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 
Maybe I asked too many questions for you to deal with. Maybe let’s just start with Mark 14:62. Jesus directly claims to be the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One. Is the Blessed One not God? Is the Son of God not divine? Or, can you prove this story is not historical?
You basically have three options here. I’m open to hear your case. But, not an irrational conviction or a conspiracy theory.
LikeLike
Brandon,
Here is the first part of an essay by John Loftus on the alleged divinity of Jesus. He brings up some very curious problems with this concept.
Was Jesus God Incarnate?
By John W. Loftus at 12/26/2006
Since historical questions are easily disputed, let’s lay them aside for the most part and see if we can we make any sense of the belief that Jesus was an incarnate God.
One modern attempt to defend the notion that Jesus was God incarnate has been made by Thomas Morris, in The Logic of God Incarnate (Cornwell Univ. Press, 1986), in which he defends the proposition that “Jesus of Nazareth was one and the same person as God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.” (p. 13).
Initially, such a view raises certain questions. Christians like Morris have three successive beings to reconcile with each other: 1) The 2nd Person of the Trinity who existed before time; 2) Jesus, who is God-in-the-flesh–a unique and new being in history; and, 3) The resurrected and glorified Jesus who now is purportedly “sitting at the right hand of God.”
Now keep in mind that the God-man Jesus was a fully human being, so any resurrected God-man must have a body in keeping with his humanity, otherwise the human part of the God-man ceased to exist, died, or his was simply discarded. But it can’t be that God would destroy a sinless man, the man Jesus. Therefore, the resurrected Jesus, being a God-man, is a new and unique being, and this dual natured being is unlike the previous 2nd person of the Trinity.
When I asked about this problem of the glorified Jesus, my former professor, Dr. Ron Feenstra, had no trouble accepting the conclusion that the 2nd person of the Trinity took on a human form and now must keep it for all of eternity. [He edited, along with Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989)]. I just find this whole belief extremely troublesome and implausible. If the human nature of Jesus is forever linked to the 2nd Person of the Trinity, then the full Trinity now includes a man, that is, the human side of Jesus. In heaven the 2nd Person of the Trinity must now forever live encapsulated within a human body (a glorious body, nonetheless, but a body). We now have an embodied God, forever! This whole thing seems contrived and is the result of believing, along with ancient superstitious people, that human beings could be gods (see Acts 14:11; 28:6).
(continued. I will post the link next if you wish to read more.)
LikeLike
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/12/was-jesus-god-incarnate.html
Here is a question for you, Brandon: Did the second person of the Trinity have a body prior to the creation of the universe?
LikeLike
My laptop just turned on by itself and the theme from “The X Files” began playing – hmmm —
LikeLiked by 1 person
As an author yourself, Nan, you should know it helps to have a good agent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You have none of those things – you have four anonymous men who weren’t there SAYing that those things happened.
LikeLiked by 1 person
First, ANT, the footnote in the NRSV indicates “Son of the Blessed One” could also mean “the Christ,” which is defined as meaning “anointed one” or “messiah,” not son of God.
As for answering your questions — quite frankly, I don’t see the point. My contention has been and still is that nowhere in the scriptures does Jesus say he is the son of God. Beyond that, it’s all speculation and personal belief as to what the scriptures “really mean” when Jesus makes other statements related to his divinity
Oh, and one other thing, you suggested that what I’ve presented is an “irrational conviction” — but I might say the same to what both you and Crown have put forth. You both feel the bible backs you up, but as has been demonstrated on this blog (as well as many others), your source material has some definite problems.
And Crown, calling someone “father” carries little to no weight. You call your priest father. Does that mean you recognize him as the son of God?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan wrote: “You have none of those things – you have four anonymous men who weren’t there SAYing that those things happened.”
Well, obviously. It’s all hearsay. The whole Scripture. The whole of history, in fact, is hearsay.
Hell, even first person accounts are hearsay, unless they’re said in court subject to cross-examination.
If one is going to limit one’s self to what the text SAYS – and I’ve explained before my rationale for doing so so I won’t repeat – then the text SAYS that Jesus is the Son of God.
If one is going to go off text and start talking about what one believes ABOUT the text, well, then one can come to whatever conclusion on pleases, depending on which scholars one chooses to believe.
That’s why I stick to the text alone – because everything else is utter speculation, but the text ITSELF, in its various material variants, is a more or less unchanging corpus. It says what it says (with variants). One can translate very precisely, which can change some traditional doctrines (to wit: for eons means “for a long time”, but it certainly does not mean “forever”), but one cannot edit the document.
So, you worry about it being “four anonymous men”, stepping outside of the text itself to focus on its provenance. I stay within the text and won’t go outside of it past different manuscripts, canons, and translation issues.
So, by your method, really there’s no Scripture if you don’t want there to be, because it’s ALL written by anonymous people and cannot be authenticated.
By my method, that’s irrelevant because the only material under review is the text itself. And in the text itself, God clearly identifies Jesus as His Son, out loud, from the sky, two or three times. One time will settle it.
Also, the dove comes out of the sky and lands on Jesus. I’ve seen the dove. The fact of the dove in the text is one of the veridical points of cross-reference, for me. I rely on the text itself over the scholarship ABOUT the text.
You come from a different place.
Of course, therefore, our minds cannot really meet on this material.
LikeLike
From above Loftus article:
We’re told that Jesus was temped (Matt. 4:1; Heb, 4:15). To be temped would entail having thoughts about sinning. One cannot be tempted to do something if there is no desire to do it. If someone tries to tempt me to rob a bank it cannot be done, because I do not have that desire, and never will. This is no temptation for me at all. Theologians have been trying to make sense of this whole idea of the distinction between temptation and the sinful thoughts that Jesus condemns, I think, unsuccessfully. But since Jesus was tempted to sin there seems to be some small imperfections in him, since to be tempted means to have desires that do not accord with the nature of God, especially when we take seriously the whole idea that there are no imperfections in the Godhead at all. John Hick: “Even unfulfilled beginnings of evil must themselves count as imperfections; for in order for the divine mind to overrule them there must have been something there that required to be overruled.” [1) Jesus exhibited what we’d now call a racist attitude toward a woman (Mark 7:27); 2) Jesus said, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone” (Mark 10:18); 3) he didn’t respect his parents like the law would demand (Mark 3:31-5; Luke 14:26), and 4) he used violence in the temple when he cast out the money changers (Matt. 21:12).[The Metaphor of God Incarnate].
Paul Copan understands the seriousness of this problem, but to solve it he introduces an ad hoc theory. Without any Biblical support, he claims Jesus was voluntarily ignorant of the fact that “he was necessarily good,” and as such he really was tempted to sin but couldn’t, because of his divine nature. [“That’s Just Your Interpretation,” (2001), pp. 138-143]. Just how Jesus could be divine and still lack the recognition that as a divine being he was necessarily good, Copan doesn’t explain. Copan offers an analogy to explain himself. He answers by saying this is the same problem with how Jesus could know he was divine and yet not know the time of his purported second coming (Matt. 24:36). However, this doesn’t solve either problem. One bad analogy doesn’t solve another one. For he still hasn’t answered how Jesus could be divine and yet not have divine knowledge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is more evidence against the idea that Jesus believed and taught that he was the second person of the Godhead:
If Jesus was going around Palestine, for three years, telling everyone he encountered that he was the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead, why not throw in the fact that you are the virgin born Son of God?
Why didn’t Jesus ever say: “I am the Son of God. I am the Creator of the universe. I was born of a virgin. I was conceived by the overshadowing of my human mother by the Spirit of Yahweh.”
If you going to risk death and proclaim divinity, why hide the rest of the facts about your divine origin?
I believe that the fact that Jesus did no bring up his virgin birth is proof that Jesus did not view himself as God the Creator, or even the incarnate man-God, son of God the Creator, but simply as a divine son of God, in the sense of being the messiah. The Jews never once believe that Yahweh would be the messiah. The messiah was believed to be a man.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Gary, you made a number of statements in response to what I wrote, and, unfortunately, a whole bunch of them assumed I said the opposite of what I actually said, and the opposite of what the historians I quoted said.
You are making a common Christian mistake regarding the Bible: It is either all false or all true.
I don’t think that. Please read the third Sanders quote.
All other information about him is speculation.
The four historians all say you are wrong here. They all say there is much we can know.
Your use of Bart Ehrman to support the accurate historical claims of the Gospels is incorrect. Ehrman believes Jesus existed. He does not believe that the Gospels are historically accurate in all their claims.
I didn’t use Ehrman in that way. I know he doesn’t believe that. Please read the Ehrman quote again to see what he did say.
However, if you are saying that most historians believe that the Gospels record accurate history in all or even in most of their details, then we should see evidence of this belief in our history books.
I didn’t say that. Please read the quotes again to see what they (and I) did say.
It seems you have responded to what you expected rather than what the historians said. May I suggest you read the quotes again, consider what the historians say, and then respond again? Thanks.
LikeLike
Hey, Unkle E.
I was just getting ready to post this comment:
Is it morning in Australia yet?
LikeLike
Ok, let me review your original comment.
You started off saying this: Hi Gary, there is one important and obvious reason supporting the conclusion that the gospels provide good historical evidence, that you haven’t mentioned. Secular historians say so.
“…the Gospels provide good historical evidence”…
If you are saying that the Gospels provide historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and that he was crucified by the Romans, I agree with your statement except I would not use the word “good”. But I do believe that the four anonymous gospels give evidence/creedence toward the existence of a Jewish prophet in the first century who was executed by the Romans and who became the center of worship for a new religious sect.
I will read more of your original quote.
LikeLike
From EP Sanders:
“The sources for Jesus are better, however, than those that deal with Alexander …. written nearer his own lifetime, and people who had known him were still alive” The Historical Figure of Jesus p3.
How does Sanders know that “people who had known Jesus were still alive” in 65 – 75 AD when most scholars believe the first gospel, Mark, was written? What evidence does Sanders present? This appears to me to be blatant speculation. For all we know, every one of the disciples could be dead by this time period.
LikeLike
“The oldest and most reliable of the Gospels is the Gospel According to Mark ….. his best sources were in Aramaic and he translated them as he went along. These sources, though abbreviated, were literally accurate accounts of incidents and sayings from the life and teaching of Jesus. …. The completed Gospels of Matthew and Luke are also important sources for the life and teachings of Jesus.””
These sources were literally accurate accounts of incidents and sayings…of Jesus????
How in the blazes would this man know? How does this “scholar” know that Jesus really did walk on water? Raised the dead? Healed the blind? Raised himself from the dead and sent 2,000 demons into a herd of pigs???
It is preposterous!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Michael Grant, classical historian and author of more than 50 books on the Roman Empire:
“The consistency, therefore, of the tradition in their [the Gospels’] pages suggests that the picture they present is largely authentic. By such methods information about Jesus CAN be derived from the Gospels.” Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels, Appendix.
UnkleE: So those references, and many similar quotes from other scholars, are evidence of the historicity of enough of the gospels to draw conclusions about Jesus.
But do you accept the conclusions of these and many other eminent scholars?
Gary: I agree that we can probably draw the conclusion that Jesus lived, believed himself to be a prophet and maybe even the messiah, that he had a message of a coming apocalypse and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, that he was arrested due to complaints from the Jews, and that he was crucified. We CANNOT draw any conclusions about the supernatural assertions of the Gospels, especially the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.
What other evidence are you asserting can be obtained from the Gospels, UnkleE?
LikeLike
First, Crown,, you’re addressing your comment to Nan, while quoting me – yet another sign of mental issues.
Secondly, re addressing yourself to the text – if someone writes of an event, even to the extent of quoting what people say, yet they were not there, did not witness the event, and have no evidence other than hearsay upon which to base what you say, then relying solely on the text is nothing more than an exercise in futility. I can “rely on the text” of a comic book, but it’s still fiction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nan, Mark 14:62 refutes your contention QED. I hope you didn’t make any claim like this in your book because that would be embarrassing.
The only question at this point is whether the Son of God (who is also the Messiah) is divine or not. But, since this is not your focus, I doubt you have any argument for this. If not, don’t bother at this point. You can’t possibly account for early Jewish messianism even with a rapid Google search.
LikeLike
Hi Gary, thanks for reviewing your initial reactions. But I still think you are jumping to conclusions before you understand the evidence.
“How does Sanders know that “people who had known Jesus were still alive” in 65 – 75 AD when most scholars believe the first gospel, Mark, was written? What evidence does Sanders present? This appears to me to be blatant speculation. “
I don’t know, but (1) I assume as an eminent historian he didn’t just make it up, (2) there is probably evidence of how long some historical figures lived and (3) statistics and estimates of life expectancy would give some idea. Until you know, calling it “blatant speculation” only reveals your own bias.
“How in the blazes would this man know? How does this “scholar” know that Jesus really did walk on water? Raised the dead? Healed the blind? Raised himself from the dead and sent 2,000 demons into a herd of pigs??? …. It is preposterous!”
Again an over-reaction. You need to understand what he is saying. Again, assume until and if you find out otherwise, that this eminent scholar knew what he was saying and you may have misunderstood him. He doesn’t claim to know any of the things you have mentioned, and a small amount of internet searching would reveal that. What he said was that Mark used Aramaic accounts that recorded real events (“literal”) in a sober and sensible way (“accurate”), and thus we can know lots of things about Jesus.
“I agree that we can probably draw the conclusion that Jesus lived, believed himself to be a prophet and maybe even the messiah, that he had a message of a coming apocalypse and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, that he was arrested due to complaints from the Jews, and that he was crucified. We CANNOT draw any conclusions about the supernatural assertions of the Gospels, especially the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.”
That’s good. Those scholars would add a few more things to that, so you are minimising their conclusions, but you are getting there. None of those scholars draw supernatural conclusions and I never claimed they did, but they do/did believe there was good evidence for some things that may appear to be supernatural. Both Sanders & Casey said Jesus was known as a miracle worker, Sanders refusing to comment on whether he healed people supernaturally or not, and Casey believed he healed people using folk healing methods, which he documents. Sanders believes the disciples had visionary experiences of Jesus, but says he doesn’t know what the reality was.
“What other evidence are you asserting can be obtained from the Gospels, UnkleE?”
I’m glad you asked. First, here is a list of historical facts about Jesus that most secular scholars would substantially agree with (it is based on a list by Sanders, and I know Casey & Grant agree with it, also Wright and others, but Ehrman would likely question some of it):
Jesus was born about 3-5 BCE, lived in Nazareth in his childhood, and was baptised by John the Baptist in the Jordan River. He had 12 disciples, he associated with outcasts, he was known as a healer and exorcist, he preached “the kingdom of God”. Welcoming “sinners” was part of Jesus’ teaching and he claimed to be able to forgive people’s sins. He believed his death would be redemptive. Jesus clashed with the religious leaders over many of his teachings. Near the end of his life, he created a disturbance in the temple in Jerusalem. Following a final meal with his friends, Jesus was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities then executed by the Roman Governor, Pilate. Most scholars believe that Jesus’ tomb was really empty and/or that his disciples “saw” him (in what sense is uncertain) after his death.
That’s not a bad start.
Then we can look at passages that most scholars accept as genuine parts of Jesus’ teaching and draw some conclusions. They are open to interpretation, and scholars are not agreed on how we should understand them, but they make a plausible case for Jesus being divine. I won’t clog up Nate’s blog with more text than I have to, but you can see these in Jesus – son of God?
So, you asked for evidence for the christian claims and the NT texts. And we find we have non-believing historians asserting we can know lots about Jesus, including most of the basic facts about his life and teaching. We find there is plenty more material that is disputed among the scholars which adds to the picture though doesn’t change it substantially. We are presented with a historical figure who is at the least a very interesting, influential enigmatic person, and who plausibly can be considered to be divine. Each of us can choose within that range. Many thoughtful people choose different positions so it is dishonest to characterise any position within that range as silly or lacking evidence, and scorning scholarship to take a view that Jesus is legendary.
I wasn’t attempting to press my particular view, simply correct the untenable view that you have been putting forward. If you really accept what the best scholars say, the discussion can move from your mistaken view that there is no evidence, or that scholars support the whole of the christian view, and discussion can proceed on how best to interpret the evidence.
LikeLike
To Crown. unkleE, Josh and Brandon. I just want to say a big thank you. Thank you for being prepared to consider matters raised by others seriously and with focus on the issues raised and to discuss these issues in a civil manner.
I say this, because I had made the mistake of trying to discuss matters of faith, science, evidence and the like with some more fundamentalist folk on other blogs. The experience was very unpleasant.
So I say thank you again for being prepared to engage in a constructive manner. I for one appreciate it.
LikeLike
Peter – Thanks
LikeLike
Hi Peter, I really appreciate that – thanks. This is mostly a pretty civil place, thanks to Nate setting the tone.
LikeLike
Crown, Thanks for the lengthy reply! I will give some serious consideration to what you’ve written. I’ve already studied the sciences quite a bit, but perhaps a refresher course is in order. The difficulty lies in showing that a great intelligence exists. This is not a problem for you given the miracles you’ve witnessed. Certainly you can understand how we would be skeptical of your claims. I am still studying the shroud and will look into these other miracles claims as well. Thanks.
LikeLike
If you already know the sciences well, then take some time at the edges of them, and remind yourself where the theories break down.
Example: the fundamental incompatibility between Einsteinian Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Remember too how catastrophically wrong our medical scientists and nutritionists have gotten so many things in our own lifetime. Remember when eggs were going to kill you with their cholesterol? Now they’re healthy again. But statin drugs are probably destroying people’s livers. Thalidomide and IUDs…the parade of deadly and crippling errors goes on and on. It is good to remind ourselves how often we get things wrong scientifically, and how many lives are lost figuring out the error. This keeps us from turning science into an idol.
The Shroud is ancient, and the provenance is difficult. I’d suggest you look at something else.
Look particularly at the bodies of St. Bernadette Soubirous, St, Catherine Laboure, St John Vianney and St. Francis Xavier.
These people have been dead for a hundred or two hundred years. They are not embalmed, or stuffed, or mummified. They’re simply incorrupt. They died. They never decayed. They’re publicly displayed, and they look like they’re sleeping.
Look at incorruption, because there’s a lot of it, and it’s almost all Catholic (including the Orthodox). It’s recent. It’s spooky, and it’s OBVIOUSLY a miracle. All you need to do to confirm that is to check the record and see no embalming and no stuffing. Beyond that, even if you embalm a body, it won’t last at room temperature for 300 years. But these bodies do.
The Incorrupt saints are probably the most strikingly visible of the miracles, the most obvious and in-your-face.
And the skeptics’ arguments are particularly pathetic in the face of them.
Of course, the PROBLEM with the incorrupt is often psychological. For you see, they don’t JUST prove God by miracle, they ALSO prove Catholicism/Orthodoxy, by the uniqueness of incorruption to them.
There are two reasons why Luther and his compatriots were so virulently opposed to Catholic relics. One was the merchandizing of them and the corruption. But the other is that SOME of them – notably, the incorrupt – are in-your-face proofs of divine power that anyone can see.
And if there are such manifestations of divine power, that means that God is there, in the Church. But where are all of the Protestant incorrupt? There aren’t any. (Actually, there is one Lutheran woman.) The LACK of Protestant miracles (or rather, the absence) standing alongside of the in-your-face Catholic/Orthodox miracles, particularly the incorrupt (because these are obviously not fraudulent “splinters of the true cross”, but undecayed dead people) is silent, powerful testimony of where the power of God lies.
Men jawbone issues and argue from texts, but then saints – it’s always saintly people in the Catholic and Orthodox church – die, and God preserves them from decay. And it’s right there in everybody’s face. Obvious miracles. The Incorrupt are REALLY OBVIOUS miracles – and THAT is precisely why the Protestants do not look at them, and have hand-waving doctrines that simply ignore all “relics”: because the relics don’t just prove God, but manifest God’s presence in the Catholic and Orthodox Church. And the ABSENCE of incorrupt everywhere else proves that God isn’t there.
That’s why you should start with the Incorrupt. Just Google them and start looking at the pictures. But understand that they don’t just prove God. They prove Catholicism, specifically.
And that’s why nobody but Catholics study them, why the Protestants have a DOCTRINE of the ridicule and denial of relics or miracles after the First Century (because the Incorrupt by their existence prove the Catholic case).
One can do what some writers here are going to do. Go nuts and ridicule. Instead, just go look at the pictures of Bernadette Soubirous, St. John Vianney, St. Francis Xavier, St. Catherine Laboure and other Incorrupt saints. You don’t have to wonder about the miracles like you do with the Shroud: they’re self-evident.
LikeLike
UnkleE:
I have no issue with your list of what we can know about Jesus. I don’t see that you added much more than what I had already said, other than the issue of whether or not Jesus claimed to be the (virgin born, one and only) Son of God. In fact I am pleasantly surprised that you ended your list with this statement:
“Most scholars believe that Jesus’ tomb was really empty and/or that his disciples “saw” him (in what sense is uncertain) after his death.”
That “and/or” is critical. It is because of those two words that I can agree with your statement. I agree that the disciples of Jesus soon came to believe that he was resurrected and that this probably occurred due to some of them “seeing” him in some sense.
We are in agreement, UnkleE!
As long as you are not claiming that the supernatural claims of the Bible are historical fact, or that the empty tomb is established historical fact, I have no real problem with your list of “facts” that we can know about Jesus. I am not a mythicist. I do believe that Jesus existed. I just do not believe that the Gospels can be used as verifiable eyewitness testimony or as support for supernatural claims, especially the Resurrection. I believe that there may be a core story that developed about Jesus that over time became embellished with legendary details, such as the post resurrection appearances, the Ascension, zombies roaming the streets, three hours of darkness covering the entire world, etc..
LikeLike