but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me. Get up, let us go from here.

---

More to the point though is I agree that there are difficulties with the accounts of the resurrection and miracles. If we start with the supposition that they can’t happen because we don’t normally observe them nor can we reproduce them, there is no discussion to be had, and they have to be rejected as fables. If however we start from a theistic point of view which essentially means that we view all life as miraculous, regardless of the process or processes that resulted in all life being here, then the resurrection is no longer impossible and the claims can be considered.As Faith points out there are several independent claims that are made and if we were discussing historical events that didn’t involve the suspension of known natural laws then we would consider the accounts as being pretty well documented. If then we consider the resurrection from a Theistic POV we can make a strong case for the Jesus’ resurrection. However, as I said, that if we start with the atheistic POV that once you are dead there is only oblivion, then the resurrection stories cannot possibly be true. He was written about by historians and the accounts are in the Bible.The resurrection was viewed by a few hundred people. There were many others, and most particularly those in power, who dismissed the story. In the end though the resurrection made no visible impact at the time. No wars were fought, no governments were overthrown and no human laws were changed. There wasn’t anything particularly notable for historians who had not been eyewitnesses and who didn’t believe those who did write about it. Jesus didn’t make any noticeable impact the way that the revolutionary messianic claimants and others had done. The Bible is evidence which we can accept or reject. How about this?Hey who painted this picture?
Nobody, it is just here
Wait, it just evolved all on its own?
Well it exists doesn’t it?
That’s the logic your using to reject the possibility of the resurrection. That is only evidence that there are natural laws. There is no evidence of how or why those laws came into existence. For that matter the fact that the laws exist at all is evidence of something that is beyond what we naturally perceive, and whether there is life on other planets or not is immaterial. Yes. Life in general, and more specifically consciousness, reason, emotions etc are far more complicated than basic elements Fish, birds and other humans involved the return to life in a form that was life as we know it and were still subject to death. However, aside from that the fact that there were various concepts of resurrection in various societies does not in any way negate the resurrection accounts of Jesus.

As I have pointed out there is evidence which we can accept or reject in the Biblical accounts. As far as reality is concerned I’m not sure that is much of a guide at all. Look at modern science. Relativity and QM goes against my sense of reality and I think both of us accept those findings. Even Einstein refused for years to accept QM as it flew in the face of his experience of reality. We have had to adapt our thinking to go against our experience of reality, and to adjust our understanding of natural laws in order to accept modern science.The fact that life came from inorganic elements is not something that is part of our experience of reality. If we find a process that does that then we can still say that our experience of reality does not include life from inorganic elements without intelligent causes. Sure if you are a strict materialist. It all depends on where we are on the spectrum of beliefs between hard core atheist and theist. I hesitate to make this argument as my knowledge of physics is slim, but as I understand it the laws of physics didn't seem to apply at T=0 and to an unimaginably small fraction of a second after that. The laws had to come into existence somehow from a time where it seems that the laws weren't suspended but didn't even exist at all, or at least in the manner that we know them. If there is an external intelligence that is responsible for our existence the there really is no need to believe that the natural laws that we experience in our perception of reality can’t be suspended, or for that matter, overridden by another set of laws. The writers of the Gospels and the Epistles. We do not know that nature has the capabilities to cause simple inorganic elements to create incredibly complex living cells. You believe that on faith as it fits with your other beliefs. You presumably believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that we live in a strictly material world. That being the case then of course you believe what it is that you believe because there is no other alternative.My perception of reality is that the idea that we just happen to exist with intelligence as a result of a fortunate combination of base elements is highly improbable and that it is much more probable that life came about because of intelligent input. I guess you can make the argument that my thinking is circular but then so is yours when you start with the premise that there is no god. What part of yes don’t you understand? I don’t think you actually read my response. One other point is that Jesus’ resurrection came out of a Jewish context. Here is a short article on resurrection by N T Wright. The Resurrection of Resurrection

We have no idea, as you obviously know, who it was that put the Gospels together. It is clear that they used a combination of what had been handed down orally and what written accounts existed. Some scholars think that there was a document they’ve called Q that contained much of the information, but as Luke says at the beginning of his gospel:

quote:

---

1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus ; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

---

You may think it is important to know who the precise names of those who compiled the stories of Jesus but I just don’t see it as at all relevant.The Gospels weren’t compiled for quite some time after the resurrection for various reasons. At that time it was mainly the Romans who were big on books but it wasn’t particularly common in the Hebrew culture. The disciples weren’t highly educated except for Paul that we know of, and for that matter the first Christians were expecting Christ to return in their lifetimes. When it became obvious that the disciples were all going to have died before the return of Christ it became important to have a permanent record to replace the oral tradition. I think that we should pay attention to all holy books. The reason that we should pay more attention to the Bible is the resurrection of Jesus which is God’s confirming what Jesus said and did. If the resurrection didn’t happen then the only reason that any one individual would accept the Bible as being more relevant would be because of their individual belief that the Bible more closely reflected their views of the nature of God.

Nonsense. The Bible are historical accounts whether we know who the authors are or not. We can assess the accounts just as we can any other historical account. These are written somewhat differently as they are accounts that tell of other’s experiences and recollections, which is likely the primary reason that we don’t know the names of those who have put the accounts together. We make a choice as to whether we believe them or not. The NT accounts are evidence which as I said we can accept or reject.

The point is though that it doesn't matter if we know that it was Matthew who wrote the Gospel of Matthew. It was written at least 50 years after the resurrection so it is highly unlikely that it is the Matthew talked about in the Gospels who wrote it.What is quite probable is that it would be somebody who wrote out the accounts based on what the followers of Matthew would have had to say about what Matthew had taught. I would agree that they are written based on the what the eye-witnesses had written or remembered of the life of Jesus and His teachings.I'd make the point that it is highly improbable that someone would compile these accounts at least one generation later if there wasn't considerable agreement on the facts of the resurrection.

Yes, they are compilations of original source material and so it would be expected that some of the material would cross over and we would expect that some of the time-lines don't match up.There are vast disagreements but there are some inconsistencies. As I've said before I would be suspicious if there weren't inconsistencies as then it would indicate collusion in an effort to make a fabrication look authentic. There are several sources in the Bible. There are the 4 Gospels which I agree share some of the same sources but certainly not all, and ther are the Epistles.I agree that it is faith in the end, but it is evidenced faith.

As you can see in the first quote you had consistently said that the Bible wasn’t evidence so I kept saying that of course it is. Now when you finally agree that the Bible is evidence you accuse me of repeating myself. However I agree, the discussion should be about the evidence itself. I never said that QM or Relativity defies physics, and we now know that they represent reality but actual reality that modern physics has opened up to us defies our sense of reality. As I said Einstein rejected QM for many years for that reason. (Spooky action at a distance.) A simple organism as you put it is hardly simple. Just go through this wiki site on the cell We can see how planets developed, we can combine the various elements chemically and see the results, and we can observe to a degree the world of QM but we do not see or have any record of base elements becoming living cells. New cells are formed from pre- existing cells through the process of mitosis, and then even from that how living cells became creatures having consciousness and eventually intelligence and morality. Right Atheistic on that one. It isn’t a single source. It is a collection of books. I answered that earlier in this post in answer to your other question about invisible beings. I also addressed that earlier in this post. I haven’t claimed that an invisible intelligent being appeared out of nowhere. It is my belief that an intelligent agency, which I call God, has always exited and is responsible for our existence. Whether or not He created the universe is another discussion as after a discussion with Straggler earlier in this thread I view that question a little differently.As to which is more improbable we simply disagree. I am not trying to prove my beliefs. I am simply trying to explain why I believe what I do from a rational point of view. I also believe because of life experiences, but that is I agree a subjective view of why I had those experiences. I outlined one in this post earlier. Message 9Again, yes. Planets, stars and solar systems are all simply base elements and simple combinations are just that. The formation of a single celled organism that has within it the ability and knowledge to evolve into sentient beings capable of morality and all of the other things that mankind has been able to accomplish is far more complex. That’s quite a jump. Yes there are mythological stories in the Bible. I’ll reqoute CS Lewis.

quote:

---

My present view--which is tentative and liable to any amount of correction--would be that just as, on the factual side, a long preparation culminates in God's becoming incarnate as Man, so, on the documentary side, the truth first appears in mythical form and then by a long process of condensing or focusing finally becomes incarnate as History. This involves the belief that Myth in general is not merely misunderstood history ... nor diabolical illusion ... nor priestly lying ... but, at its best, a real though unfocused gleam of divine truth falling on human imagination. The Hebrews, like other people, had mythology: but as they were the chosen people so their mythology was the chosen mythology--the mythology chosen by God to be the vehicle of the earliest sacred truth, the first step in that process which ends in the New Testament where truth has become completely historical. Whether we can say with certainty where, in this process of crystallization, any particular Old Testament story falls, is another matter. I take it that the memoirs of David's court come at one end of the scale and are scarcely less historical than St. Mark or Acts; and that the Book of Jonah is at the opposite end.

---

You have to specify which stories you are referring to.The term resurrection is used in numerous other instances but the resurrection of Jesus in the form it took is unique to Jesus. The closest would be from early Judaism where for the Jews who believed in resurrection believed it was for the Jewish nation at the end of time where they would all be resurrected together. Within Judaism there was also the metaphorical belief where resurrection was used to denote the Jews regaining control over the promised land.

Thank you for the nature of this post. I know this is a debate forum but I really appreciate the conversational tone of your questions. That is largely true but with a couple of caveats. It isn’t that I see other religions as being false religions but I do see Christianity as giving us the clearest picture of God that we have and yes I see the resurrection as being the confirmation of that picture of God as we see in the man Jesus Christ.I’m not sure what you mean by truth about the world but I would like to comment on what I believe we can learn from the NT about the afterlife.Actually, much of what Jesus said that people assume is about the afterlife was actually a political polemic that spoke against the revolutionaries. There is actually much more in Paul’s epistles about the afterlife than there is in the Gospels. His message which is consistent with the OT message, )particularly in the last couple of chapters of Isaiah), is that at the end of time there will be a resurrection for all of creation, the renewal of all things with the coming together of our earthly dimension and God’s heavenly dimension.It is actually pretty vague about what happens between now and then, although there is certainly the indication that His followers, (which means much more than acknowledging Him as part of the Trinity), are in some way pre-judged ahead of the end of time. However, although His message was in many ways eschatological it wasn’t the main thrust of what He was concerned with. His message wasn’t concerned as much with personal salvation, but much more with salvation of the whole planet. IMHO personal salvation is a by-product of being a follower of Jesus but if it is taken as the focus of it you have missed the whole point of what Jesus had to say. Partly. The term born again is a term that I think is badly misused. The details are personal but I do know that some time after I accepted Christianity I realized that I had a different view of things. I related differently to others and also found that things which had seemed normal to me didn’t any more. I was different to what I had been. The point of mentioning that is I do believe that in ways that aren’t, at least generally speaking, directly perceptible to us, God through His Spirit does increase our inclination to love unselfishly, which is not to say that it makes me less selfish than the atheist next door. I’d say that is true as far as it goes but I believe it is much more than that. In the first place the message that we get from the Bible is that what we do matters. The world as we perceive it will at some point end, but that it will be renewed and that somehow the good that we have done plays into that.The quote that I use as my signature I believe represents accurately what God wants of us and that it is also a foreshadowing of the world that will be when all is renewed. Your question though only addresses the justice and kindness part. The point of walking humbly with God is also an important element. I think that when we are kind and just it is easy to have a high opinion of ourselves, particularly when others tell us how wonderful we are. As I have said numerous times, and it is certainly scriptural, is that it is all about the heart. It is important to realize that we are only able to be kind and just because it is God in us and not something in which we are to take can take pride. We love because God first loved us.We are a people in exile. We are currently living in a world that aside from suffering caused by natural disasters is full of suffering caused by the selfishness of people. We are exiled from the world that God would have us living in, (we are told to ask in prayer for God’s Kingdom to come on Earth as in Heaven), which is a world where the unselfishness of Christ is the norm. I realize that in so many cases, myself as an example, you would never know it but the followers of Jesus are called to be people who infect the world with God’s love, forgiveness, mercy, peace and justice. The idea is that Christians are saved for a purpose not simply for their own eternal benefit. Actually the post count is way to high because believe it or not I do have a life apart from EvC and I’d like to get back to it. I just think it is rude to not answer posts that are addressed to me and that in the majority of cases they deserve a response. This response will probably get Faith riled up but the prophesies in the OT were essentially a metaphorical understanding of resurrection referring to the Jews reclaiming control of the Promised Land. The usual means by which they would get God to make this happen would be to religiously follow the laws, and to be on the safe side they made up a bunch more. Jesus redefined what it all meant and went to the cross as a tremendous act of faith which was vindicated by God through the resurrection.I frankly am in agreement with people like John Polkinhorne who believes that God relates to us in time and has no better idea what I’ll have for lunch next Tuesday than I do.In my view all life is miraculous but sometimes God does things that we don’t expect. I view our Earthly dimension and God’s heavenly dimension as being interlocked in ways that are imperceptible to us. I’m not sure that when God brings the two together in such a way that we are able to perceive it, that it is nearly as big a miracle as it seems to us. The Biblical message, particularly as we see in Paul, is that the resurrected Jesus is the first example of what will happen to us at the end of time as we know it. He did in Jesus He in advance what is in store for all creation eventually.I don’t think I’ve answered your questions particularly well, partly because they are such big questions. Thanks again for asking them.

Have you even read my posts? I have always said that it is men with their personal and cultural biases that have written what is now in the Bible. Sure they were inspired by God but people are inspired to do things all the time with things like acts of selfless courage, selfless charity or even creating works of art. None of them do it perfectly. In the first place it wasn’t God that had Jesus killed it was people. God resurrected Him.We don’t actually know whether or not Jesus actually wrote anything out or not. All we know is that people from about 50 to 70n or so years later compiled what was written, in addition to what came through the oral tradition, into the Gospels that we have today. We do have the Epistles from an earlier date.In general God has chosen, to work through the hearts minds and imaginations of humans and as a result things don’t work out perfectly. That is just comes from having free will.

I agree that is a reasonable argument to make. I find it interesting to consider when the Gospels were compiled, but it doesn't affect my understanding of them, nor their validity one way or the other.I used this site for dates and it is a good source fro early Christian documents. Early Christian Documents

Then why attack positions that I don’t hold? If you are going to lie about something then usually there is some motive. In this case you would need multiple people lying and for what reason? They wrote it and there is no doubt in my mind that they believed it. By faith I believe that they got the essential parts of the narrative correct and if some of the accounts did become embellished over time then so what. We all live in that shark tank. I don’t see it as a plan as such, but Jesus knew what the authorities in that culture do to those who buck the system. God redeemed it. There is the Bible but you simply reject the whole thing. He has also given us a conscience so that we know the difference between right and wrong and He has given us the ability to choose. If God were to explicitly say this is the reward for doing the right thing and this is the punishment when you screw up, then we’ve lost our free will. The point is that He wants hearts that freely choose the right and unselfish thing.