In the comment thread of my last post, some of us mentioned that it’s hard for us to understand the point of view of Christians who believe the Bible can be inspired by God, without holding to the doctrine of inerrancy. unkleE left the following comment:
How is it that in everything else in life – whether it be ethics, or politics, relationships, science, history, law, even disbelief – we are willing to make decisions based on non-inerrant evidence and reasoning, but when it is belief in God we require inerrant evidence? I reckon your first thought might be that the stakes are so much higher. But that logic applies to disbelief as well. If we applied that logic, no-one would be an atheist because they didn’t have inerrant knowledge for that conclusion. You would not have any belief either way until you gained inerrant knowledge.
He then suggested that I might want to do a post on this topic (you’re reading it!), but there were also a couple of other comments that I think are worth including here. nonsupernaturalist said this:
My answer would be that ethics, politics, relationships, science, history, and law do not involve supernatural claims. When someone makes a supernatural claim, the standard of evidence required by most educated people in the western world to believe that claim is much, much higher than a claim involving natural evidence.
Let’s look at “history”. If someone tells me that most historians believe that Caesar crossed the Rubicon or that Alexander the Great sacked the city of Tyre, I accept those claims without demanding a great deal of evidence. However, if someone claims that the Buddha caused a water buffalo to speak in a human language for over one half hour or that Mohammad rode on a winged horse to heaven, I am going to demand MASSIVE quantities of evidence to believe these claims.
I think that most Christians would agree with my thinking, here, until I make the same assertion regarding the bodily Resurrection of Jesus. Then Christians will shake their heads in disgust and accuse me of being biased and unreasonable.
No. I am not being biased and unreasonable. I am being consistent. It is the Christian who is being inconsistent: demanding more evidence to believe the supernatural claims of other religions than he or she demands of his own.
And it isn’t just supernatural claims. Most educated people in the western world would demand much more evidence for very rare natural claims than we would for non-rare natural claims.
Imagine if someone at work tells you that his sister just gave birth to twins. How much evidence would you demand to believe this claim? Probably not much. You would probably take the guy’s word for it. Now imagine if the same coworker tells you that, yesterday, in the local hospital, his sister gave birth to twelve babies! Would you take the guy’s word for it? I doubt it.
So it isn’t that we skeptics are biased against Christianity or even that we are biased against the supernatural. We are simply applying the same reason, logic, and skepticism to YOUR very extra-ordinary religious claim that we apply to ALL very rare, extra-ordinary claims, including very rare, extraordinary natural claims.
And Arkenaten said this:
I cannot fathom how you can disregard something like Noah’s Ark as nonsense and yet accept that a narrative construct called Jesus of Nazareth could come back from the dead.
Personally, I feel very much the same way that nonsupernaturalist does. The first part of unkleE’s question that I’d like to address is his statement about nonbelief:
If we applied that logic, no-one would be an atheist because they didn’t have inerrant knowledge for that conclusion.
I think this depends on what one means by “atheism.” I’m not really interested in trying to determine what the official definition of the term is; rather, I’d like to make sure we’re all talking about the same thing within the confines of this discussion. When I refer to myself as an atheist, I simply mean that I don’t believe any of the proposed god claims that I’ve encountered. I’m not necessarily saying that I think no gods exist, period. And if I were to say that, I’d give the caveat that I could easily be wrong about such a belief. This notion of atheism, the position that one hasn’t been convinced of any god claims, is often referred to as “weak atheism” or “soft atheism.” Personally, I think that should be everyone’s default position. No one should be a Muslim, a Hindu, or a Christian until he or she has been convinced that the god(s) of that particular religion exist(s). If we didn’t operate in this way, then we’d all immediately accept the proposition of every religion we encountered, until its claims could be disproven. This would make most of us Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, pagans, and atheists all at the same time. Obviously, that’s ridiculous. So on those grounds, I don’t agree with unkleE’s assertion that we would need inerrant information to not believe something.
Furthermore, when it comes to the claims of Christianity, I can accept or reject them completely independently of what I think about the existence of god(s). Many times, discussions about the evidence for and against Christianity slide into discussions about whether or not a god exists. People bring up the cosmological and teleological arguments. While those discussions can be important, I think they are really just distractions when we’re talking about a specific religion. I’m okay conceding that a god might exist, so I’d rather focus on the pros and cons of Christianity to see if it could possibly be true. After all, it could be the case that God is real, but Christianity is false.
unkleE’s comment started like this:
How is it that in everything else in life – whether it be ethics, or politics, relationships, science, history, law, even disbelief – we are willing to make decisions based on non-inerrant evidence and reasoning, but when it is belief in God we require inerrant evidence?
To piggy-back off the comments I just made, I don’t necessarily require inerrant evidence to believe in God. I think the necessity for inerrancy comes from the kind of god being argued for. The Abrahamic religions teach that there is one God who is supreme. He is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, completely just, etc. I know there are sometimes caveats placed on those labels. For instance, can God create a rock so large that he can’t lift it? Arguments like that illustrate that being all-powerful doesn’t mean he’s outside the laws of logic. And the same goes for all-knowing. It’s sometimes argued that he knows all that can be known… perhaps there are some things that can’t be known? The waters can get muddy pretty quickly, so I think it’s best to refer back to the religion’s source material (the Bible, in this case) to learn more about the characteristics of this god.
In the Bible, God seems to be big on proofs. When God wanted Noah to build an ark, he spoke to him directly. Noah didn’t have to decide between a handful of prophets each telling him different things — God made sure that Noah knew exactly what was required of him. The same was done for Abraham when God wanted him to move into the land of Canaan, and when God commanded him to sacrifice Isaac. When God called Moses to deliver the Israelites from Egyptian bondage, he also spoke directly to Moses. And on top of that, he even offered additional proofs by performing signs for Moses. And when Moses appeared before Pharaoh, God again used signs to show Pharaoh that Moses did indeed speak on God’s behalf. Miraculous signs were used throughout the period of time that the Israelites wandered in the wilderness. And we can fast forward to the time of Gideon and see that God used signs as evidence then as well. Throughout the Old Testament, signs were given to people to show God’s involvement and desires. There are even examples where God punished those who listened to false prophets who hadn’t shown such signs, such as the man of God who listened to the instruction of an old prophet who was actually lying to him. God sent a lion to kill the man (I Kings 13:11-32).
The New Testament is no different. Jesus and his apostles perform all kinds of miracles as evidence of Jesus’s power. When the Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of Satan, he pointed out how nonsensical that would be, showing that such miracles were intended as a display of God’s approval (Matt 12:24-28). And the Gospel of John also argues that these miracles were intended as evidence:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
— John 20:30-31
Not only did Jesus and his disciples use miracles to make their case, they also appealed to Scripture. Throughout the New Testament, you find references to the Old: “as it is written,” “as spoken by the prophet,” etc. That in itself doesn’t necessarily make the case for inerrancy, but it at least shows that they expected the scriptures to be accurate.
If God cared so much during the time periods talked about in the Bible, why wouldn’t he care just as much today? How can Jesus say that “not one jot or tittle of the law will pass away” if God’s not really all that concerned about how accurate the “jots” and “tittles” are? And yes, like unkleE said in his comment, I do think the fact that the stakes are tremendously high on this question makes it that much more necessary to have good evidence. While the Bible gives us countless examples of those who received direct communication from God or one of his representatives, we find ourselves living in a time when we’re surrounded by competing claims about which god is true, and which doctrines are the right ones. I used to believe that the one tool we had to cut through all that noise was the Bible. It was the one source we could go to to find what God wanted from us. And we could trust that it was his word because of the amazing prophecy fulfillments that it contained and that despite its length and antiquity, it was completely without error. In other words, I thought it was a final miracle to last throughout the ages. And because of its existence and availability, we no longer needed individuals who went around performing miracles and spreading the gospel.
That’s how I saw the world. Of course, since then, I’ve discovered that the Bible doesn’t live up to that high standard. I have many other posts that deal with its various problems, so I won’t try to detail them now. But I simply don’t see how the God portrayed in the Bible, a god who is all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving, etc, would inspire individuals to write down his incredibly important message to all of mankind, yet not make sure they relay it completely accurately. It doesn’t always agree with itself, it contains historical and scientific mistakes, and sometimes it advocates things that are outright immoral. It’s understandable why a number of people would fail to be convinced by such a book; therefore, it would be impossible for an all-loving and completely just God to punish people when they’re merely trying to avoid the same fate as the man of God who trusted the old (false) prophet.
Finding Truth 
Hey, I did not mean to imply that you are an asshole! Sorry about that!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I try to give unkleE some slack nsn but it is not always easy as he is sometimes guilty of being condescending to a non-believer . Even Nate has pointed this out. unkleE has always been a “numbers guy” too. If you have 50 scholars who side with your point, he will come up with 51. He has to win in his mind. If he feels like he might be losing or being ganged up on, then he plays the Martyr and bows out of the conversation. He is very predictable .
I have noticed about unkleE from the 3 plus years I have sparred with him here is that he has never once told me as a de-convert, why I should give Jesus another try . For a guy who claims there is so much evidence for his Savior, you would think he would be trying to share all the reasons why he serves him and why others should serve him too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I too have experienced UnkleE’s tactics. He reminds me of a chess player. Always carefully analyzing each “move” to eventually “checkmate” his opponent. It is not his habit to engage in a free flowing conversation. You always know that the “gotcha” moment is coming.
But he is the one “under attack” on this website, so I can understand his defensiveness. However, I ask everyone to remember this: Every time UnkleE presents “evidence” for his supernatural belief system, his most important evidence, the evidence that you must expose as false to ever get through to him, is purely subjective: his belief that a voice inside his head is the voice of a reanimated apocalyptic Jewish preacher who died 2,000 years ago.
LikeLike
Hi Jon, just a few loose ends to tidy up I think.
”Sure, and if Brigham Young was a prophet of God, then it doesn’t matter that Joseph Smith was a fraud.”
I think this is hardly a sufficient argument, for several reasons.
1. Your statement is probably correct. If Young was truly a prophet, then Smith’s dishonesty wouldn’t change that.
2. We were not talking about fraud but myth. They are very different. Fraud is deception but myth tells truth, just via a generally non-historical narrative.
3. There are many examples where things you might regard as superstitious or irrational appear in the same person as some great science. Isaac Newton was primarily an alchemist, but that doesn’t invalidate his mechanics, calculus or equations of gravity. Pythagoras had some strange religious views but the square on the hypotenuse still equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides. I could give many other examples. How much less should myth centuries, perhaps more than a millennium, before Jesus invalidate anything he said?
”However, I don’t think “scholars disagree” does much more than muddy up the waters. Scholarly disagreement is only about whether there is some historical memory within the Exodus story, not whether the story is remotely accurate.”
That is still only true if you ignore the maximalists. Some scholars think the story is more than “remotely accurate” while still thinking it is part legendary, e.g. the numbers involved. I don’t hold to the maximalist view (as I said, I’m happy to sit in the middle or on the fence), but it is inaccurate to say there is only one view. Again, the ASOR book shows otherwise.
”Can you demonstrate that?”
Yes, I think it is pretty clear.
1. In his book Jesus of Nazareth, Maurice Casey gives a 60 page outline of historical Jesus studies over more than a century. Casey starts with Schweitzer, and his critique of 19th century liberal views of Jesus which showed that the scholars before him had little regard for history. But, Casey says, the German critics who followed did little better. He says one famous scholar “avoided the Jesus of history”. He strongly criticises the form criticism of Rudolph Bultmann, showing that it inaccurately cut up the gospels into forms, paid little regard to history, language and culture, and thus took Jesus totally out of his first century Jewish environment. Bultmann and others concluded that we could know little about the Jesus of history. More recent scholars such as Crossan and the Jesus Seminar do something similar, Casey says. He sees the beginning of a much better historical method in the 1980s with the work of Vermes, Sanders and Wright, which took Jesus’ Jewishness seriously. When you read the rest of the book, you see Casey using Jewish culture and Aramaic language as ways of testing and showing where genuine historical material can be seen in the gospels – and he concludes that much is historical. Casey’s book is well worth reading by anyone, I think, even though some of his views are very idiosyncratic and I don’t agree with it all (and many scholars disagree with parts too).
2. I also have Craig Keener’s The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, and while he is a very different scholar from Casey, his summary of the “Historical Jesus Quest” is very similar to Casey’s.
3. The latest trend is memory studies, by people like Le Donne, Keith and Rodriguez. They further criticise the negative conclusions of the form critics of the early to mid 20th century. They emphasise that what is remembered isn’t always what actually happened, but they say that is what we have in history, and within that limitation, they find much good historical material in the gospels.
4. The “early high christology” movement is another example. It used to be said that the idea od jesus as more than a man is a later legend, but Larry Hurtado (How on Earth Did Jesus Become God) and others have shown fairly convincingly that Jesus was worshiped as risen Lord right from the very early days. When Bart Ehrman came to write his book on the subject (How Jesus Became God) he reported that he was forced by the evidence to change his previous view, and he now agrees with much of Hurtado’s conclusions, except he says that Jesus was worshiped initially as a sort of semi-divine man. This is all a major change in the past 2-3 decades.
5. Finally there is the idea that Jesus was a legend somewhat like pagan dying and rising gods. This was a popular idea 150 years ago and is still promoted by non-qualified writers such as Freke and Gandy, Tom Harpur, etc. But all qualified scholars (with, I think, the exception of Robert Price) believe that the so-called evidence was invented or imagined by the 18th century writers, and in fact pagan legends had no entry points into first century Judaism, and the roots of the Jesus story (whether it is believed or disbelieved) lie in Judaism.
So in all these ways, 100 years ago there was little scholarly belief that we could know much historical about Jesus, whereas today scholars are quite sure we can. Of course they still argue about details, but the core is pretty well accepted by almost all historians.
So I believe that CS Lewis was broadly right in his critique of Bultmann back in the 1950s, and his prediction of change had broadly been fulfilled. If you haven’t read his paper, it is well worth reading and is available on the web.
LikeLike
Of course one should ignore the maximalists! Who in their right mind would consider anything these half-wits espouse? And as you don’t then why the hell bring it up?
Kitchen and his ilk?
When it comes to the Exodus he is simply a willfully ignorant evangelist fundamentalist whose opinion only a severely indoctrinated individual would consider.
This has been pointed out to you numerous times, and he has not published a single peer reviewed piece on the Exodus etc. not led a dig to find evidence for his biblically held views.
And you are aware of this and have been for long enough that to continue to raise the maximalist position is dishonest.
Thus, as you wrote ”I don’t hold to the maximalist view” what you are saying in actual fact, Unklee is that the view of genuine scholars is the correct one; namely, there is general agreement as to the historically fictitious nature of the Exodus tale.
Ah, and here we are clutching a straws. While you are perfectly happy to throw out scholars by name when it suits you, here, as always, you are caught with your pants down.
Time after time the world’s best archaeologists in this field have gone on record as stating that, there is no disagreement concerning the basically fictitious nature of the Exodus etc and time and time again your only rebuttal is some feeble un-cited hand-waving drivel.
And if the essence of the tale is more than ”remotely accurate” and it is simply numbers that are the issue we are obviously NOT talking about any supernatural elements as no genuine scholar worth his salt would ever be so idiotic to suggest there was any god influenced elements to the tale and most certainly no historian.
And yet, you fail to mention a single archaeologist or a citation.
I am very happy that Nate posted this thread as this topic, above almost every other , demonstrates the almost disingenuous nature of your methodology.
Unlike some of the others, I consider your approach to this crucial topic is basically dishonest and your views are not worthy of any slack whatsoever.
LikeLike
With regard current Jesus studies.
While scholars shift their opinions either for or against historicity the basic facts remain unchanged and have done since Constantine and the church set about formalizing doctrine.
The is not a shred of contemporary evidence and all the showboating in the world will not change this.
Another classic non- substantive line. Details are the flesh we hang on the bones, unklee.
What exactly is the consensus view of historians?
That there was someone called Yeshua Ben Joseph who was likely crucified by the Romans for sedition.
There is no broad agreement on anything else.
LikeLike
You hold a maximalist view as regards biblical resurrection, which is as extreme, if not more so, as any held by Judaism.
Can you explain why this is, especially when there is no evidence whatsoever to support your maximalist viewpoint?
LikeLike
“2. We were not talking about fraud but myth. They are very different. Fraud is deception but myth tells truth, just via a generally non-historical narrative.”
Well that explains it ! So myth tells us the truth about the Phoenix ??? And this is why the earliest church father, Clement believed in the Phoenix as he did the resurrection of Jesus ?
What you are saying unkleE is that people are quite capable of believing anything that suits them. This is nothing new. And this is why there are so many religions in the world. And yet, you feel yours is the correct one. Hmmm
LikeLiked by 3 people
“So I believe that CS Lewis was broadly right in his critique of Bultmann back in the 1950s, and his prediction of change had broadly been fulfilled. ”
So do you also believe CS Lewis when he called out Jesus in his error and ignorance ? In Lewis’ book , “The Worlds Last Night” he says, ““Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”
“It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
As a point of interest regarding biblical historians:
The nature of impartiality/objectivity of biblical historians was raised by David Fitzgerald during the research for his book, Nailed.
Whether you agree with Fitzgerald’s mythicist view or not does not detract from the fact his survey of universities in America that had a degree-granting theology department or Jesus studies program revealed that 70% of Biblical Historians are Christians and 40% of these are contractually required to toe the theological line.
When one considers that apologist / biblical scholar Mike Licona lost his job for merely suggesting analogy in reference to the Raising of the dead saints at the crucifiction and based on the figures revealed by Fitzgerald’s survey, in all honesty, how much objectivity is even possible when it comes to establishing any sort of veracity for these issues?
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
But KC, you just don’t understand, you silly skeptic. Since the Second Coming didn’t happen during the life time of the disciples, Jesus’ statement “this generation shall not pass till all these things be done” was never meant to be taken literally. This is clearly metaphorical language.
Jesus can never be wrong. THAT is your problem.
If you start with the premise that the Jesus who dwells in your heart, speaks to you daily, and performs amazing miracles for you and other believers is unquestionably real, then any “discrepancy” in the Bible must be interpreted as metaphorical, allegorical, etc..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Unklee
If you wish to put forward any specific opinions you hold on the topic, I would be happy to consider them.
While I appreciated and enjoyed your discussion of various views, I don’t think it really supports your argument. You have identified a few relatively small set of scholars at various points (from the mid 19th to mid 20th centuries) and extrapolated their views onto the entire field. Do you really think Bultmann’s views represented the majority of Biblical scholarship during his time? Do you really think the majority of biblical scholars believed that Jesus was just a mythical representation of the dying and rising god legend?
The German scholars, Bultmann and a few others were notable because they challenged consensus views in new and interesting ways. That does not mean they were representative of the majority of scholars at their time. They are remembered well today precisely because they were a radical minority whose views had a profound impact on later scholarship. Their radical views were eventually digested and some elements were incorporated into mainstream scholarship.
As a comparison, it’s like identifying the views of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman and Chicago school economists, contrasting their views on monetary policy with the Neo-Keynesian monetary views of many scholars today and saying that the previous scholarly belief in free markets has given way to a rejection of free markets. It is a poor description of previous and current scholarship, it mis-identifies monetary policy as representative of the overall field of economics, and it is an inaccurate description of how and why scholarship has evolved to adopt and integrate different monetary and economic views.
It seems to me that the primary development of the past century of so of biblical studies is not so much a reduction of skepticism as it is the growth of methodology. Ideas that could be simply asserted as arguments previously became more testable, and so scholarship could (to some extent) be settled on a more academic rather than theological basis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Jon,
“If you wish to put forward any specific opinions you hold on the topic, I would be happy to consider them.”
No, I was just answering your original question. As I have said, I don’t have strong opinions on the OT.
“You have identified a few relatively small set of scholars at various points (from the mid 19th to mid 20th centuries) and extrapolated their views onto the entire field.”
I have given a representative sample of views, I could give a lot more along the same lines if I went back to many other books I have read. It is pretty firmly established that this field can be described by the first, a gap, the second and third quests, and that the third quest finds a lot more of historical value than after the first, when scholars virtually gave up on the Jesus of history. Check out Wikipedia and any scholarly summary and you’ll find variations, but a lot of commonality in their assessment.
“It seems to me that the primary development of the past century of so of biblical studies ….. is the growth of methodology.”
I agree with you here. But I think the two are related. That is the reason why historians have greater confidence in the historicity of the gospels than they used to – because methods have improved.
Perhaps now is time to finish up, do you think? If so, thanks. I have enjoyed exploring these matters with you.
LikeLike
KC brought up a great point:
If Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple, then he INACCURATELY predicted when it would happen!
If the author of Matthew correctly records the statements of Jesus regarding the destruction of the Temple in Matthew chapter 24, then according to Jesus, prior to or simultaneous with the destruction of the Temple, he (Jesus) will come back riding the clouds, accompanied by angels blowing trumpets (the Second Coming). In addition, Jesus tells the disciples when these events will happen: they will occur during the life times of the generation of people living at the time that Jesus spoke these words.
Christians may try to “spin” this story by saying that Jesus correctly predicted that the Temple would be destroyed in 70 AD but the rest of his prophecy in Matthew chapter 24 is about the end of the Age, which obviously has not yet happened…going on two thousand years! But there is a problem with this spin. Jesus’ long discussion in chapter 24 is preceded by the disciples asking when the Temple will be destroyed and when the Age will end. If we are to believe the Christian explanation, then Jesus never answered the disciples’ first question about the timing of the destruction of the Temple.
I don’t believe it. If you read the entire chapter it is clear that the destruction of the Temple and the events of the Second Coming are all predicted to occur at the same time, prior to the passing away of “this” generation.
Jesus didn’t come back during the generation of the disciples. Jesus’ prophesy was therefore inaccurate. Jesus made a mistake. JESUS WAS NOT GOD!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Jesus didn’t come back during the generation of the disciples. Jesus’ prophesy was therefore inaccurate. Jesus made a mistake. JESUS WAS NOT GOD!”
And what did the Church do about this ??? If you will simply read , “Constantine’s Bible” by David L Dungan (unkleE will NEVER read this) he says, “Now that the Christian God in his providence had raised up a Christian Emperor to be his champion on earth , and now that the , “rod of God’s anger” was busily laying waste to the Church’s foes and simultaneously strengthening and enriching the Catholic church itself , it simply would not do to speak of Christ coming back to destroy the evil Roman empire along with all the other powers destined for wrath and setting up a physical Kingdom of God on earth which would necessarily supplant the newly triumphant Catholic Church !”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Perhaps now is time to finish up, do you think? If so, thanks. I have enjoyed exploring these matters with you.”
Behold ! The very predictable unkleE. Rope-a-dope then the exit, “Stage Left” 🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
As I mentioned further up the thread, Unklee has gone to great lengths on this post to demonstrate his own relative disinterest in the Old Testament and the impact it has on the New Testament, Jesus and his own faith.
To the end he has hand-waved away the importance of the mythological nature of the biblical account of the Exodus maintaining there is a core to the story, once again offering oblique reference to the maximalist position even while dismissing it in the same paragraph.
And while the consensus view of secular scholars,historians and archaeologist is that it is simply Historical Fiction as was the character , Moses, unklee refuse to acknowledge the dynamics of this in relation to the character, Jesus of Nazareth.
All readers will be aware of the critical importance Moses is to the Jewish people and Judaism.
The character, Jesus was a Jew and his mission was to fulfill Mosaic Law.
The disingenuous nature of unklee’s approach to this issue is plain to see.
For what it’s worth, I seem to recall that, one of the first times the idea was proposed that Moses was a wholly fictitious character ( not even a composite as suggested by people like Martin Noth) was sometime during the 1970’s. This was greeted with a considerable amount of scorn. as you can imagine.
Now it is generally accepted.
I wonder how long it will take before we see a similar picture emerge for Jesus?
If unklee doesn’t need the Old Testament to believe in Jesus what will it take before he doesn’t need a flesh and blood historical Jesus?
I wonder ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Into my heart,
into my heart,
come into my heart Lord Je-sus.
Come in today.
Come in to stay.
Come into my heart, Lord Je-sus.
LikeLike
If you grew up singing that song, you remember how comforting it was. You could “feel” Jesus comforting you as you sang it. (Note: it has the rhythm of a lullabye.) So if you can sing a song and feel Jesus’ presence within you and feel the peace and comfort that his presence gives you, why would you ever abandon all that just because a bunch of God-hating “experts” say that Moses was fictional?
LikeLiked by 2 people
I did sing that song a lot as a kid in a Pentecostal Church. And I did feel like his presence was in me. Emotions can do all sorts of things. I feel an emotional attachment to my country every time I’m at a sporting event and sing the National Anthem. I tend to be an emotional person and that’s why I remained a Christian for 50 years . Then I started putting my emotions aside and began research and study. That’s when it all changed. I started thinking with my brain instead of my heart.
LikeLike
Exactly, KC.
That is what I encourage UnkleE to do. Set aside the emotions and perceived personal experiences of Jesus and just look at the evidence for this ancient claim from the Bible (and any other literary sources). I would bet that if UnkleE would do that, he would have to admit that the actual evidence for the Resurrection is very weak.
Even if we assume the empty tomb as historical, there are many, much more probable explanations for an empty tomb before arriving at the supernatural explanation that an ancient Hebrew god breathed life back into a three day brain-dead corpse which then somehow exited his sealed tomb.
Without their subjective emotions about Jesus, without their subjective perceptions about answered prayers, and without their preconceived assumptions of Yahweh’s existence, Christians must admit that the evidence for Christianity’s central claim—the Resurrection of the dead Jesus—is very, very poor.
LikeLike
Help.
I can’t get that damn song out of my head now.
🙂
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Nonsupernaturalist.
Here is the perfect song to chase those Jesus Blues away …
LikeLiked by 1 person
Evidence for the Resurrection:
1. Subjective personal feelings of the presence of an invisible being in ones’ body who provides comfort and peace. (An adult imaginary friend)
2. Perceived miracles in one’s life and in the lives of others which may well be rare, random coincidences. The burden of proof is on believers, not skeptics, to prove that these events are supernatural acts of an invisible being and not rare, random coincidences.
3. The.assumption that evidence for a Creator is evidence for Yahweh.
4. A literature search demonstrating that 75% of NT scholars believe in the historicity of the Empty Tomb.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Bible is 100% accurate. I have even personally responded to some objections and attacks against the Bible in my blog.
LikeLike