Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
The logic of the resurrection.
-
The logic of the resurrection.
Is there any?
-
67 Replies
-
Best to consider it against the backdrop of the beliefs in resurrection of that time period and how it evolved:
“While there was no belief in personal afterlife with reward or punishment in Judaism before 200 BCE, in later Judaism and Samaritanism it is believed that the God of Israel will one day give teḥiyyat ha-metim (“life to the dead”) to the righteous during the Messianic Age, and they will live forever in the world to come (Olam Ha-Ba). Jews today base this belief on the Book of Isaiah (Yeshayahu), Book of Ezekiel (Yeḥez’qel), and Book of Daniel (Dani’el). Samaritans base it solely on a passage called the Haazinu in the Samaritan Pentateuch, since they accept only the Torah and reject the rest of the Hebrew Bible.
During the Second Temple period, Judaism developed a diversity of beliefs concerning the resurrection. The concept of resurrection of the physical body is found in 2 Maccabees, according to which it will happen through recreation of the flesh. Resurrection of the dead also appears in detail in the extra-canonical books of Enoch, in the Apocalypse of Baruch, and 2 Esdras. According to the British scholar in ancient Judaism Philip R. Davies, there is “little or no clear reference … either to immortality or to resurrection from the dead” in the Dead Sea scrolls texts. Both Josephus and the New Testament record that the Sadducees did not believe in an afterlife, but the sources vary on the beliefs of the Pharisees. The New Testament claims that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection, but does not specify whether this included the flesh or not. According to Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people will be reincarnated and “pass into other bodies,” while “the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment.” Paul the Apostle, who also was a Pharisee, said that at the resurrection what is “sown as a natural body is raised a spiritual body.” Jubilees refers only to the resurrection of the soul, or to a more general idea of an immortal soul. The Second Temple Judaism tradition at Qumran held that there would be a resurrection of just and unjust, but of the very good and very bad, and of Jews only.
…
In the First Epistle to the Corinthians chapter 15, ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν is used for the resurrection of the dead. In verses 54–55, Paul the Apostle is conveyed as quoting from the Book of Hosea 13:14 where he speaks of the abolition of death. In the Pauline epistles of the New Testament, Paul the Apostle wrote that those who will be resurrected to eternal life will be resurrected with spiritual bodies, which are imperishable; the “flesh and blood” of natural, perishable bodies cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and, likewise, those that are corruptible will not receive incorruption (1 Corinthians 15:35–54). Even though Paul does not explicitly establish that immortality excludes physical bodies, some scholars understand that according to Paul, flesh is simply to play no part, as people are made immortal.
…
The Gospel of Matthew has Jesus famously teach/preach for the first time in 4:17, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Matthew 6:19-21. It introduces the expression ἀναστάσεως τῶν νεκρῶν, which is used in a monologue by Jesus who speaks to the crowds about “the resurrection” called simply ῇ ἀναστάσει (Mat. 22:29–33). This type of resurrection refers to the raising up of the dead, all mankind, at the end of this present age, the general or universal resurrection.
In the canonical gospels, the resurrection of Jesus is described as a resurrection of the flesh: from the empty tomb in Mark; the women embracing the feet of the resurrected Jesus in Matthew; the insistence of the resurrected Jesus in Luke that he is of “flesh and bones” and not just a spirit or pneuma; to the resurrected Jesus encouraging the disciples to touch his wounds in John.
In Acts of the Apostles the expression ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν was used by the Apostles and Paul to defend the doctrine of the resurrection. Paul brought up the resurrection in his trial before Ananias ben Nedebaios. The expression was variously used in reference to a general resurrection (Acts 24:21) at the end of this present age (Acts 23:6, 24:15).
Acts 24:15 in the King James Version reads: “… there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”
-
Mammal @Mammal ,
Look to the gospel preached by Jesus for a much more reasonable explanation of “resurrection”. Jesus preached His gospel from the beginning of His ministry through His crucifixion. In His gospel, the “resurrection” was figurative rather than literal.
According to Jesus’ gospel, there are the righteous and the unrighteous. It is a strict dichotomy. The righteous, that is those who do not commit sin, have “life”. The unrighteous are “dead”. The unrighteous who make themselves righteous are figuratively “raised” from “death” unto “life”. They are “resurrected”. This concept is rooted in teachings of later OT prophets such as Hosea, Ezekiel and Isaiah. Jesus came to “save” the unrighteous by leading them to righteousness.
You can see this Luke 15 for example:
7 I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.
29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never neglected a command of yours; and yet you never gave me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your wealth with prostitutes, you slaughtered the fattened calf for him.’ 31And he said to him, ‘Son, you have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”
Later Paul presented his own “gospel” in which the “resurrection” became literal. This was adopted by the NT writers. Other teachings that were figurative in the gospel preached by Jesus, such as “giving sight to the blind” were also made literal.
-
Welcome to the discussion. I’m wondering if you are quoting someone, or if you made this up on your own? For example, why would you say that Jesus was speaking figuratively about His resurrection, when He knew that He would in fact be crucified, and would resurrect Himself on the third day?
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Pater.
-
Why do you place the mythology that the NT writers wrapped around the gospel preached by Jesus above His words? Especially given the repeated emphasis Jesus placed upon His words? Following are but a few examples.
John 5
45“Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; the one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have set your hope. 46“For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me. 47“But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?”
John 6
63“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.
John 12
48“He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day
John 15
. 3“You are already clean because of the word which I have spoken to you.
-
18. The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?
19. Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”
20. They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Pater.
-
I understood that you place the mythology of the NT writers above the words spoken by Jesus while He preached His gospel. The question to you is “Why?”. Especially given the passages that I cited earlier.
-
This thread is about the logical necessity of the resurrection. You posted a claim that Jesus thought He was speaking figuratively. And you posted some quotes that have nothing to do with the resurrection. I quoted Jesus claim that He would resurrect Himself.
It seems like you’re trying to derail the thread with questions that don’t pertain. If you have nothing to say about the logic of the crucifixion/resurrection, you’re welcome to start a different thread to talk about a subject that you’re interested in.
-
I offered @Mammal a much more reasonable explanation of “resurrection” as I pointed out in my first post on this thread. I also offered Luke 15 as support for what I wrote which speaks both of the “dead” figuratively having been brought back to “life” and draws the parallel between the “unrighteous” and the “righteous”. Why are you pretending that nothing I quoted has anything to do with “resurrection”?
-
I didn’t say that. Why are you lying about what I said? I know the answer.
Again, please stay on topic. The logic of the resurrection. Are you able to contribute to that topic?
-
I didn’t say that. Why are you lying about what I said? I know the answer.
C’mon you wrote the following:
“You posted a claim that Jesus thought He was speaking figuratively. And you posted some quotes that have nothing to do with the resurrection.”
Why are you now falsely accusing me of lying?
Again, please stay on topic. The logic of the resurrection. Are you able to contribute to that topic?
I’ve already explained how it is “on topic”. If @Mammal has interest in a much more reasonable explanation of “resurrection”, then I’ll receive a response. Did you fail to notice that my post was addressed to @Mammal ?
It’s as if you are of the misguided belief that if you repeatedly make false accusations, it’ll somehow make them true. It doesn’t. I’ve noticed how you do this with other posters as well.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Algernon.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
Bizarre. I think you have a demon.
Seriously though – WTH.
You’ve earned the right to be completely unbothered by me. Ignored, in fact. I wish you all the best.
-
Hi @Algernon , sorry for not responding earlier. I get what you are saying and there may very well be merit in that. I am a bit hesitant when it comes to extracting Jesus’ words and meanings from gospels (especially anything not from the original Mark) though, so I am not going to be drawn into it too much. I think Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran as background to what John The Baptist might have believed, original Mark, the bits and pieces from authentic Josephus, and Paul’s authentic writings (albeit assuming that it was written from his personal pov) were closest to the action.
-
Mammal @Mammal ,
I think Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran as background to what John The Baptist might have believed, original Mark, the bits and pieces from authentic Josephus, and Paul’s authentic writings (albeit assuming that it was written from his personal pov) were closest to the action.
Action toward what end? Understanding the narrow Christian view of “resurrection”? Certainly not toward understanding a view of resurrection that is broader than that.
I get what you are saying and there may very well be merit in that. I am a bit hesitant when it comes to extracting Jesus’ words and meanings from gospels (especially anything not from the original Mark) though, so I am not going to be drawn into it too much.
I can understand your hesitancy. However, a comprehensive analysis the gospel preached by Jesus as documented across the four gospels reveals that:
1) The core underlying concepts are reasonably coherent and consistent
2) Many of the same underlying core concepts are presented over and over again – often in very different ways.
3) Several of the core underlying concepts are derived from concepts introduced by later OT prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hosea. There is a continuity of concept across them. A continuity broken, if not obliterated, by the Pauline gospel.
-
There are many significant differences between the original Mark and later gospels. Original Mark did not feature Jesus, or Lazarus’ resurrections, nor the miracle birth to name the most important. It was also rather silent on Jesus being (Son of) God, compared to the others.
-
Mammal @Mammal ,
There are many significant differences between the original Mark and later gospels. Original Mark did not feature Jesus, or Lazarus’ resurrections, nor the miracle birth to name the most important.
The above “significant differences” are in the mythology that the NT writers wrapped around Jesus’ words. On one hand you wrote “I am a bit hesitant when it comes to extracting Jesus’ words and meanings from gospels” and on the other you point out how the mythology is inconsistent. Which of course is the point of “extracting Jesus’ words and meanings from gospels”.
It was also rather silent on Jesus being (Son of) God, compared to the others.
Ultimately this is also an inconsistency in mythology rather than an indication of a lack of coherency in Jesus’ words across the four gospels. The fact that Mark omitted it from his mythology, is not in any way an indication of a lack of coherency in Jesus’ words across the four gospels. In and of themselves, the words attributed to Jesus across the four gospels while He preached His gospel are reasonably coherent and reasonably consistent.
BTW Jesus calling Himself a “son of God” is in no way a claim that He was literally of divine parentage. Though most Christians are loathe to admit it, Jesus calls for all of His followers to become “sons of God” as He was a “son of God”. Jesus used the term figuratively: Following is but one example:
Luke 6
35“But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He Himself is kind to ungrateful and evil men
Everyone born of “the spirit”, that is everyone who is righteous, is a son of God. They do not commit sin. The unrighteous who have made themselves righteous have been “resurrected” from “death” unto “life”. They have been “born from above”. They have been “raised up”. See John 3.
-
Sorry, I don’t want to be drawn into a lenghty debate about this, or what I wrote about it. I think I made myself clear and it seems to me as if you are misrepresenting what I actually wrote.
Suffice to say that my pov about original Mark being more authentic than the rest, has scholarly support. I tend to agree with that school of thought.
So let us agree to disagree.
-
C’mon. How have I misrepresented what you wrote?
-
In the first part of your response you attempted to analyze my earlier comments. There was nothing contradictory in what I posted. I stand by what I wrote.
There are consistencies in how the gospels quoted things that Jesus might have said which is why there is a hypothetical Q source. But that alone does not resolve the inconsistencies in christology and added narratives in later gospels (vs original Mark). As I said I stand by what I wrote and point to the scholarly support for that view.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Mammal.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
Okay. Not sure why you are either unable or unwilling to make a distinction between the words attributed to Jesus and the mythology that the NT writers wrapped around them (or even take into account how this blinds you from understanding your logically inconsistent position). But evidently you are committed to standing firm. “Not being able to see the forest for the trees” comes to mind.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Algernon.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
As I said, I don’t see the logical inconsistency. You keep on asserting it, but you haven’t showed it.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
-
-
Thanks Mammal. A fascinating evolution.
1. The MGB. All powerful, and all good.
2. A fallen world. Mankind, thoroughly corrupt. Shot through with evil.
3. God becomes man. The definitional example of goodness. The human singularity.
4. Evil mankind kills the good God-man.
5. He raises alive from the dead. His holiness (pure goodness) empowers everlasting life.
Does this seem like a logical procession? Where is the logical failure?
-
It depends on whether it really happened.
The original Mark did not feature a resurrection narrative, not of Jesus, not of Lazarus (or the unknown man).
If you consider the beliefs of that time, then for me at least and based on what I have read about it, there was an expectation of a Son of God kind of messiah in that second temple period, John The Baptist popularised it, the Jesus movement took it further, the resurrection idea and a soon-to-return messiah to rapture those elected followers, dead and still alive, to become the rulers of the new world, new bodies and all, took shape.
That did not happen.
The later gospels started to change- and Nicene Christianity took ownership of the narrative. The original movement ceased, the rest is “church” history.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Mammal.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
-
I don’t disagree on your historical assessment. I might add that many passages of Job (the oldest biblical text) can be interpreted to look forward to a bodily resurrection.
I’m asking from strictly logical perspective. My argument being that not only is it logical, but fully entailed, in the case of an MGB.
-
The Job reference is a contentious one, far from clear-cut. Obviously Christians believe this, but it is a contested interpretation among scholars.
With respect and talking straight, I don’t think the narrative makes much sense. A MGB who apparently created the first humans and allowed them to become corrupted, then tried to wipe them out with a flood, then became involved with a particular ethnic group so much so that other ethnic groups had to pay with the lives of their women, children and first born, only to impregnate a virgin to become human in order to spill blood and to get resurrected with a promise to return, but never did, thus failing the ethnic group he invested in, and to eventually end up as a religion elsewhere, is about as logical as any other man-made god.
-
-
Exactly, at cursory review. Thank you.
Just an aside, I used the “tried” word once and you answered – “God’s don’t try, they do.” Lol. My use of that word will become clearer in just a few words. (cue broken record…..)
Given the existence of the MGB:
We have no hope of understanding why the MGB does anything in the absence of critical context (I’ll be using that word a lot). Part of that critical context is at least some understanding of His eternal purpose.
By my understanding – “God created this world to give Himself the best context within which to demonstrate His maximal greatness to His created intelligent beings, and to give His created intelligent beings context within which to demonstrate who they choose to be by the free decisions they make.”
Along with this description of purpose, I would add an axiom of entailment – “When the MGB decrees to create substantially free intelligent beings, the possibility of evil comes into existence at the same moment.”
God’s larger purpose is family and friends for eternity. How does He get there?
-
Speaking of God “trying”:
“God has changed the administration, or manner, of His rule several times throughout Scripture (Heb 1:1-2). Distinguishing characteristics of a dispensation are (Ryrie, 2007, 40);
- A change in God’s governing relationship with man,
- A resulting change in man’s responsibility, and
- Corresponding revelation to reveal both of the above.
Man’s responsibility in any dispensation is to worship God in the way He commands by (1) an authentic, heartfelt response which takes (2) the appropriate form. The genuine response of the believer has always been an unchanging requirement; Rolland McCune (2009, 125) observed; “faith in God’s revelation was required not only for redemption from sin but also for fulfilling one’s dispensational obligations (Gen 15:6).” The form of that response, however, has changed throughout human history as God periodically alters the method of His rule.“
This viewpoint is known as “dispensationalism”, as God interacts with His created intelligent persons in different ways throughout history. His created intelligent persons include all of mankind, and every other from other realms.
His purpose is FULL revelation, including of Himself, of all His created beings, and mostly of the nature of evil. Keeping in mind that evil is an entailment in a world containing high-capacity free beings. Dr Craig says that for all we know, it may require a world suffused with evil for the maximum number of people to come into a relationship with Christ.
Unbelievers (those who address the subject at all) commonly think that God’s paradigm makes no sense, is irrational or illogical, etc. Just like Job, they would accuse God of blowing it in this way or that, assuming that they know better.
God has tried, or is trying, all manner of ways to interact with His creation, which brings the whole universe to an inevitable conclusion. The “trying” is not for His benefit, or because He doesn’t know which will work best, but rather it’s part of His full revelation and demonstration, which has an eternal benefit for all rational beings.
-
That would be rather odd for an omniscient MGB to not consider future generations’ reading of what he chose to disclose to previous generations. Poor apologetics, I think.
-
“The genuine response of the believer has always been an unchanging requirement.”
Im not sure what you mean.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Pater.
-
Obviously believers are believers hence your inability to see what I meant. I responded to 1, 2 & 3. Sorry if you don’t see it
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
I mean I don’t see what’s odd about it. I would think your objection would be the other way around. Adam and Eve knew nothing of the Christ, or God’s commandments, or His prophets. Neither did those who lived in the day of Moses, or in the days of Noah.
You might be saying that it seems odd that God wouldn’t reveal all of His historical plan to each individual person? That’s (thankfully) not His practice. He holds each person responsible for their own response to Him from within their own context.
-
Meh Pater, we cannot read about Yahweh of the OT and accept he is Jesus of the NT without raising an eyebrow. Sorry, it is just a poor way to try and convince people that it is not a disconnect.
-
-
-
Jesus spoke of a resurrection for all people–those who follow the word of God will have eternal life. The only way that God could prove eternal life to people is through a witnessed resurrection. A witnessed resurrection only proved it for those who lived during the time of Jesus, therefore eyewitness testimony was necessary for all future generations. Did God ensure we have the eyewitness testimony to prove the resurrection? I’m working on assembling the evidence package…
-
The evidence suggests that today Christianity is not big among those who were closest to what happened. So there goes that idea…
-
The resurrection of the dead, and Jesus’ resurrection in particular, was the central theme of the gospel message as preached by His disciples, and by extension their converts as the church of Christians grew exponentially. God’s son – killed by men – returning to life. It spread like wildfire.
-
It really is not big among his original followers there where it happened.
-
And you know that how?
-
What, the popularity of Christianity in Israel and among Jews?
-
From my understanding you are claiming that Jesus was a complete failure when he was alive. What’s your evidence? You know, documentation…
If I’m misunderstanding you please clarify your point–you do tend to write a bit cryptic sometimes.
-
John, it really is not complicated. You wrote: “The only way that God could prove eternal life to people is through a witnessed resurrection. A witnessed resurrection only proved it for those who lived during the time of Jesus, therefore eyewitness testimony was necessary for all future generations.”
I responded by saying that it obviously did not work as Christianity has little following among those who supposedly witnessed it.
-
It’s simple…your comment makes no sense, because there isn’t anyone alive who witnessed the resurrection. We are left with the documentation and even though the documentation is terrible, many alive now still follow.
-
Well no, if eye witnesses were suppose to convert people, as you claimed, then those close to the eye witnesses should have been the biggest followers. But, they are not.
Instead it required a much later compilation of Greek-written gospels with an already influenced christology aimed at western readers under the control of the Nicene church to take root.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by Mammal.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 2 weeks ago by
-
-
-
-
-
-
Here’s a possible logic of the Resurrection myth:
1. During his life, Jesus’ followers believed him to be the Jewish Messiah (king), predicting the imminent establishment of a “kingdom of God” on earth.
2. Jesus was executed, thus failing to ascend to the throne and fulfill the messianic mission.
3. Devoted disciples experienced cognitive dissonance when this event contradicted their expectations 4. This cognitive dissonance led to a mental state wherein some disciples “sensed” Jesus’ presence after his execution (subjective experiences)
5. These subjective experiences were interpreted as a defeat of death, accounting for Jesus’ unjust execution, setting the stage for a reinterpretation of Jesus’ “mission”:
——a) Jesus’ unjust execution was rationalized as a sacrifice (substitutionary atonement) for the sins of mankind
——b) The imminent establishment of the “kingdom of God” on earth preached by Jesus, was interpreted as a return to earth by the “Resurrected” Jesus. (subsequently, the “imminent” nature of this event was pushed into an indefinite future).
-
Alright – back to the thread subject.
1. MGB – Paradigm of Love.
2. God decrees to create other beings in His image, suitable for relationship.
3. God must deal with His entailed problem of evil. (GPOE)
4. God creates a context within which His created persons are educated, trained, tested, and validated.
5. God enters into the context that He created, as Jesus, in the form of His created persons, in order to demonstrate His maximal love.
6. God demonstrates His power, even over death, through the words, the miracles, and the love of Jesus.
7. Jesus is killed by evil, and raises Himself to resurrected life by the power of His goodness.
8. God decrees salvation through belief in His demonstrated love, rendering His Problem of Evil causally powerless.
9. God builds His family of believers.
Precisely what an MGB would logically do.
-
I am much closer to Fred, and don’t find your logic particurlarly convincing for reasons I already explained. And MGB’s won’t need all this drama.
-
Pater: “Precisely what an MGB would logically do.”
How do you know that? I sense circular logic: lay out what you think God did and then assert (without argument or evidence) this is what God would logically do.
-
-
But it is coherent and vastly explanatory. Whether you’re convinced is your choice to make.
MGBs don’t need the drama, but we do. That’s the point.
-
My point exactly, which is why it has all the telltale signs of a human invention.
-
Your point misses the point.
-
-
-
Fred said – “How do you know that? I sense circular logic: lay out what you think God did and then assert (without argument or evidence) this is what God would logically do.”
1. The MGB is all loving.
2. His creation of other persons entails the possibility of evil.
3. He plans before He creates to demonstrate His goodness to His created persons and defeat evil through His love.
4. He creates the necessary context to carry out His plan.
5. He initiates His plan with the words “let there be light.”
6. He accomplishes His plan with the words “It is finished.”
“No greater love has anyone than that he would lay down his life for his friends.”
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Pater.
-
If God is all-loving why didn’t he simply forgive everyone for their sins? Why go through the motions of incarnation and execution?
His alleged demonstration of His goodness was a local phenomena, taking centuries for the word to spread more widely; even now, most people on earth do not believe it has been demonstrated – it requires faith (not evidence or reason) to see Jesus’ incarnation, death, and alleged resurrection that way. So this hardly seems like the most effective way for God to demonstrate His goodness. A more complete and effective demonstration of His goodness would be to simply reward everyone with a heavenly afterlife as a maximal act of forgiveness.
How can you claim He has defeated evil when it persists, among Christians and non-Christians alike?
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
Fred asked: “If God is all-loving why didn’t he simply forgive everyone for their sins? Why go through the motions of incarnation and execution?”
Gods ultimate goal is that we “know” Him in the fullness of who He is, in everlasting communion with Him and the rest of His family. There is no greater state of affairs than to live freely forever in fully knowledgeable loving relationship with God and other persons.
Our free will doesn’t disappear in that “best of all possible” contexts. It only takes one knucklehead to ruin it for everybody.
As I said earlier, if God simply tried to explain that “evil” is bad, and there are consequences, in the complete absence of any examples of evil, we’d have a replay of the garden. A paradise of complete freedom and bliss, with only one restriction. Only one possible failure. An emulation of Satan.
God knows it wouldn’t be fair to demand that everyone live their lives in perfect obedience to a set of laws. And we now know that too. He demonstrated that for us in the nation of Israel.
Instead, He Himself accomplished the ultimate love demonstration on the cross, and our only requirement is to believe in the name of Jesus for our salvation, deliverance, and dismissal of the penalty of sin. His requirement (that anyone and everyone can accept) is to believe.
Fred said: “His alleged demonstration of His goodness was a local phenomena, taking centuries for the word to spread more widely; even now, most people on earth do not believe it has been demonstrated – it requires faith (not evidence or reason) to see Jesus’ incarnation, death, and alleged resurrection that way.”
Faith is the choice that we can all make. You were born with a measure of it. Evidence and reason help to build and bolster it. The hearing of the truth of God’s demonstrations multiplies it. By faith is the only way to salvation, but as I said, it’s available to “whosoever will believe.”
Fred said: “So this hardly seems like the most effective way for God to demonstrate His goodness. A more complete and effective demonstration of His goodness would be to simply reward everyone with a heavenly afterlife as a maximal act of forgiveness.”
So you think it would be good of God to bring in all the knuckleheads who reject and despise Him and all that’s good? Wouldn’t that destroy the heavenly tranquility?
Fred said: “How can you claim He has defeated evil when it persists, among Christians and non-Christians alike?”
The consequences of sin, and the sting of evil is death. The resurrection of Christ shows how He overcame and defeated even death. Life goes on in this world that is suffused with evil, because that is the process required to bring the most people in, and fill heaven with believers. We are able to see evil for what it is. We’ve experienced the consequences in pain and suffering. The evil of this world will stand as an eternal testament of the folly and futility of sin.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Pater.
-
Do you recognize that everything you said is contingent upon Christianity being true?
-
No and that’s the point of the thread. Any MGB who decrees to create his family must deal with his problem of evil. His problem is that if he creates a family capable of reciprocating his love, the possibility of evil is entailed to come into existence at the same moment.
Any MGB would devise a way to fully demonstrate himself, fully educate his family, and freely redeem those who choose to believe in him.
Any MGB would demonstrate his maximal love – laying down his life for his family/friends. And his maximal power – raising himself from the dead.
Any MGB logically would do that.
-
OK, then let’s examine what you said, point by point
Fred asked: “If God is all-loving why didn’t he simply forgive everyone for their sins? Why go through the motions of incarnation and execution?”
Pater said: “Gods ultimate goal is that we “know” Him in the fullness of who He is, in everlasting communion with Him and the rest of His family. There is no greater state of affairs than to live freely forever in fully knowledgeable loving relationship with God and other persons.”
So God is unwilling to forgive sins unless we “know him in the fullness of who he is…” Doesn’t this mean he’ll only forgive the sins of Christians? and perhaps some specific version of Christianity? So if you’re born in a Muslim country, or to a Jewish or Hindu family, or in a primitive environment that hadn’t heard of Christianity, you’re out of luck? That seems unfair.
Fred said: “His alleged demonstration of His goodness was a local phenomena, taking centuries for the word to spread more widely; even now, most people on earth do not believe it has been demonstrated – it requires faith (not evidence or reason) to see Jesus’ incarnation, death, and alleged resurrection that way.”
Pater said: “Faith is the choice that we can all make. You were born with a measure of it. Evidence and reason help to build and bolster it. The hearing of the truth of God’s demonstrations multiplies it. By faith is the only way to salvation, but as I said, it’s available to “whosoever will believe.””
Muslims and Jews can have faith. Catholics will tell you that you aren’t fully participating God in his fullness because you do not receive the Eucharist.
If reason leads one to conclude God doesn’t exist, why didn’t God make his existence deducible by reason?
Fred said: “So this hardly seems like the most effective way for God to demonstrate His goodness. A more complete and effective demonstration of His goodness would be to simply reward everyone with a heavenly afterlife as a maximal act of forgiveness.”
Pater said: “So you think it would be good of God to bring in all the knuckleheads who reject and despise Him and all that’s good? Wouldn’t that destroy the heavenly tranquility?
I don’t “reject” God. I can’t reject something that doesn’t exist. You imply that God gave us an intellect, but hold it against us when we apply it. Omnibenevolent indeed!
Fred said: “How can you claim He has defeated evil when it persists, among Christians and non-Christians alike?”
Pater: “The consequences of sin, and the sting of evil is death. “
Contradiction. You said God forgave us (or at least believing Christians), and yet now you’re saying that even believing Christians will suffer the consequences of sin. .
-
-
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
Fred said: “So God is unwilling to forgive sins unless we “know him in the fullness of who he is…” Doesn’t this mean he’ll only forgive the sins of Christians? and perhaps some specific version of Christianity? So if you’re born in a Muslim country, or to a Jewish or Hindu family, or in a primitive environment that hadn’t heard of Christianity, you’re out of luck? That seems unfair.”
Well of course this is a great question and there is some controversy as to the specifics. Salvation would be the threshold to fully knowing Him. God is willing to forgive the sins of every person who earnestly seeks Him. Particular religions often times are not demonstrations of earnestly seeking God, but attempts to placate rather than surrender, or actually a dozen other reasons. This can even include Christianity, because it isnt about the religion – it’s about the relationship.
God sees the heart of the individual. Millions are saved in spite of their religion, in spite of their birth circumstances, in spite of their historical context, and even in spite of their knowledge resources. The death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact, and the only “mechanism” of salvation. But God applies the benefit of that mechanism to all who earnestly (true in their heart) seek HIM, often in spite of whatever religious affiliation they may have.
No one can really judge by appearances whether a person is truly seeking God or just going through some ritual. But God knows.
Fred said: “If reason leads one to conclude God doesn’t exist, why didn’t God make his existence deducible by reason?”
He does – one of the reasons for this website. There are many logically rigorous reasons to have faith. But, each one of us chooses what they want to believe.
Fred said: “I don’t “reject” God. I can’t reject something that doesn’t exist. You imply that God gave us an intellect, but hold it against us when we apply it. Omnibenevolent indeed!”
Your intellect is guided by your will. You’ve decided to reject the very idea of an MGB, by conscious decision, and place your beliefs on your ability to deduct the truth from the resources that you choose. Jesus said that any who come to Him must come as a little child. That doesn’t mean stupidly or ignorantly. It means humbly. Thats your challenge. Are you able to humble yourself?
Fred said: “Contradiction. You said God forgave us (or at least believing Christians), and yet now you’re saying that even believing Christians will suffer the consequences of sin.”
Every sin has consequences. People are damaged by sin. Sin is some manifestation of selfishness – the opposite of love. In this world and in this life there will always be consequences for sin. God forgives when we humbly repent, but damage is already done. Christ delivers believers from the eternal consequences of sin. Eternal separation from God and anything good.
-
Error
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Pater.
-
Pater
Member
April 12, 2024 at 9:19 am
◦
Fred said: “I don’t “reject” God. I can’t reject something that doesn’t exist. You imply that God gave us an intellect, but hold it against us when we apply it. Omnibenevolent indeed!”
Your intellect is guided by your will. You’ve decided to reject the very idea of an MGB, by conscious decision, and place your beliefs on your ability to deduct the truth from the resources that you choose. Jesus said that any who come to Him must come as a little child. That doesn’t mean stupidly or ignorantly. It means humbly. Thats your challenge. Are you able to humble yourself?At least Fred is honest, applying his God-given powers, which he finds contain no elements or clues of a divine source. You show here one of the uglier sides to the religion, that it is applied in a context of felt-domination by the adherents, like they are the ones in power. I suspect religion is not a contest of knuckling under to the Deity or to adherents.
-
Your sense is directly from an opposing leadership. A strange choice you’ve made.
-
This is more of the same, a threatening tone. You wield religion like an ax to destroy. I have an impression God does not like the violent-hearted. This is foreign to His nature.
-
There is nothing threatening or violent about anything I said. So why would someone feel threatened by the word and Spirit of God? You are unable to prevent yourself from revealing yourself.
-
By “opposing leadership” I presume you meant the usual accusation of Christians against what they don’t like (especially within themselves), interference by weird undefined dark forces. This is another tactic of getting others to knuckle under, an ugly kind of bearing false witness. But if there are no such dark forces, you are found ungodly, in God’s sight.
-
But if there are, they cant prevent themselves from lying.
-
You have a dream about a dark force. Through this dream you pour your own latent negative tendencies. Christianity is a domineering religion, which is one of its pitfalls.
-
This is what I’m talking about. I’m awake. None of my beliefs came to me in a dream, and “pouring through a dream” is nonsensical. None of it is true. You are unable to prevent yourself from doing this. Doesn’t that concern you at all?
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by Pater.
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
I’m using restrained language. In another context I might choose different words to use. “Pouring through a dream” means channeling your energies through something that is false and has no bearing on reality. You believe you see something, but this is not real. Belief in leprechauns and fairies was once widespread; eventually the dreams must go.
-
Okay, I’m all in for creative allegory. But your assumptions are false and you made false accusations and most of what you say is just unmoored ramblings. And, yes, I don’t believe you can prevent yourself from continuing to speak similar falsehoods. There is nothing dark or sinister about my observations. I have no animus or need to force anything. I’m asking if there might not be a rational person in there somewhere who could look with objective introspection and conclude that it is indeed problematic to consistently choose deceit as the character of your communications.
-
This is all from your statement, “Your sense is directly from an opposing leadership.” I’d ask you to clarify your meaning at this point. Of necessity I am evasive, never deceitful. You were making a domination-stroke against Fred, as I have seen often from Christians. Then it looked like you tried to make a domination-stroke against me, as I defended him. You say you have reason, but Christianity isn’t fully founded on reason. Jesus was vague.
To put it more plainly, Christian doctrine puts Christians in a place where they can promise Heaven and threaten hell, demanding submission, where they mean to them. Saving souls is an activity of dominion. But God may not have given you that power. This is the thrill of gaining converts, they now think as you do, and you have conquered. You wanted Fred to humble himself and I thought this is not going to be helpful to him.
-
-
-
-
This reply was modified 1 month, 1 week ago by
-
Log in to reply.