Sigh…
So here’s what’s been going on lately. Most of you who read this blog already know that when my wife and I left Christianity, it wrecked most of our family relationships. My wife’s parents and siblings, as well as my own, felt that they could no longer interact with us socially after our deconversion. We were no longer invited to any family functions, and our communication with them all but disappeared. We would speak if it was about religious issues, or if there were logistic issues that needed to be worked out in letting them see our kids, etc.
Over the years, things have gotten a little better, especially with my wife’s parents. Things are by no means back to normal, but at least our infrequent interactions have become more civil and more comfortable. A few weeks ago, I even had a phone conversation with my father that lasted about half an hour and had no references to religion whatsoever. It was nice.
Nevertheless, the awkwardness is still there, just under the surface. And we’re still blacklisted from all the family functions.
Throughout this time, I’ve occasionally reached out to my side of the family with phone calls, letters, facebook messages, etc, in an effort to discuss the issues that divide us. I don’t get much response. I’ve always been puzzled by that, since I know they think I’m completely wrong. If their position is right, why aren’t they willing to discuss it?
In the last five years, I’ve also been sent books and articles and even been asked to speak to certain individuals, and I’ve complied with every request. Why not? How could more information hurt? But when I’ve suggested certain books to them, or written letters, they aren’t read. When I finally realized that my problems with Christianity weren’t going to be resolved, I wrote a 57-page paper to my family and close friends, explaining why I could no longer call myself a Christian. As far as I know, none of them ever read the whole thing. And sure, 57 pages is quite a commitment. But they say this is the most important subject in their lives…
This past week, the topic has started to come back around. A local church kicked off a new series on Monday entitled “Can We Believe the Bible?” It’s being led by an evangelist/professor/apologist that was kind enough to take time to correspond with me for several weeks in the summer of 2010. I’ve never met him in person, but a mutual friend connected us, since he was someone who was knowledgeable about the kinds of questions I was asking. Obviously, we didn’t wind up on the same page.
My wife’s parents invited us to attend the series, but it happens to be at a time that I’m coaching my oldest daughter’s soccer team. So unless we get rained out at some point, there’s no way we can attend. However, we did tell them that if practice is ever cancelled, we’ll go. I also contacted the church and asked if the sermons (if that’s the right word?) will be recorded, and they said that they should be.
Monday night, the weather was fine, so we weren’t able to attend. And so far, the recording isn’t available on their website. However, they do have a recording of Sunday night’s service available, which is entitled “Question & Answer Night.” I just finished listening to it, and that’s where the bulk of my frustration comes from.
It’s essentially a prep for the series that kicked off Monday night. They’re discussing why such a study is important, as well as the kinds of things they plan to cover. What’s so frustrating to me is that I don’t understand the mindset of evangelists like this. I mean, they’ve studied enough to know what the major objections to fundamentalist Christianity are, yet they continue on as if there’s no problem. And when they do talk about atheists and skeptics, they misrepresent our position. I can’t tell if they honestly believe the version they’re peddling, or if they’re purposefully creating straw men.
A couple of times, they mentioned that one of the main reasons people reject the Bible comes down to a preconception that miracles are impossible. “And if you start from that position, then you’ll naturally reject the Bible.” But that’s a load of crap. Most atheists were once theists, so their starting position was one that believed in miracles.
They also mentioned that so many of these secular articles and documentaries “only show one side.” I thought my head was going to explode.
And they referred to the common complaints against the Bible as “the same tired old arguments that have been answered long ago.” It’s just so infuriating. If the congregants had any knowledge of the details of these “tired old arguments,” I doubt they’d unanimously find the “answers” satisfactory. But the danger with a series like this is that it almost works like a vaccination. The members of the congregation are sitting in a safe environment, listening to trusted “experts,” and they’re injected with a watered down strain of an argument. And it’s that watered down version that’s eradicated by the preacher’s message. So whenever the individual encounters the real thing, they think it’s already been dealt with, and the main point of the argument is completely lost on them.
For example, most Christians would be bothered to find out that the texts of the Bible are not as reliable as were always led to believe. Even a beloved story like the woman caught in adultery, where Jesus writes on the ground, we’ve discovered that it was not originally part of the gospel of John. It’s a later addition from some unknown author. To a Christian who’s never heard that before, it’s unthinkable! But if they’ve gone through classes where they’ve been told that skeptics exaggerate the textual issues in the Bible, and that the few changes or uncertainties deal with only very minor things, and that none of the changes affect any doctrinal points about the gospel, then it’s suddenly easier for them to swallow “minor” issues like the insertion of an entire story into the gospel narrative.
Sigh…
I’m going to either attend these sessions, or I’ll watch/listen to them once they’re available online. I may need to keep some blood pressure medication handy, though.
Finding Truth 
“If the Gospels are really accurate descriptions of historical events, why don’t we find an entry like this in any secular history book?”
Quick, list the secular history books written in 30 AD.
Or 40. Or 50.
We don’t read any of those things in contemporary secular history books because there aren’t any.
LikeLike
You’ve never learned, have you Crown, the value of brevity?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, I was working in the Gym all day, trying to coax teenagers to run, do crunches and push-ups, tracking down pedometers, admonishing students to NOT hit so hard with noodles and balls, and having to shout to be heard.
Your comment above gave me my first belly laugh of the day! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh yeah, Crown! How could I forget that? The invisible guy with the booming voice that reverberated throughout the world-at-large making a statement for all to hear … “Hey folks, this is my Son! So everyone better listen to him and mind your p’s and q’s … or else!”
Funny how this isn’t recorded anywhere else but in the bible. I mean, it being from God and all …
Nonetheless, I stand by my claim that Jesus (himself) never declared he was the son of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Crown,
You missed my point.
Look at any secular history book used in any secular college or university in this country and you won’t find an entry about Jesus as you will about Alexander, Julius Caesar, etc. My point is that yes, there is evidence for the existence of a Jewish prophet named Jesus, but UnkleE;’s assertion that most historians believe that the Gospels record accurate historical facts is false.
I ask UnkleE or anyone else to show me one modern, secular history book that has an entry on Jesus that records as historical fact any more than that he lived, was baptized by John the Baptist, allegedly did some unspecified miracles, and was crucified by the Romans at the request of the Jews.
That scant information does NOT confirm that the many stories in the Gospels are historically accurate, in particular, that scant information does not confirm that any of the supernatural claims in the Gospels are accurate.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Gary, keyword – “allegedly.” This pretty much sums up all the claims of the bible, don’t you agree?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, Nan, everything else about Jesus, other than the scant details listed above, is alleged…by four anonymous authors, three of whom plagiarized the first for the core story and many details. These four books are NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, four independent eye-witness accounts. Since when do eyewitnesses need to plagiarize another eyewitness’s testimony to give his own “eyewitness” testimony??
And, why would an alleged eyewitness (Matthew) plagiarize the testimony of a NON-eyewitness (John Mark) in writing his own eyewitness testimony???
Common folks. It’s blatantly obvious that the Gospels cannot be described as “historically accurate” accounts of the life and death of Jesus. Other than the above scant details, we have no idea what happened. It’s speculation. Could the supernatural claims of the Gospels have happened? Sure! But its also possible that unicorns and leprechauns exist.
People like UnkleE believe that the Gospels are accurate accounts of real historical events for one reason: they want so much for it all to be true.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry! Should have said, “Common sense, folks”. I am not a member of the aristocracy (except in my dreams…), I was not referring to you all as “common people”. 🙂
LikeLike
Nan, I shouldn’t say you haven’t studied any New Testament scholarship, but something serious is going on. How can you not know that the term “Son of God” is not obviously linked to divine status, only by argument? More importantly, how can you be unaware that the gospels as legend has been thoroughly refuted? That’s two strikes already.
And, you claim with certainty that Jesus never directly makes a divine claim. It’s nice that you feel so strongly about this deep in your heart, but I wonder if this is the product of a layperson with the internet making conspiracy theories, or the careful scholarly production of someone with a degree in New Testament studies who can read ancient Greek? I can’t say for sure, but I strongly suspect the former.
I have some questions for you. 1) Why was Jesus charged with blasphemy by Caiaphas? Was it because A) He claimed to be the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One (Mark 14:61-2), B) Messiah, the Son of God (Matthew 26:63), C) Messiah and Son of God (Luke 22:70)? 2) I’m sure you’re an expert in first century Jewish messianism and are aware of the idea of a divine messiah. So, how do you rule out that Jesus claimed to be a divine messiah to reach your level of absolute certainty? 3) Suppose you reject the testimony of Jesus before the high priest. On what non-arbitrary historical grounds do you reject it?
LikeLike
Dave – you wrote: “For someone who does not have their own witness of miracles, how do you recommend they begin to study God? I have asked the Creator many times to help me, but I don’t even know if there is anyone listening. What if the shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery, the miracles claimed by many are stories and illusions, and we are actually alone in a strange universe that ticks along with no great mind guiding it along? Wouldn’t that explain why some people die at birth and some people live a long life? How can there be a purpose for this life if some have it taken away before they even get started? I would love to learn that death is not the end, but how can I elevate this beyond wishful thinking?”
Let me take a stab at answering each question.
“For someone who does not have their own witness of miracles, how do you recommend they begin to study God?”
Start with natural science and with the dictionary. You need to do these things in parallel, so that you don’t turn natural science into an idol. Chemistry is a good gateway science. Biology is advanced chemistry, really. The physics is the capstone. You need to read until you understand what energy is, what matter is, how they are convertible, what space is, what time is, what entropy is, and the theories of how they came about.
You need to read, also, the problems with the theories, how and where they breakdown.
You need to see the extent to which human reason, applied to physical objects and to energy, has unveiled many secrets of things that are too big or too small for our normal senses.
You need to understand the Standard Theory, how it fits together. You need to understand the physics, and how chemistry derives from them, and how biology derives from chemistry. You need to understand geology and meteorology, and astronomy.
You must not make an idol out of them, but you DO need to understand how our scientists think it works, how they think it came about, and the evidence they use. You don’t need to understand it to a degree of rigorous mathematical precision: you’re not going to be publishing papers in the field. But you do need to understand “Genesis” (origins) and “Presentis” (how things are now), and what scientific speculation says is so.
This will give you three things, if you are diligent:
(1) You’ll understand how the physical universe is thought to work.
(2) You’ll understand where our theories break down.
(3) You’ll understand how it all reposes on certain key words: “Matter”, “energy”, “space”, “time”, “law”, “existence”, “entropy”, “order”, “chaos”, etc.
Now, scientific analysis is done mathematically, but the actual theorizing and explanation itself must be done with words. And when you begin to explore those words, you will discover that the terms are defined in a circle, or simply labels given to certain things that we see, or think we see.
This will cause you to understand that existence itself, at the level of language, is a concept that reposes on the verb “to be”. All of science, observational and theoretical, reposes on the verb “to be”. Scientists seek to describe and model and document what IS.
The depths of the theories, and the fragility and malleability of the few words by which the theories are expressed, will impress you.
If you don’t understand natural science WELL, how can you possibly know what a miracle is even if you see one? It is only if you know what is possible and what is not possible, under our theories and understandings, that you can realize that you are looking at something that simply cannot BE, if the theories are right.
Starting with natural science, and realizing the weakness of science is the malleability of the words used to describe what is found, you can then move up to natural philosophy.
IS THERE an everywhere? Yes. We define “everywhere” as “the universe”. Now, one can postulate “parallel universes”, but that is playing with words. If the universe is defined as being everything, than all “parallel universes” are, by definition, merely parts of the larger “universe”. If “univserse” has become too tied by usage to a particular four-dimensional space, then find a new word – Multiverse, something else – to describe EVERYTHING, including parallel universes, etc.
So, there’s an everywhere.
And everywhere we look in that everywhere, that universal, we find that the physics as we have modeled it seems to function. That’s why we call it “natural law”, because it truly does seem to be a LAW, this Law of Nature, that operates everywhere and anywhere, big to small, anywhere observable.
So, what do you call something that operates everywhere in the universe? Have your dictionary handy? Good. Look up “omnipresent” – present everywhere. The Natural Law is Omnipresent – everywhere in the universe we look, it IS.
Now consider what it does. The physics operate everywhere don’t they? Every speck of matter and every photon of energy operates in a certain manner. When we see things behaving oddly, we observe them and model them until we can extend the Standard Theory to embrace them. The physical laws as we understand them may not be exact models, but we have no doubt that there ARE physical laws that govern everything we see. So, when there’s a law that controls all matter and energy, everywhere, what is a word for that universal control? Omnipotent. All-powerful. Yes?
So, we’ve got an omnipotent natural law that is omnipresent.
We say that when we look at ancient light as it arrives, we are looking back in time. We say that we can describe the neat unfolding of existence all the way back to nanoseconds after the “Big Bang”. Consider, then, the concept of “time”, and how “time” is a relationship between things. Before there are things, there is no time. So, when we look at our natural law, it goes back to the beginning of time. Before that, in the timelessness that existed before, we cannot delve. As far as we can tell, then, our Natural Law goes back to the beginning, perhaps before. From the beginning of time onwards – eternal.
What have we got, just from studying the natural universe? We have a Natural Order that is omnipresent, omniscient and eternal.
Now please, define God.
“God” is that which is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient. If we find a thing that is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and omniscient, we have found God, by definition.
We have already found something that is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal: Natural Law, the Laws of Nature.
That leaves only omniscience. If we find omniscience – all knowing – then we have found that which fits the definition of the word “God”.
Well, to our naked eyes, we do not look out and find omniscience clearly visible. We do find “science” – knowledge, intelligence, if only in us and the animals. The existence of our minds to comprehend all this at least allows us to infer that intelligence, “scientia”, is POSSIBLE within the universe, though it doesn’t prove it.
So, let’s look at where our natural philosophy has taken us. We have identified that which is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Eternal, and we call it Natural Law, meaning the Laws of Physics, as fully expressed over all fields. We see scientia, in ourselves, but we don’t easily or directly see omniscience.
If we stop here, we have risen from being Natural Scientists to being Pantheists: we see the universal Physics, Natural Law, and we recognize that it is omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal. If we were to define God as just those three things, leaving off omniscient, then Nature itself, its Physics, IS God.
Pantheism is the minimal rational religion of the true scientist. It is a matter of the definition of words. If God is DEFINED as that which is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal, then the Physics is God, and you’re a pantheist, or should be, if you’re logical.
The open question is that of omniscience.
Three different roads lead to the conclusion that it exists, transforming natural pantheism into theism. The first is direct revelation. If the universe talks to you, then you know, by revelation, that it is omniscient. But you might be crazy, so however persuasive to YOU, your visions often will not persuade others.
The second is physical miracle. You’ve studied the sciences so you know a physics-busting miracle if you see one. This is what I’ve tried to point out in the Shroud. The nature of the image itself can be neither man-made nor nature made, yet it exists. Even if the cloth were spun in the 13th century, the image wasn’t put there by a man.
The Incorrupt – those undecayed bodies of saints – there are a lot of them, including Bernadette Soubrious, who saw the Virgin Mary at Lourdes, where the miracles have been unleashed.
If you want to see that God has a mind, you can’t look away from the miracles or ignore the science of them. You need to LOOK. Bodies that don’t rot? That’s not possible. But it EXISTS, and is on public display. And look WHO it’s about. Miraculous healings – well recorded, well documented. Bread turned into heart tissue and blood. Miraculous image on a cloth. All evincing one consistent theme.
ALL fraud? But HOW? HOW do you heal documented diseased by fraud? HOW do you make 300 year old bodies not rot? HOW do you get that image on the Shroud.
Do not accept the facile explanations of skeptics. You took the time to LEARN the physics, and you found the Pantheistic God that is nature by doing so. And you found, in human an animal intelligence, a glimmer of scientia. Not omniscience, but at least an evolution towards greater and greater knowledge.
Do not, then, when faced with potential miracles that prove that there already EXISTS a mind that controls physics, go flabby in the mind and impose an unreasoning skepticism. Look at the details of the miracles, at the physics, the chemistry, the biology.
There are hundreds of pieces of data. If you peer earnestly at the unexplained, really delving into the science to see that all of these things evince a design, an intelligence, you are in a much better position to reach out to that intelligence – if it exists – and ask it to reach back and let you have a glimpse.
It’s always true that God reveals himself to whom he will, and hides from whom he will. It’s a cinch that men of bad faith who hate him and snarl at his name will be given nothing, and will stagger around and die in their ignorance.
If you really WANT to see, then start by studying his handiwork in physical things, then move to intelligent things and alleged miracles – the kind that are veridical and subject to study. At some point the evidence will cause you to intuit the rest. Or you’ll be given a vision or a spark of grace to take a step – not a leap – of faith that all of the miracles are not just frauds and hoaxes.
That’s what I would say. To further assist the process, I would say to pick up the Gospel of St. Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, just those books, and read them.
God in the Scripture is found in Elohiym, El Shaddai, El Elyon, YHWH and his angels in the Hebrew Scriptures, and Jesus, the Father and angels in the Greek Scriptures. Their words only make up about 8% of the total mass of Scriptures. Instead of reading stuff that will be puzzling, it is best to focus on the central figure – the one on the Shroud, and the one whose heart tissue is in the Lanciano Miracle, and whose mother was the harbinger of the miracles at Lourdes. All four Gospels are good. I could send you a concordant harmony of the Gospels, Acts and Revelation I put together, in which every word that Jesus or the Father spoke in the New Testament is put in the historical order of the story, and the rest is not there. The concordant aspect of it means that each Greek word was translated by the same English word every time, so there’s no dancing around with translations.
Why? Focusing on Jesus certainly can help, because you’ve already found the natural law – the HAND of God nature. Natural Philosophy takes you to Pantheism. You’re looking for the mind of God, and trying to find there IS one through the miracles. Well, the mind of God was carried by a man, and that man is associated with the miracles, so if there’s anybody you should be looking at it’s Jesus. Problem: there’s only a few ancient sources. Maybe they’re accurate, maybe they’re not, but they’re what you’ve got. Read them in juxtaposition with the miracles, already knowing that through your study of the Physics you found omnipotent, eternal and omnipresent. You’re just looking of omniscient.
Read about Jesus – Just Jesus – and look at the miracles with a scientific eye. The miracles prove that the man was who he said he was. And reading about him will make you realize reach toward him, because you will WANT him to be so.
God may give you a miracle then, to seal the deal. Or your mind, disciplined by science, may logically close the switch. After all, the whole of natural law breaks down AT creation, and we can’t go before that, and the Big Bang sure looks like creation. And the miraculous nature of the miracles I’ve suggested looking at really are miracles. Our major scientific theories have been proven with less numerous and rigorous data.
That is how you get there, without relying on Church OR Scriptures. Through science, logic, and applying science to miraculous artifacts. Put in the effort, and God will help you the rest of the way.
You wrote: “I have asked the Creator many times to help me, but I don’t even know if there is anyone listening.”
He is. He sent me to you, didn’t he?
You: “What if the shroud of Turin is a medieval forgery,”
Then somebody in the middle ages figured out how to control an entropic reaction and create a 3D photographic negative on linen. It’s more likely in that case that the Shroud is a medieval miracle than a forgery.
You: “What if…the miracles claimed by many are stories and illusions,”
The undecayed bodies of several dozen saints. Bodies rot. Bodies that are several hundred years old in some cases should be rotted away. A little wax makeup doesn’t stop bodies from rotting. These are open, visible, even notorious miracles.
If you were Satan, and desperate to prevent people from LOOKING AT the wide open evidence God had left, what would you do? Obfuscate, scream that it’s all frauds, do everything to persuade people NOT TO LOOK. Look at the Incorrupt, and you will be surprised at how much there is, and how well preserved. But also, how much there isn’t – how the incorrupt are saintly people, not just some random sample of bodies. 6 million bodies were exhumed from the Paris cemeteries after the Revolution. How many were found incorrupt? None. It’s rare and freakish thing, and it happens to Christian saints. Only. That’s pretty convincing.
Healings in modern times aren’t illusions. People don’t give up government disability payments in order to trick others.
You wrote: “What if…we are actually alone in a strange universe that ticks along with no great mind guiding it along?”
Well, we’re not. But if we were, then life would be short, there would be no purpose to anything, and morality would be purely a matter of human opinion. So I would advise going out and having as much interesting sex as possible, because it’s the most pleasurable thing going, and there would be no consequences at all unless you got AIDS, so be careful.
You wrote: “Wouldn’t that explain why some people die at birth and some people live a long life?”
No. If there’s no God, there’s no PURPOSE to anything. It’s all blind and dumb, and without a mind, so there’s no EXPLANATION available. With God, remembering that there is a second act after life makes the length of life somewhat less relevant to anything. In fact, it may be that God removes some from the earth early to have them with him in joy sooner, or to avoid something terrible coming to them, etc. There’s no way to weigh the tumblers that determine such things.
You: “How can there be a purpose for this life if some have it taken away before they even get started?” Perhaps the spirit dipped in flesh has greater wisdom on account of that then pure spirit. Perhaps at the end, those spirits that dwelt in flesh are of a higher order than angels and being of pure spirits. And perhaps the purest human spirits are the ones that were dipped in flesh, but died pure, before being tempted away by Satan and committing personal sin. After all, Jesus promised that the Last will be First, and the First will be Last. And who is the least in our society? The unborn baby aborted inside its mother. Sinless, blameless, sacrificed to service the sin of the one who was charged with its care. The mother faces horror after death, unless she repents. But the baby may well ascend to glory. From that perspective, a long life of success is no blessing, for the afterlife is longer, and the trappings of success on the earth are generally sinful and lead to a much diminished afterlife.
Finally, you wrote: “I would love to learn that death is not the end, but how can I elevate this beyond wishful thinking?”
Start, then, by reading the article in the British Medical Journal “The Lancet”, published in 2001, of a long-term, controlled hospital study of Near-Death Experiences. Look for miracles. To wit: the congenitally blind never see in their dreams, because they have no memory of seeing by which to form sighted images. But they see in their NDEs, and afterwards, are forever as formerly sighted people, as opposed to the born-blind. If you think about that, it is exceptionally powerful evidence of a detachable, non-organically based spirit.
If you want to find God, you can find him through science.
You will also find the Devil opposing you – the more you near the destination the more you slip-slide away.
Science will get you to Pantheism. Miracles viewed through the lens of science will get you to Christianity.
Nothing but you and divine grace will keep you from sinning.
And nothing but forgiveness will save you from doom in the afterlife.
So, be scientific, be open-minded, seek the answers, open the door to Jesus by reading of him as you do this (but skip the rest – Just Jesus for now). Read, and consider what is reasonable doubt, and what is cussed stubbornness and unreasonable doubt.
Realize that being a Christian will not make you a better person. Doing what Jesus said will. And you’ll sin anyway, probably sexually, probably with lies, probably with cowardice. And then realize that forgiveness is only way that God has given for you to avoid punishment. Want him to forgive you for sins against him, then you have to forgive other men their debts against you. He hasn’t given any other way.
So, those are the answers to your questions.
LikeLike
Nan – You wrote: “Funny how this isn’t recorded anywhere else but in the bible. I mean, it being from God and all …”
Nan, what OTHER record do we have from the 30’s AD other than the Bible? What record do we have of ANYTHING that happened in that decade, besides the Bible and a few coin and grave inscriptions?
LikeLike
“You’ve never learned, have you Crown, the value of brevity?”
Ok: It’s all true. Trust me, I know.
There.
LikeLike
Dave, you wrote -“What is your strongest evidence for life continuing after death?”
The strongest PERSONAL evidence I have is this:
(1) A dead lizard was raised back to life, in my hand, by God.
(2) A dead mouse was raised back to life, in my hand, by God.
(3) My cousin died in a motorcycle wreck about six months ago. I did not hear about it for two days. I had not seen her for many years. She had had a really hard life, and it ended brutally.
I do not smoke, and never did. She did. I was told about it in the morning, via e-mail, before work. I drove to work, down a road with nobody on it. I was very sad, and I talked out loud to her spirit. I had tears on my face.
A strong smell of cigarette smoke filled the car, and the CD player in my car turned on. I didn’t turn it on. When it turns on, it starts at the beginning of songs. My daughter’s disc was one of the discs in the CD player, and a particular song midway down the disc came on. It did not start at the beginning of the song, but right in the middle, something that CD player does not do. It started right in the middle of a Demi Lovato song, right at the start of a line. And it went like this.
“It’s funny how some distance makes everything seem small.
And the fears that once controlled me can’t get to me at all.
Up here in the cold thin air I finally can breathe.
I know I left a life behind but I’m too relieved to grieve…”
Right there. That song. Those lyrics. That smell. There. That was how my cousin said goodbye, and said that she was alright. I know it. We flew out to California to the funeral. I told nobody. I didn’t want to make some maudlin display. I did tell one of her sisters awhile later.
That is how I know, for sure, that there is life after death. Because cigarette smoke came out of the thin air, and the CD player turned itself on to that line, in the middle of a song – which it cannot do – and my dead cousin spoke back to me in that way, right at the instant I was speaking to her.
That is the strongest evidence I have.
You cannot know that I am telling the truth about any of this.
Therefore, you need to study the science, read the Lancet NDE study, and others, and look at the miracles. You cannot trust what I say is truth enough to build belief on it. But because it is true, you can follow the trail of things you can look at that are scientific and documented, and you can gain a strong comprehension of the real lay of the land.
LikeLike
“And, why would an alleged eyewitness (Matthew) plagiarize the testimony of a NON-eyewitness (John Mark) in writing his own eyewitness testimony???” – And most particularly, why would Levi, the tax-collector (Greek name, Matthew), describe the addition of Levi to the list of apostles, in the third person, rather than saying, “I”?
LikeLike
“I was not referring to you all as “common people”.” – Except possibly also in your dreams.
LikeLike
I think they call that a Freudian slip —
LikeLike
ANT … from the beginning, my contention has been that Jesus did not ever claim he was the son of God. I pointed out that his followers believed this of him (and he may have even believed it of himself), but Jesus never made this statement.
You, and Crown, are trying to insert other factors into the discussion related to divinity, the historicity of the gospels, statements made in the bible by others, and the intimation that this claim might have been in the original Greek but not carried over in translation.
Puleeeze.
Facts are facts. Jesus did not directly make this claim in any bible translation that I have come across. Period.
One other thing … the Jews were NOT looking for a “divine messiah.” They were looking for the “anointed one” (mashiach) — a human leader, descended from King David, who would defeat their enemies and usher in the kingdom of God. For many, Jesus seemed to be that one — as were several others who came before, during, and after him. He just happened to get the best publicity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“If you don’t understand natural science WELL, how can you possibly know what a miracle is even if you see one?”
Now whereever could we expect to find those who DO understand all of those things? Possibly in the Academy of Science, which Neil Tyson informs us is comprised of a full 85% atheists – in fact he remarks that the real mystery is how the other paltry 15% could NOT be!
LikeLike
Nan – God, the Father, spoke from the air several times referring to Jesus as his beloved Son.
An angel came to Mary and said that the Holy Spirit would come upon her and she would conceive and bear a child, though a Virgin.
I’ve got Father fathering him of a virgin, and I’ve got the Father SAYING Jesus is his son. The text says that Jesus was the Son of God.
If Jesus said that himself, he might be a loon. But the FATHER said it, and Mary was a Virgin.
Now, obviously if the book is all fables, then none of that is true. But I don’t treat it as fables but as history. And in that history I’ve got GOD saying that Jesus is his Son, and God fathering him with Mary.
though you can doubt Scripture, if Scripture is true, it doesn’t leave that question in doubt.
LikeLike
Atheists?
Well, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Mendel, Mendeleev, Descartes, Paschal, Bequerel, Volta, Pasteur, Lavoisier, Enrico Fermi, Faraday, Kelvin, Bacon, Planck, Linnaeus, Avogadro, Watt, Seaborg, …even the famous Occam with his Razor…and on and on…none of them were atheists.
What great discoverer of scientific theory was ever an atheist?
None of them.
The study of science at its beginnings required the believe that there was a God, and that the universe would show the rational order of the mind of the creator.
That was the Catholic belief from the time of Thomas Acquinas and before, and it’s WHY science – western, empirical science, the real kind, based on observation and testing, came out of the Catholic Church, and not out of atheists or anarchists or whatever.
Nowadays you’ve got some atheist Lilliputians standing on the shoulders of giants, preaching a hokey philosophy from a towering edifice they never could have built themselves. Without the belief in a rational God, without KNOWING that if we looked and reached out and kept looking, we WOULD find the divine order in the cosmos that we were SURE was there, because of God, nothing would have ever been discovered.
It took tremendous faith to be a scientist in the age of discovery – the belief that the order WAS there, to be found.
LikeLike
Nan, you wrote: “Facts are facts. Jesus did not directly make this claim in any bible translation that I have come across. Period.”
Take a look in Luke, at the young Jesus in the Temple.
Jesus called God “Father” how many times in the Gospels? 50? 60? If God was his “Father”, then he was his son.
How many times was God called “Father” in the whole old Testament? Barely at all.
LikeLike
Crown, both you and Brandon keep missing the point. I don’t care what the disciples or anyone else said about Jesus. And just because Jesus called God his “Father” does not mean that God really was his actual father. AND just because some booming voice from “somewhere” indicated Jesus was his son doesn’t prove anything.
Once again … Jesus DID NOT claim in so many words that he was the son of God.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s nice that you have such a strong feeling and conviction, but where is your reasoning? You are the one making a claim, now back it up! Why is the historicity of the gospels not an important factor? I would think how the gospels relate to the historical Jesus is of chief importance. Also, you failed to answer my questions.
I’m not saying that you need to be able to read Greek to understand any counter-case; notice I gave no such counter-case, so this is a strawman fallacy. I was pointing out that you are most likely an untrained layperson when it comes to this matter. And, clearly you are not an expert on first century Jewish messianism. Yes, there is the idea of the warrior king like David and of his line, but do you really think that was the only messianic belief?
LikeLike
Nan – “Once again … Jesus DID NOT claim in so many words that he was the son of God.”
Well, gosh Nan, in English, and Latin, and Greek and Hebrew, if you call somebody your Father, you’re generally saying that you’re his son.
And if someone calls someone who calls him “father”, “His beloved son”, he’s saying that this is his son.
And if a virgin gives birth, after an angel says that the spirit of God will come over her, and it happens, well, that would mean that God was the Father, and the child born of that would be the son of God.
Every time Jesus called God “Father”, all of those 50 or 60 times, he was saying that he was the son of God. In fewer words than “I am the Son of God” too.
And anyway, what difference does it make to you? If Jesus, accompanied by miracles and trumpets and angels said: “I am the Son of God!” in precisely those exact words, you wouldn’t believe a word of it, because you don’t accept any of the book as true. So what are we arguing about here, really?
LikeLike
“I’m not saying that you need to be able to read Greek to understand any counter-case; notice I gave no such counter-case, so this is a strawman fallacy. I was pointing out that you are most likely an untrained layperson when it comes to this matter.”
One does not need to have an advanced degree from a school of divinity to know that:
– beings do not walk on water
-water cannot turn into wine
– blind people are not healed by rubbing spit into their eye sockets
– herds of pigs do not become demon possessed
– dead beings do not walk out of their graves to eat a broiled fish lunch with their former fishing buddies, and then to finish off the evening, levitate into outer space.
Anyone with a brain and a six grade science education can figure out that these are nonsensical superstitions. The fact that you can’t see the truth, Brandon, is because you have been brainwashed to believe that all the religious superstitions in the world are false…except your own.
LikeLike