Jenesis on 8/12/2007 at 11:56

---

It wasn't really the historicity of Jesus as a person that I was getting at, allow me to try again. Take the claim about Jesus rising from the dead. This is an historical claim about a particular, unique person, the Son of God. So if, in deciding whether or not to believe that he rose from the dead, we ask "well, do we see people coming back to life today?" and attack the question from there, we're barking up the wrong tree, because the claim is that this is one of those anomalies that science can't tackle. What we do have, however, is a boatload of eyewitness evidence that Jesus died and then rose. We have historical evidence, but we're never going to get our hands on any scientific evidence. So if we keep on after the latter, we're using the wrong tool for the job and we're never going to get to the bottom of anything.

The question, then, is whether or not the eyewitness accounts are reliable. They were written within living memory of Jesus - Paul was able to write that Jesus, after rising, had appeared to over 500 people at once, 'most of whom are still living' ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=53&chapter=15&verse=6&version=31&context=verse) 1 Corinthians 15:6). The Corinthians, had they been so inclined, could have gone and found these people and got the details first hand. We can't, of course, but we can have confidence that the New Testament isn't just a lot of hearsay put together long after the fact.

If I were to say to you that a guy who had been hanged in public came back to life in Cambridge in 1470 and was seen by many, then I doubt you'd believe me, but neither of us would actually be able to prove anything either way. If I claimed that this happened in 1970, however, then we're sharing a kettle with some completely different fish, because now you can say to me 'alright, then, find me some witnesses'. If I can find 500 of them, then maybe we're starting to get somewhere. And because of when the New Testament was written, it falls into the 1970 category rather than the 1470. And yet Christianity took off, rather than being ignored by those who heard its claims at the time.

And fett can no doubt tell you in much greater detail than I can that the quality of transmission of the Biblical text is phenomenally good.

What I'm really asking, therefore, is that you examine the miraculous claims of the Bible as an historian rather than a scientist.




I'll address 'knowing' versus 'knowing about' first. The two are different because God is a person, with whom it is possible to have a relationship. If I read a biography of, say, Hugh Laurie, then I'll know about Hugh Laurie. But I won't know him. Even if I meet him and get his autograph, I won't know him unless he's willing to open up and have a relationship with me that goes beyond a signature. And it's like that with God - we can't know him unless he comes and tells us what he's like. He does want a relationship with us - he created us as creatures to love and bless - and so even after we turned from him, he came and told us what he was like, and carried out an incredible plan to restore the relationship we broke by going our own way. We have the Bible so that those of us who weren't there at the time can also know God, because the Bible is God's Word (check out the start of (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews%201:1-2;&version=31;) the letter to the Hebrews) - it is God speaking to us, telling us what he's like. And, as I said before, it turns out he's awesome.


As to how the natural world can tell us about God - head back to (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:18-20;&version=31;) Romans 1:18-20 again. On reflection, perhaps a better way of putting it would be to say that the natural world could tell us a lot about God, if only we'd listen - verse 18 makes it clear that we don't want to know about God. The natural state for a human being is to want to do without God because we want to do things our own way, rather than living under his rule. Paul is claiming in Romans that what the natural world can tell us is that God exists - he's divine, and he's powerful, that is, he's God. But we supress this truth because we'd rather do without him. Certainly we can see that if the natural world does proclaim that God exists, it hasn't succeeded very well in convincing people of this fact in the modern west.

If, then, the natural human state is one of wilful blindness, then we need God to open our eyes. This is what the Bible is for - it's through his Word that God has promised to give new sight to the spiritually blind ((http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055:10-11;&version=31;) Isaiah 55:10-11); God's Word will achieve what he sets out to achieve, and it's clear from his sending Jesus that he wants to bring us back into a relationship with him. So under no circumstances would I suggest someone examine the natural world to learn about God, I'd tell them to read the Bible - not least because knowing about God is of no benefit on its own; what we need is to know him and have our relationship with him restored by Jesus' death.


In fact, that's a point I'd like to make emphatically, and not just to Chimpy - if you don't think of Christianity as being about a relationship, then you've missed the point.

Chimpy Chompy on 8/12/2007 at 13:38

---

You keep talking about "wrong tool for the job" and then don't propose a reliable alternative. Why should I believe claims for something that appears impossible today?

Let's get back to Caesar walking on water - if there were a bunch of texts completely unrelated to christianity, claiming that, and written "within living memory" would you believe them? If not, why not? What makes one particular ancient text special?

Also if I got together 500 people today saying they saw a dude in 1970 walk in water - should a historian from the year 4000 take it on face value that someone did something physically impossible?



No, I wouldn't abandon science as long as we're talking stuff that happens in the physical world where science applies. All historical claims of the seemingly impossible should be treated with skepticism, and alternative explanations sought. And if we can't find an explanation, we don't just assume "god did it". That's an intellectual failure. We just keep looking.




That's not telling us how the natural world can tell us about god, it's just repeating the claim that it can. The rest of what you post is really just "oh if only you'd open your mind" which is a fairly generic complaint voiced by anyone who wants to be believed. If you insist on going on about "oh you want to repress god so you can do your own thing" , it's very easily inverted. "You want a god to give your existence and\or this universe a sense of purpose". That just drags us into arguing peoples subjective biases. Some people feel the need for a god, some don't.

Finally you mention the bible being the "word of god" a few times. How do you know its the correct religious text, and not any other one? Why should I read it and not some ancient Hindu works? If you want to say you have a relationship with god because he talks in your head, or you just have a sense of him inside, or something, then that's one thing. It's only right for me to be skeptical, but I can't disprove that. But you're not going to have a lot of headway saying relationships come via the bible.

jay pettitt on 8/12/2007 at 14:12

---

It really isn't. Not even nearly.

(oh wait - you're being silly)

Vivian on 8/12/2007 at 14:20

---

Yes it is. It involves testing hypotheses against data. If palaeobiology is a science then cultural history is a science.
I'm not being silly. Mean it. Rah.

jay pettitt on 8/12/2007 at 14:33

---

Data in science is derived from empirical observation. In history it isn't necessarily so. That's a big difference. A really big difference. History is a study, but without scientific method can't, by any modern definition, be considered a science - that isn't meant to belittle history, history is many great things, but a science isn't one of them.