Regular readers of this blog may know that one of the first lines of evidence that caused me to begin questioning my Christian faith had to do with the Book of Daniel. There are a number of issues within the book that have led the majority of scholars to conclude that it was not written by a Jewish prophet living during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon and Cyrus of Persia, but that it was written some 400 years later during the Maccabean period. Over the last several days, a few of us have been having an in-depth discussion about those issues at this thread. One of the items we discussed had to do with a woman named Nitocris.
In Daniel 5, we’re told that Belshazzar is now king, and we’re given the impression that he is the son of Nebuchadnezzar. However, from a number of primary sources (some that even date from the Babylonian empire itself) we know that Belshazzar’s father was actually Nabonidus — a king who was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. Christian apologists have suggested a couple of different ways to resolve this issue.
Succession
One is to say that when Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar are talked about as father and son, it simply means in the sense that Belshazzar is a ruler of Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar was a former ruler of Babylon. It’s just talking about succession, in other words, not actual parentage. As an example, they point to the Obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which has a section that talks about “Jehu of the house of Omri.” That’s significant because Jehu was not related to Omri. Instead, he was a usurper that took the kingdom from Omri’s grandson. Presumably, Shalmaneser III’s court would have known that Jehu was not related to Omri; therefore, Daniel may not have been in error to refer to Belshazzar and Nebuchadnezzar as father and son.
However, the phrase “house of” is not quite the same as “father and son”. It’s important to note that it’s no accident Omri was still being referred to a couple of generations after his reign. As Omri’s Wikipedia entry states:
The short-lived dynasty founded by Omri constitutes a new chapter in the history of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. It ended almost fifty years of constant civil war over the throne. There was peace with the Kingdom of Judah to the south, and even cooperation between the two rival states, while relations with neighboring Sidon to the north were bolstered by marriages negotiated between the two royal courts. This state of peace with two powerful neighbors enabled the Kingdom of Israel to expand its influence and even political control in Transjordan, and these factors combined brought economic prosperity to the kingdom.
Omri presided over a period of substantial growth for Israel, which caused many in the region to view Israel as Omri’s kingdom, even after he died. As the previous Wikipedia page goes on to say, even over 100 years after his death, Assyrian scribes were referring to Israel as “Omri-Land.” To me, that kind of situation seems rather different from the one we see in Daniel 5. “House of Omri” doesn’t sound as intimate as the words “father” and “son.” To help emphasize that a bit more, let’s look at how many times and in what ways the father-son connection is made in Daniel 5:
Belshazzar, when he tasted the wine, commanded that the vessels of gold and of silver that Nebuchadnezzar his father had taken out of the temple in Jerusalem be brought — v. 2
There is a man in your kingdom in whom is the spirit of the holy gods. In the days of your father, light and understanding and wisdom like the wisdom of the gods were found in him, and King Nebuchadnezzar, your father — your father the king — made him chief of the magicians, enchanters, Chaldeans, and astrologers — v. 11
The king answered and said to Daniel, “You are that Daniel, one of the exiles of Judah, whom the king my father brought from Judah” — v. 13
O king, the Most High God gave Nebuchadnezzar your father kingship and greatness and glory and majesty. — v. 18
And you his son, Belshazzar, have not humbled your heart, though you knew all this — v. 22
As you can see, the father-son connection was not just some throw away line that was barely mentioned. Within 20 verses, that connection is mentioned 9 times. If the writer of Daniel really did think Nebuchadnezzar was Belshazzar’s father, he couldn’t have said it any plainer. Belshazzar’s actual father, Nabonidus, is never mentioned in the Book of Daniel. What’s also striking is that the father-son connection is made by 4 different people in this chapter. Verse 2 is the voice of the narrator. The narrator had already written about Nebuchadnezzar in the first 4 chapters of the book, and he never wrote about Nabonidus. It seems strange to me that he would use the “father” description without more clarification, considering his audience wouldn’t likely know the actual relationships between these two individuals. In verse 11, Belshazzar’s mother (we presume) is speaking. She’s actually just referred to as “the queen,” so she could have been Belshazzar’s wife or Nabonidus’s. It’s possible that Nabonidus had more than one wife, so this queen might not even be Belshazzar’s mother. We really don’t know who she is, but she also makes the father-son connection, and she does so more emphatically than anyone else. In verse 13, we have Belshazzar refer to Nebuchadnezzar as “my father,” and in verses 18 and 22, we finally have Daniel make the reference as well. If the father-son connection weren’t real, but just a metaphor, it seems strange to me that all four individuals would use it.
Grandfather – Grandson
The other explanation is that Belshazzar’s mother is Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter. Initially, someone might object by pointing out that Daniel 5 says “father” not “grandfather.” But sadly, Hebrew apparently uses the same word for both. It’s a shame that God didn’t preserve his word in a language that would eliminate this kind of confusion, but there you go. It’s important to note that in the Bible this isn’t usually an issue, because lineage is either talked about in order (Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, etc), or a distant enough ancestor is named that it eliminates any confusion (like referring to “son of David” centuries after David’s death). I can’t think of another instance in the Bible where the words “father” and “son” are used for a grandparent relationship that are as ambivalent and misleading as what we see in Daniel 5, but perhaps there are some. Either way, the words here do technically allow for a grandfather-grandson relationship.
Because the grandfather-grandson connection is a cleaner fit for what we find in Daniel 5, this claim is made quite often in apologetics circles. It’s not uncommon to see it referenced as though it’s fact, without even giving a reference to the original source of the information (like here). But what evidence do we have for this view? Is it just speculation in an effort to rationalize Daniel 5, or are there real reasons for thinking that Belshazzar was the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar?
It turns out that the Greek historian Herodotus records information about a Babylonian queen named Nitocris. According to him, she completed a number of construction projects in and around Babylon. She was married to a ruler of Babylon named Labynetos, and her son (also named Labynetos) ruled Babylon when Cyrus came against it (Histories I, v. 185-188). For many years, the general consensus was that the younger Labynetos must have been Nabonidus, since he was king when Cyrus took Babylon, and that the older Labynetos must have been Nebuchadnezzar. However, we’ve since discovered that Nabonidus’s mother was not Nitocris, but Addagoppe of Harran. We also know that Nebuchadnezzar was not the father of Nabonidus, and we’ve discovered that Belshazzar was a real individual and the son of Nabonidus. Therefore, it’s much more likely that Nitocris was the wife of Nabonidus and the mother of Belshazzar. That means Herodotus’s older Labynetos is most likely Nabonidus, and the younger Labynetos is Belshazzar.
But what makes us think that Nitocris was related to Nebuchadnezzar? I finally found that most articles that make this claim refer to a book by Raymond Philip Dougherty called Nabonidus and Belshazzar, published in 1929. Luckily, a university in my area has a copy of this book in their library, so I was able to read portions of it for myself. On pages 46-51 of the book, Dougherty establishes that Babylon and Egypt had occasional trade, diplomacy, and military cooperation during Nebuchadnezzar’s lifetime. It’s also known that there was a Nitocris of Egypt who lived around that time as well. It is not believed that she’s the same individual as Belshazzar’s mother. However, both her father and brother served as Pharaoh, and she was a fairly influential person during her time. Perhaps the Babylonian Nitocris was named after her. Dougherty suggests 3 possibilities for the identity of Babylon’s Nitocris (pg 52). Nabonidus might have married:
- an Egyptian woman not of royal rank.
- an Egyptian princess from Pharaoh’s court.
- a descendant of an Egyptian princess who had become the wife of a Babylonian king.
Dougherty thinks the first option is unlikely, because Nabonidus was so ambitious. While he wasn’t royal, he was of noble descent and held a prominent place in the Babylonian government. I don’t know why he couldn’t have married an Egyptian noble, like himself, but that’s not an option that Dougherty addresses. He feels that the second option is also unlikely for the exact opposite reason that he dismissed the first: Nabonidus wasn’t of high enough station to marry an Egyptian princess.
Dougherty spends most of his time discussing the third option. He points to the conflict that Nebuchadnezzar had with Babylon in 605 BCE. A treaty of some kind was agreed upon, because the two nations seem to have had peaceful relations for decades after that incident. Dougherty suggests that Nebuchadnezzar may have picked up an Egyptian wife to solidify that treaty (pg 57). Belshazzar began serving as co-regent with his father around 560 BCE, roughly 45 years after the treaty with Egypt. Conceivably, that’s enough time for a grandchild from this supposed union between Nebuchadnezzar and an Egyptian princess to be old enough to help rule. Dougherty also refers to the descriptions of all the construction and defense projects that Nitocris performed, according to Herodotus, and suggests that her active leadership aligns with the fact that Nabonidus spent time away from Babylon toward the end of his rule. He also argues that a Babylonian princess would have incentive to conduct such projects. I didn’t find that particular point very convincing, though. Regardless of where she came from, a wife of the Babylonian king and mother of the future king would be very invested in the kingdom.
Dougherty’s arguments are interesting, but they don’t change the fact that the argument for Nitocris being Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter is shear speculation. No historical document tells us that Nebuchadnezzar ever had an Egyptian wife, nor is there a document telling us that he had a daughter named Nitocris. Furthermore, despite considering Dougherty’s three possibilities, we have no idea how Nabonidus got his wife. She could have been an Egyptian noble, an Egyptian commoner, or even a Babylonian or Canaanite woman whose family had some ties to Egypt. The possibilities are nearly endless. As one reviewer said, only a year after Dougherty’s book was published:
Anyone who likes arguments will follow with interest the process by which the author, after presenting a hypothesis which is at best merely possible, immediately proceeds to assure us that he knows his case is not proved and that a probability only remains a probability. Practically nowhere in the book does the author use a doubtful argument without warning the reader that the case is not proved. Thus a single section of the book might carry conviction. But the real trouble comes when all these probabilities are finally linked together. To one assumed conclusion is added another which is also more or less doubtful. The first two serve as the basis for a third assumption which in itself is not their necessary corollary; and so the house of cards goes up, ready to come down at the first little touch. (Chiera, pg 401)
And the apologists’ claim that Belshazzar was Nebuchadnezzar’s grandson through Nitocris rests solely on this “house of cards.”
It also occurred to me that Nitocris might create an additional issue within Daniel. Christians often point to the fact that Belshazzar offers Daniel the third place in the kingdom as evidence that the writer of Daniel knew that Belshazzar was only co-regent, since his father Nabonidus was still living. But if the queen in Daniel 5 is Nitocris, it’s evident from Herodotus that she carried a great deal of authority in the kingdom. So how could Belshazzar have offered Daniel third place? The top three spots in the kingdom would have already been filled by Nabonidus, Nitocris, and Belshazzar.
In the end, there’s no good, substantial reason to think that the father-son connection that Daniel creates for Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar can be resolved in this way. We have no evidence linking Nitocris to Nebuchadnezzar. And considering how often and in what ways the father-son connection is spoken of in Daniel 5, the most likely explanation still seems to be that the writer was incorrect and actually did think they were father and son.
Sources:
- Herodotus. Histories. c. 430 BCE
- Dougherty, Raymond Philip. Nabonidus and Belshazzar. New York: Yale University Press, 1929. Pgs 38-66, 194
- Chiera, Edward. “Nabonidus and Belshazzar.” The Journal of Religion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. Pgs 401-404
- Gera, Deborah Levine Warrior Women: the Anonymous Tractatus De Mulieribus. Brill, 1997. Pgs 106-120
- Wikipedia: Black Obelisk of Shalmeneser III
- Wikipedia: Omri
- Wikipedia: Addagoppe of Harran
- Wikipedia: Nitocris II
Finding Truth 
Peter, I finally got around to watching that video. Great stuff! Thanks for posting it.
When I watch this kind of stuff, I wonder if there are people in the audience who are hearing this outlook for the first time and what must be going through their minds.
LikeLike
“I have tried to cue it at the 35:21 minute part of the 50 minute lecture where the discussion on Daniel starts”
Well, you didn’t succeed, Peter, and am I ever glad you didn’t! I watched the whole thing, and even bookmarked it – it was fascinating, and now I plan to watch her entire series, all because you screwed up!
What I found ESPECIALLY interesting, was how the post-exhillic prophets continually moved the goalposts. The PRE-Exhillic prophets spoke of a remnant of exhiled Jews who would return in glory to Jerusalem. Those who did return, did so to poverty and misery. The prophet Haggai, then predicts a glorious reign of the then Governor of Judea, Zaruabbel, a descendant of David, will will ascend to the throne and take Israel forward – Zechariah confirms this even more enthusiastically than Haggai – well somehow Zaruabbel is done away with, and suddenly it’s the High Priest, Joshuah, who will become king and put a chicken in every pot. (Interestingly, only the first 8 chapters of the book’s 14, were written by Zechariah, 9-14 were written by a different author, and were apocalyptic in nature.
This is great, Peter – you should screw up like this more often!
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Nate, yes I sort of feel sorry for the sincere believer when faced with the reality of their faith. It must be very traumatic. But people act in different ways some accept reality others sort of fight back in a psychological way and draw deeper into their faith. Some just dismiss scholarship as a deceit by the Devil.
@Arch. We see the prophets are sort of ‘making it up as they go along’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Peter, you forgot another possibility. Many christians find that these historical ideas are no threat at all to their faith because their belief is based on the New Testament, not the Old. Some (I am one, Peter Enns is another) find their faith strengthened because their understanding is strengthened. In my case, I “grew up” as a christian on CS Lewis and he showed me 50 years ago that the OT started with myth, gradually mixed history and myth until it reached almost total history (though not necessarily history as we would see it today). There was a certain amount of soul-searching (hardly “trauma”) on the way because I try to be open to evidence and honest with it, but there has been a lot of enjoyment and a sense of discovery too.
I honestly feel sorry for ex-christians like you and Nate who are obviously sincere and decent people who were taught (I know in Nate’s case, I guess in yours too) a historically unrealistic version of christianity, and then threw the baby of truth out with the bathwater of error and apparently saw no difference between them.
I realise those are leading statements, and I mean no offence, just using similar language to yours to point out there are other ways of looking at it. I appreciate and share your sympathy for those who found it traumatic as I know Nate and many others have, but it didn’t have to be that way.
+ unkleE hides under a rock to escape the avalanche of crap that he worries may now fall on him, not from you Peter, or Nate, but from others – and hopes this comment may reduce it. * 🙂
LikeLike
So, to summarize, “…the OT started with myth, and [over a thousand years], gradually mixed history and myth until it reached almost total history (though not necessarily history as we would see it today) [whatever that means]”- BUT – over the NEXT 100, everyone told the absolute truth, and a 3-in-1 man/god was born of a virgin, walked on water, came back from the dead, and floated up into the sky.
Got it! It seems so simple, the way you tell it, I don’t know why I never saw it that way before —
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Unklee
Lol-ed at your last statement. Sneaky elbow jab there. Sneaky but friendly, but ultimately I think it’s fair.
You can come out from your rock now, but I can’t guarantee Ark won’t bite your head off.
In any case, I think this point regarding baby and bathwater has been debated to the death. We think there is no baby at all, The key difference is that we disagree that truth can/should be started from myth. You can, we can’t, I don’t think this has anything to do with upbringing, or how we are taught when we were christians. This is just a matter of our expectations for truth.
Some people when showed with all the evidences in the world, they will not believe, out of sheer stupidity, obstinate, or pride. Then of course you have people that will believe in anything. Simply put, I think we might be closer to the former, and yours the latter.
I don’t think this is something to be sorry for or proud about.
The only thing I can say is, regardless of where you are in the spectrum, is it fair to then burn someone for eternity?
I don’t think you subscribe to this sort of belief either. A good god who indeed know me by my number of hairs and created me for who I am will not be unreasonable with regards to our current position.
Also if it’s an evil god with unrealistic expectations then I’m screwed anyway, or he/she/it/undefined may also laugh at you for believing in an OT myth based religion that is created to befuddle humans so that they’ll quarrel and waste their time between each other.
Who knows? I’m just leaving my day trying to be as good a person I can be (and trying to cut down my belly which is unfortunately growing). I think feeling of pity on either side only ends up fueling ego of the self, for one can only deem the other side pitiful if they deem themselves on a higher pedestal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Powell, nice reply. (I mean it, just to make sure.)
Yes, we could, and often have, debated all that, and I wasn’t aiming to do so now. I was just making the point that Peter’s sorrow could be matched on the other side by mine, and that not all the options involve believers being naive unreasoning dupes any more than atheists all being blind fools. Both those viewpoints are, IMO, false stereotypes. After all, when it comes to the NT, we have secular historians more on our side than against us, and that is more important to christian belief than the book of Daniel or even the whole OT.
But I have no objections to your response. Thanks.
LikeLike
“we have secular historians more on our side than against us”
When it comes to what ? Can you be more specific ?
LikeLike
Hi unkleE,
I would just add that I don’t think Peter was saying he felt sorry for them in any kind of negative way — I got the impression that he was just saying that he acknowledged how difficult it would be to be a believing Christian confronted with that information for the first time, regardless of which direction their faith ultimately takes afterward.
Nicely done! 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reason I ask unkleE is that since I have read your comments for the past 3 years, you seem to justify what you believe by the general concensus of scholars. Do you need a general concensus, peer reviewed reports, etc to affirm your belief system ?
Isn’t the simple, easy to read King James Version enough to solidify your beliefs ? Shouldn’t the “Bible of your choice” be enough to convince the non-believer to believe ?
LikeLike
Hi Nate, Isaw that Peter felt sympathy (“I sort of feel sorry for the sincere believer when faced with the reality of their faith”), which is why I said “I appreciate and share your sympathy”. But I also felt there was some unnecessary negative feeling (“some accept reality others sort of fight back in a psychological way and draw deeper into their faith. Some just dismiss scholarship as a deceit by the Devil.”) and I wanted to point out some of us, perhaps many of us, don’t feel that way at all.
I’m glad you liked my last paragraph! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mmm, you’re right. I can see that now. I misread it initially. Thanks! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ken, we’ve been through this before, I’m sure, but here’s how I see it.
The Gospels contain stories that seem on the surface to be written by genuine people, and the many independent accounts verify the main details, even though disagreeing on smaller matters. Faced with this, a reader can make two choices, it seems to me – either (1) accept the writers as genuine and their stories as true, or (2) decide to investigate the matter further.
I have no problems with anyone who chooses the first option, but most of us here, including me, choose the second option. If we do, then again we have two logical choices, I believe – (2.1) do a heap of study of original documents in original languages, archaeology, first century history, etc, to be sure of our facts, or (2.2) accept the findings of those who have put in the study.
I don’t know of anyone here who qualifies as (2.1), so I [presume we are all 2.2. If so, then we face a third choice – (2.2.1) try to read across the varying viewpoints, and base our views on the most respected, least biased scholars at the centre of scholarship, or (2.2.2) choose to base our views on scholars we like regardless of how well-respected their views are in the academy.
I choose the first. Unfortunately, many people, including some who comment here, seem to prefer the latter, at least on some occasions.
So that is why I base my views on good scholarship. As to what the best scholars say, I’ll avoid filling the page and just give you a selection (more available on demand!).
Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E. Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary, in ‘Jesus Within Judaism’
I don’t think there’s any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period. Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina in an interview by The Infidel Guy
Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. …. the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding Prof Craig Evans, Arcadia Divinity College, Arcadia University, in ‘What are They Saying about the Historical Jesus?’
some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. …. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world. Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University, in ‘The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions’
Historical reconstruction is never absolutely certain, and in the case of Jesus it is sometimes highly uncertain. Despite this, we have a good idea of the main lines of his ministry and his message. We know who he was, what he did, what he taught, and why he died. ….. the dominant view [among scholars] today seems to be that we can know pretty well what Jesus was out to accomplish, that we can know a lot about what he said, and that those two things make sense within the world of first-century Judaism. EP Sanders, Oxford & Duke Universities, in ‘The Historical Figure of Jesus’. Sanders gives a list of facts that cover most of Jesus’ life that hew regards as “almost beyond dispute”.
Maurice Casey (‘Jesus of Nazareth’) concludes that Mark includes “literally accurate accounts of incidents and sayings from the life and teaching of Jesus” and “the Gospel of Luke, like that of Matthew, is a major source for our knowledge of the life and teaching of Jesus”
All this is in marked (pun!) contrast to the scholars’ conclusions about Daniel. Thanks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi unkleE,
I think that’s a pretty fair statement about scholarly consensus. The rub comes from the supernatural claims. And even though I feel that way, I would disagree with anyone who suggested that my disbelief is based on an a priori rejection of the supernatural. Does that distinction make sense to you?
LikeLike
Thanks unkleE for taking the time to respond. I never hear you speak of feeling the presence of Jesus in your heart or the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life as your conclusive evidence. Am I missing something here ?
LikeLike
Most, if not all reputable NT scholars, including Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina and whoever does research for the Roman Catholic Church, agree that Mark was the first anonymous author to write a gospel, that he wrote his about 70 CE, and that he never met Yeshua and what parts of his gospel he didn’t concoct, he took from multiple-hand hearsay information. Bart Ehrman also maintains that the anonymous author of Matthew copied 90 percent of his work from Mark, which of course means that it couldn’t possibly be much more accurate than that first gospel. The anonymous author of Luke never met Yeshua either, writing as he did a good 15 years after “Mark’s” book hit the shelves, and the anonymous author of John ten to 15 years after that.
If you want to claim that Josephus is evidence for Yeshua’s existence, I’m afraid you’ll unleash an episode of laughter that may not allow me to sleep tonight. None of Yeshua’s contemporaries wrote of him, despite the fact that he is reputed to have gone about the Galilean countryside healing the sick and driving out [non-existent] demons.
LikeLike
“The rub comes from the supernatural claims. And even though I feel that way, I would disagree with anyone who suggested that my disbelief is based on an a priori rejection of the supernatural. Does that distinction make sense to you?”
Hi Nate, yes I understand the distinction. Assessing supernatural claims in history is obviously difficult. In the life of Caesar or Alexander, most of us would feel happy to count any miraculous claims as likely legendary, because they are not important to understanding those guys, and there is no real reason to think them other than legends.
But with Jesus (and doubtless a few other figures in history) it isn’t so easy. There is some sort of divine claims and the miraculous is part of the essence of the story, so we can’t just write it off and get on with the facts. Take out the miraculous and the story is totally changed.
Some historians make judgments (either for or against the supernatural) but many leave the truth of those stories to one side and simply make judgments on what people of that day believed about Jesus. So Sanders (an agnostic who’s probably slightly to the sceptical side of centre and perhaps the most influential NT scholar of the last few decades) discusses (and accepts) the stories of miracles and the resurrection, but specifically says he’s unable to judge what actually happened with any historical probability.
So judgment on whether the supernatural is real in the gospels is a separate question from the historical one, and is decided pretty much by our metaphysical assumptions and our personal judgment. That is why you can agree with me about the scholarly consensus but disagree about the supernatural.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I never hear you speak of feeling the presence of Jesus in your heart or the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life as your conclusive evidence. Am I missing something here ?”
No, you’re not missing much. I am a pretty unspiritual person. I believe in Jesus because I think that is where the evidence clearly points, but I don’t “feel him in my heart” much. I believe the Holy Spirit is present in my life, and I pray every day, but I rarely feel that reality.
But it does happen occasionally, and I occasionally talk about it, but mostly I don’t think it is relevant to people here.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I appreciate the candor in your last statement, unkleE. That’s pretty much how I always felt as a Christian as well. I firmly believed in the trinity, and I felt sure that my prayers were being heard. I just never really felt anything inside other than my own thoughts and feelings.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Take out the miraculous and the story is totally changed.”
And everything else, whether accurate or not, if irrelevant.
LikeLike
Ah the Supernatural claims! For so long I wanted to believe. I accepted what was in the Bible as stated. I accepted supernatural reality. I struggled with a few claims, like the long day in Joshua and the Noah flood, but in regard to the claims about Jesus I accepted them 100%, with no quibble or doubt.
It was only really after I spent some time in churches that were into the supernatural side of ministry that I started to question what was in the Bible. The reason I started to question the supernatural was because I found that the claimed healings in the Churches I attended were not sustained, that the words of prophecy were not fulfilled, that the words of knowledge were not true.
Having observed at first hand the propensity of humans to accept the supernatural as an explanation when, in retrospect, psychological factors provide a far better explanation I was then prepared, for perhaps the first time, to question the supernatural claims of the Bible once I started to see that the history did not stack up.
So I went from being a person who wholly accepted the supernatural claims of the Bible to being a skeptic.
LikeLike
Hi Peter, I can understand, if that was your experience, how you felt. I too spent some time (6 years) in a Pentecostal church that emphasised prophecy and healing. I agree that many supernatural claims seem to me to be natural, but I certainly don’t think they all were, and I have difficulty thinking that you could be sure they all were false too.
I hope I’m not being rude, but is it not possible that both extremes (your former 100% belief and your present 100% disbelief) were beyond the evidence?
LikeLike
Hello my dear atheist and agnostic friends!
What do you think of this argument against the Resurrection:
1. It is possible that grave robbers stole the body of Jesus.
2. It is possible that the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus were simply vivid dreams confused with reality.
Even if Yahweh exists, is all-powerful, and does violate the laws of nature at times to perform miracles, according to the Bible he had never previously resurrected anyone in all of human history. To make the claim that a bodily resurrection of Jesus is more plausible than any natural explanation, Christians need to prove that the odds of grave robbery and vivid dreams confused with reality occurred less often in first century Palestine than a never heard of before resurrection.
They can’t. The Christian argument has been disproved.
Millions of people believe in miracles, believe in Yahweh, and believe that Yahweh does occasionally violate the rules of nature to perform miracles. These people are called…Jews.
One can still believe in God and in miracles and reject the very weak evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus. There are just too many natural explanations for this early Christian belief.
LikeLike
“It is possible that the alleged post-death appearances of Jesus were simply vivid dreams confused with reality.”
There WERE no post-death appearances of Jesus as recorded by anyone who ever met him.
LikeLike
Hey Gary (nonsupernaturalist),
You may want to revise your statement that no one else had been raised from the dead prior to Jesus, according to the Bible. Jesus raised at least two (supposedly), and there were a few in the OT, too. This site goes through them all:
http://stronginfaith.org/article.php?page=114
Other than that, I think your argument is pretty solid. To me though, this is one of those issues that people aren’t going to bend on very easily. I doubt that anyone who thinks there’s good evidence of the resurrection is going to be persuaded by the opposing view, and vice versa. The best that could probably happen is that casual Christians who have never really looked into the evidence that closely before may be struck by how little of it there really is when you get right down to it.
It’s not something that can be proven either way, so like you, I don’t see enough evidence to convince me that natural law was violated. But for people who already accept that, they’re going to have a harder time seeing why they shouldn’t believe it.
LikeLike