Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Lek]

Agree with the support for Bart Ehrman- probably my favourite non-christian writer.

Now can I invite those who respond to read what I'm saying carefully; as tends to happen, people are dealing with an argument I'm not making, but other Xians often do.

Lay aside any claim to inspiration, and view the NT as a collection of biased documents seeking to use a partially remembered history to bolster its membership.

Please also reread my comments on 'miracle' as keeping natural laws rather than breaking them.

Historians studying C1 Mediterranean history use the NT as a secular source very comfortably. The question of what Jesus actually did isn't the point I'm making. It's simply that Jesus' contemporaries believed he did 'signs' to point them to reality. For that modest claim, the NT will more than do.

These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).

Throw in basic historical tools such as multiple attestation and very short distance between event and account, and my rather modest claim, perfectly compatible with atheism, looks really very strong.

It is, of course, open to you to wave a hand and ignore the NT entirely. But ignoring such a massive source of data about the beliefs of the Early Church really isn't doing proper history.

I must say, this was a very interesting post. Hope to hear more from you, Vicki.

[Vicki Q]

Thanks for the thoughts, Lek. I would encourage you to read N.T. Wright, who provided all the material. I'd also encourage those of other beliefs to read him, for the same reason I read Bart Ehrman.

Perhaps I can help potential discussion partners out a little by looking at a serious flaw in the post. I failed to differentiate between the beliefs of the Early Church and the beliefs of the first disciples.

If you want to know what an organisation believes, you start with what it says. Few on this forum would agree with ISIS, but if we wanted to know what they believe, we would look at what they have said. The Early Church were exceptionally clear in their writing that they believed that Jesus performed surprising 'signs'; that point should now be clear enough to move on.

Linking that back to the disciples' belief needs a bit more work, but isn't too hard. I would repeat the two paragraphs from my previous post, that the signs are inseparable from the message. 'God's kingdom has arrived, and big new things are happening- here's some early examples'. I would also emphasise that standard historical procedures give a very clear verdict that Jesus' contemporaries believed in general that he did very notable things (although saying which individual cases are historically likely to go back to events from Jesus is more difficult).

Moreover, it is clear from Paul that the disciples were still running the Xian show in the mid fifties. It is logical to suppose that their eyewitness accounts of Jesus were canonical. That leaves a very short gap for any miracle variations to creep in before Mark appears (AD70 is the centre of gravity for professional academics). Quite impossible for them to be integrated in the way sometimes suggested.

Finally, it is unthinkable that some apparent form of return from the dead would, in itself, convince the disciples that Jesus was God (it's a non-sequitur, anyway). Things must have happened before that, and that would almost certainly have to include astonishing signs of God returning to Israel as He had promised.

[Mudhammam]

Things must have happened before that, and that would almost certainly have to include astonishing signs of God returning to Israel as He had promised.

"Signs of God" are not that astonishing to a discerning mind. Mental hospitals are filled with them. So is every single religious text and the multitudes of followers they have inspired throughout history. The early Christians were already believers in supernatural deities, whether they were Palestinian or Roman. All it took was a new formula that spoke to the people's needs, and after the siege of Jerusalem, Christianity was in a good position to fill that role for the common folk.

[Vicki Q]

"Signs of God" are not that astonishing to a discerning mind. Mental hospitals are filled with them. So is every single religious text and the multitudes of followers they have inspired throughout history. The early Christians were already believers in supernatural deities, whether they were Palestinian or Roman. All it took was a new formula that spoke to the people's needs, and after the siege of Jerusalem, Christianity was in a good position to fill that role for the common folk.

By truncating the phrase, you've changed its meaning noticeably. The full phrase is “astonishing signs of God returning to Israel as He had promised”. These were not random occurrences done for effect, but occur within a specific context. The point is not 'Jesus can do great things', but 'The Kingdom of God looks like this, and its time is now'. The acts are not really there to create faith, but to signpost the fulfilment of God's promise.

Contrast for example the C2 infancy gospel of Thomas, where Jesus makes clay birds fly. A random 'miracle'.

This is all part of a coherent and indivisible message, accepted and lived to death by all the 'Twelve' (the NT pulls no punches where divisions are concerned; none of them breaks ranks post resurrection). The early church was Jewish primarily, and any C1 Jew would have taken some persuading that C1 Judaism was heading in the wrong direction in terms of what their ultimate goal meant- the Kingdom of God.

Now there are common features with other religious movements, but rather than hand wave with 'They're all the same', I would argue strongly it's worth looking at individual arguments because one may be real. Think Russian Roulette.

On the final point. After the fall of Jerusalem, rabbinic Judaism took over, with Christianity gaining no extra traction in Israel because of the war. The Pharisees morphed into what we know today as rabbis.

[Mudhammam]

By truncating the phrase, you've changed its meaning noticeably. The full phrase is “astonishing signs of God returning to Israel as He had promised”. These were not random occurrences done for effect, but occur within a specific context. The point is not 'Jesus can do great things', but 'The Kingdom of God looks like this, and its time is now'. The acts are not really there to create faith, but to signpost the fulfilment of God's promise.

Contrast for example the C2 infancy gospel of Thomas, where Jesus makes clay birds fly. A random 'miracle'.

The only difference between Jesus making clay birds fly and causing a fig tree to wither by cursing it or appearing and disappearing through walls post-mortem is that you've attached special significance to the latter instances. The Gospel writers make it painfully obvious that they're willing and able to manufacture signposts no matter how woefully they have to mutilate the meaning of Old Testament texts. Taken allegorically, I'm fine with all of this. Taken beyond that, my statement about mental hospitals stands. There's a whole lot of significance to be found in the "miraculous" everywhere it's reported if you have an idea of what you're looking for. To him who has an ear to hear, let him hear!

This is all part of a coherent and indivisible message, accepted and lived to death by all the 'Twelve' (the NT pulls no punches where divisions are concerned; none of them breaks ranks post resurrection). The early church was Jewish primarily, and any C1 Jew would have taken some persuading that C1 Judaism was heading in the wrong direction in terms of what their ultimate goal meant- the Kingdom of God.

Now there are common features with other religious movements, but rather than hand wave with 'They're all the same', I would argue strongly it's worth looking at individual arguments because one may be real. Think Russian Roulette.

On the final point. After the fall of Jerusalem, rabbinic Judaism took over, with Christianity gaining no extra traction in Israel because of the war. The Pharisees morphed into what we know today as rabbis.

I'd beg to differ that Christianity gained nothing by the fall of Jerusalem. After all, it's a central theme in at least one of the Gospels that future generations of Jews would suffer directly as a result of their betrayal of the Messiah, and the fate of Jerusalem is specifically mentioned in the Synoptics. If anything, it placed events post 70 A.D. in a context that allowed Gentiles to feel justified as Crusaders doing the work of the divine and impressed on Jews the idea that they were confronting God's wrath as a consequence of their father's sins. And of course, all of this became very useful for the Roman Church later on.

[Nintentacle]

Because they have softer hearts, and are less willingly ignorant than you.

---

By truncating the phrase, you've changed its meaning noticeably. The full phrase is “astonishing signs of God returning to Israel as He had promised”. These were not random occurrences done for effect, but occur within a specific context. The point is not 'Jesus can do great things', but 'The Kingdom of God looks like this, and its time is now'. The acts are not really there to create faith, but to signpost the fulfilment of God's promise.

Contrast for example the C2 infancy gospel of Thomas, where Jesus makes clay birds fly. A random 'miracle'.

The only difference between Jesus making clay birds fly and causing a fig tree to wither by cursing it or appearing and disappearing through walls post-mortem is that you've attached special significance to the latter instances. The Gospel writers make it painfully obvious that they're willing and able to manufacture signposts no matter how woefully they have to mutilate the meaning of Old Testament texts. Taken allegorically, I'm fine with all of this. Taken beyond that, my statement about mental hospitals stands. There's a whole lot of significance to be found in the "miraculous" everywhere it's reported if you have an idea of what you're looking for. To him who has an ear to hear, let him hear!

This is all part of a coherent and indivisible message, accepted and lived to death by all the 'Twelve' (the NT pulls no punches where divisions are concerned; none of them breaks ranks post resurrection). The early church was Jewish primarily, and any C1 Jew would have taken some persuading that C1 Judaism was heading in the wrong direction in terms of what their ultimate goal meant- the Kingdom of God.

Now there are common features with other religious movements, but rather than hand wave with 'They're all the same', I would argue strongly it's worth looking at individual arguments because one may be real. Think Russian Roulette.

On the final point. After the fall of Jerusalem, rabbinic Judaism took over, with Christianity gaining no extra traction in Israel because of the war. The Pharisees morphed into what we know today as rabbis.

I'd beg to differ that Christianity gained nothing by the fall of Jerusalem. After all, it's a central theme in at least one of the Gospels that future generations of Jews would suffer directly as a result of their betrayal of the Messiah, and the fate of Jerusalem is specifically mentioned in the Synoptics. If anything, it placed events post 70 A.D. in a context that allowed Gentiles to feel justified as Crusaders doing the work of the divine and impressed on Jews the idea that they were confronting God's wrath as a consequence of their father's sins. And of course, all of this became very useful for the Roman Church later on.

Christianity gained a lot: Look at Daniel 9:24-27.

[ThomM]

"Signs of God" are not that astonishing to a discerning mind. Mental hospitals are filled with them. So is every single religious text and the multitudes of followers they have inspired throughout history. The early Christians were already believers in supernatural deities, whether they were Palestinian or Roman. All it took was a new formula that spoke to the people's needs, and after the siege of Jerusalem, Christianity was in a good position to fill that role for the common folk.

By truncating the phrase, you've changed its meaning noticeably. The full phrase is “astonishing signs of God returning to Israel as He had promised”. These were not random occurrences done for effect, but occur within a specific context. The point is not 'Jesus can do great things', but 'The Kingdom of God looks like this, and its time is now'. The acts are not really there to create faith, but to signpost the fulfilment of God's promise.





Contrast for example the C2 infancy gospel of Thomas, where Jesus makes clay birds fly. A random 'miracle'.

This is all part of a coherent and indivisible message, accepted and lived to death by all the 'Twelve' (the NT pulls no punches where divisions are concerned; none of them breaks ranks post resurrection). The early church was Jewish primarily, and any C1 Jew would have taken some persuading that C1 Judaism was heading in the wrong direction in terms of what their ultimate goal meant- the Kingdom of God.

Now there are common features with other religious movements, but rather than hand wave with 'They're all the same', I would argue strongly it's worth looking at individual arguments because one may be real. Think Russian Roulette.

On the final point. After the fall of Jerusalem, rabbinic Judaism took over, with Christianity gaining no extra traction in Israel because of the war. The Pharisees morphed into what we know today as rabbis.

And yet - if the ASTONISHING signs of a god returning to Israel - were so astonishing - then WHY are there no referenced to them BY any contemporary to time. The NT did not exist until long after the supposed time of the mythical christ. Yet he is supposed to be well known to leaders of the government - and preached and met with multitudes - and yet not a single piece of evidence that can be dated to that time even mentions his name - when we actually have that for OTHER messiahs. And there are clear and obvious errors to Physical situations in the NT - that simply cannot be true - or could not be true at the time it supposedly was wriiten.

Sorry - the christ is no more real than Isis or Osiris - or Hercules
If you could prove otherwise - you would -

The bible is not a first hand account of anything - because you cannot even prove who wrote most of it. So - what you are doing is simply what ALL other religious mythologies do - request special exemption.

SORRY - the MYTHICAL christ - based on YOUR evidence - a MYTH and nothing more
Without using the bible - prove me wrong.
You cannot

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, pretty sure it would only become more difficult to disagree with you -using the bible-.

[ThomM]

Agree with the support for Bart Ehrman- probably my favourite non-christian writer.

Now can I invite those who respond to read what I'm saying carefully; as tends to happen, people are dealing with an argument I'm not making, but other Xians often do.

Lay aside any claim to inspiration, and view the NT as a collection of biased documents seeking to use a partially remembered history to bolster its membership.

Please also reread my comments on 'miracle' as keeping natural laws rather than breaking them.

Historians studying C1 Mediterranean history use the NT as a secular source very comfortably. The question of what Jesus actually did isn't the point I'm making. It's simply that Jesus' contemporaries believed he did 'signs' to point them to reality. For that modest claim, the NT will more than do.

These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).

Throw in basic historical tools such as multiple attestation and very short distance between event and account, and my rather modest claim, perfectly compatible with atheism, looks really very strong.

It is, of course, open to you to wave a hand and ignore the NT entirely. But ignoring such a massive source of data about the beliefs of the Early Church really isn't doing proper history.

I must say, this was a very interesting post. Hope to hear more from you, Vicki.

Sorry - when claiming proper history - you are ignoring the claims of a multitude of religions - with over 10,000 named gods. There is NOTHING that you have said that cannot apply to the Koran - for instance. They all have things in them that are true - but - they also have things in them that are NOT true as well. And the fact that Kansas exists - and that is accepted by the majority of historians of today - does nothing to prove that the wizard of oz is real.

The question I would use to YOU - would be this -
If it could be proven that Allah was the correct and Only god - and Islam was the correct and only true religion - what would it take in Proof for you to accept that.?

You see - in that case either (Note I said if it COULD be proven) - there would have to be a level of proof that would allow you to leave your current faith - and accept another one. And the fact that the bible has things in it that are historically accurate - fails to show that so do James Bond Books - Sherlock Holmes books - and lots of other fictions.

But -when you look for further proof of the existence of the christ - or even a human upon which the MYTH of the christ is based - there is NOT a single record in the Historical record of that time (THe NT is not from the time of the christ - and that CAN be proven) that even mentions his name. And the name cannot be "jesus" either.

We do not reject that the bible does have historical accuracies -because we can check those things against OTHER documents - and actual physical objects of the time. But that does not mean the christ is real - because we cannot check THAT to anything - because nothing exists to verify it.

[The Grand Nudger]

These signs don't stick out from the narrative at all- they are thoroughly integrated within it, forming a coherent package that can't sensibly be split up. They are never done to create faith and are not aimed at establishing Jesus 'divinity'. They point to a new order of things- the restoration of creation, the arrival of God's Kingdom and the new Exodus. Many of these signs come with extra support (criteria of similarity and difference for the exorcisms with C1 Judaism, for example).

No, try the loaves and fishes for me? Is there anything going on in that narrative -besides- establishing the divinity of christ and the theology of christians? Doesn't seem so. I would certainly weep if I could no longer use it as a masterful example of the writers craft. I wouldn't call that narrative a "sign" - I'd call it a full page ad, in color, personally...and it sure as hell sticks out. In fact, all of the "signs" do, and could be removed.....because every time "jesus" pulls out one of these signs his apostles crow around him like a greek chorus "holy shit, how could you do that - did you guys see that, Im so surprised!" despite having seen him perform a miracle of one sort or another everytime he stops to take a piss.

Your claims aren't modest, they bend belief beyond breaking point. Am I to believe that the authors of these narratives only created the theology by passing reference to what they thought that people believed jesus had done - that christianity is an accident? I'm sorry, I can't...the stories are too good at what they do for them to have been unintentional. They are masterful vehicles for theology, while being a particularly poor representation of what people may have believed. The fact that we can't even find these people to point at them and say "this is what they believed" -outside of the NT narrative- should have tipped you off to that, imo.