Hit me with your best shot

In light of all the recent discussion in the Christianity and Yoga post, I wanted to start an on-topic post about the evidence for and against Christianity.

Any and all are welcome, make your best point in favor of your preferred worldview or take your best shot against another worldview.

This post is completely open for apologetics and attacks, just no references to yoga.

Comments

[Agent Tim]

I originally wrote some of this in a post, but it will work as an opener:

First of all, in the New Testament, Christ refers to himself as God, YHWH: "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58)

So what makes that claim true? How can I say that Jesus really is God? Well, as Lee Strobel puts it, "Anyone can believe that he or she is God. [But] Jesus didn't just consider himself God's Son, but he also fulfilled the attributes that are unique to God." He was omnicient, omnipotent , and omnipresent. During His time on earth, as recorded in Phillipians 2, he emptied himself of his attributes when he was incarnated. "He made Himself nothing, taking the nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." (Phillipians 2:7) Collosians 2:9 states, "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." And John 8:29 tells of his eternality, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus was God and he did claim to be God. How can we believe that Jesus was and is God?

I'd like to take a look at the prophecies of the Old Testament. You will have to admit that all prophecies of the coming Messiah were written some 400 years before Christ was born. Many Christians will first point to what looks to be a fortelling of the Messiah in Isaiah 53, which points out 12 aspects of Christ's Passion: He would be rejected, a man of sorrow, live a life of suffering, be despised by others, carry our sorrows, be smitten and afflicted by God, be peirced for our transgressions, be wounded for our sins, would suffer like a lamb, would die for the wicked, would be sinless, and would pray for others. All of these things were fulfilled in the life of Christ, but many modern Rabbis reject that Isaiah was talking of a coming messiah, and insist that he referred to the Jewish Nation.

Norman Geisler says, "It was common for Jewish interpreters before the time of Christ to teach that Isaiah here spoke of the Jewish Messiah. Only after early Christians began using the text apologetically with great force did it become in rabbinical teaching an expression of the suffering Jewish nation. The view is implausible in the context." Lee Strobel lists some of the other major predictions about the Messiah (all fulfilled by Jesus):

# He would be born of a Virgin (Genesis 3:15)
# He would be of the seed of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18)
# He would be of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10)
# Of the House of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16)
# Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2)
# He would be heralded by the Lord's messenger (Isaiah 40:3)
# He would cleanse the temple (Malachi 3:1)
# He would be "cut off" 483 years after the declaration to
# reconstruct Jerusalem in 444 B.C. (Daniel 9:24-27)
# He would be rejected (Psalm 118:22)
# He would have his hands and feet peirced (Psalm 22:16)
# His side would be peirced (Zechariah 12:10)
# He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10)
# He would ascend into heaven (Psalm 68:18)
# He would site down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1)

Lee Strobel then goes on to say that the "exact fulfillment of so many specific predictions is such a persuasive apologetic that critics have reapeatedly raised objections to try and negate them."

[Louis]

Fine, you can use the bible to prove itself. That's okay for a bible-believer, but what about someone who doesn't believe the bible is true? Prove Jesus is god.

[seeker]

I am not master at logic, but how about these progressive assumptions:

- the historical record, i.e. the scriptures, are a reliable record of what Jesus said and did (evidence: number of docucments, comparison to external sources)

If you disagree here then we should stop here.

If you object because you think the texts were doctored after the fact, or selectively chosen, Xianity has a counter argument.

If you object because these documents contain supernatural claims, and therefore can't be true, then we must stop here - if you don't believe in the supernatural, than a priori, you don't believe the scriptures.

But if we agree that the scriptures are an accurate record of what jesus said and did, then

Jesus claimed to be god in the scriptures. So, then the question is, why?

- it would be inconsistent for such a wise person to teach falsehood

Therefore, his claims must either be:
- lunacy (he didn't know he was lying)
- lying (he was pathologic in this one thing, but otherwise ok)
- the truth

The last is the simplest answer, say Christians.

However, as with all revealed truth, it cannot be verified by scienctific means. Only empirical truth can be determined by observation and experementation.

The whole idea of faith is to use reason to identify trustworthy sources of information. Then, you can believe what they say without initial confirmation. Now, you may get confirmation by evidence or reasoning later, but faith leads the way in true faith.

Proving Jesus was God is a revealed faith issue. No amount of proving the trustworthiness of the bible will really convince a person who does not believe in the supernatural.

The supposed claims of Jesus must be considered by each person and believed or not.

[seeker]

BTW, I don't think the question of Jesus' deity is really a world view question - if it is, it is a very specific one, a minute part of a world view. World views answer such questions as:
- what is god like?
- what is man like?
- where did everything come from (origins)?
- what is the cause of suffering and death?
- what is the solution for suffering?
- what happens after death?
- what master story or framework do we use to assign meaning and value?
- what basic principles do we use to understand, interact with, and govern the environment, the arts, warfare, government, commerce, education, religion, and the sciences?

That's what world views are made of.

[Louis]

I guess we must stop here.

[Agent Tim]

OK, let me just state breifly some reasons why you shouldn't be stopping here.

The evidence. "What evidence?" you ask. "The Bible is just a bunch of stories, a made-up fairy tale, that only people who need to lean on something need. Plus, you believe in Christianity with a blind faith right?

Absolutely not.

The Bible has been proven accurate time and time again through Science, through prophecy (which I talked about above) which was fulfilled even after Christ died, textual evidence (i.e. Dead Sea Scrolls), witnesses, and historians (i.e. Flavius Josephus). Flavius actually wrote this:

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works—a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (The Antiquities of the Jews, book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3)(http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/b_proof.shtml)

I would like to point you to this book which you might want to buy or check out from the library and read. It says it's for Christians, but I have to differ on that. What is your basis for saying the Scriptures are not reliable?

Lastly, my question to you: "What if the Bible is true? Do you dare risk that mistake?"

[Agent Tim]

And to make something clear: I'm just telling you what God says through His Word. I'm not making up my own opinions. We all answer to God on this one, not me or any other human being.

[seeker]

Tim,

Nice post. I, of course, did not mean that we should quit at that point - only that, the first premise is that the scriptures are a reliable record of what jesus said and did. If you do not believe that, then of course, saying jesus is God is not believable.

But if you do not believe this first premise, then we should quit arguing about whether or not jesus was God and discuss how we determine if a document is reliable.

That is where Josh McDowell comes in. I love his comparison of the number of extant copies of the scriptures, as compared to the works of Shakespeare.

[Louis]

The works of Shakespeare are FICTION, seeker. The documents of the bible purport to be a true rendition of historical facts. Besides, scholars freely admit and constantly discuss the validity of the Shakespearian canon - whether certain plays have reliable texts and how to edit them. We're lucky we have anything, really.

As to tim's last question: Of course, this always comes up: the Threat. If you can't make yourself believe the xtian myth you're going to burn forever. If everything else fails, threaten. This just shuts down all discussion.

[seeker]

The use of number of extant copies is not used to determine if a work is fiction or not, but whether or not the copies we have are accurate representations of the original documents. This is one key factor in whether or not we can believe the contents of the document are as the author's intended, as compared to being changed over time.

Beyond determining that you have a good copy of what the original author wrote, you must determine:
- have we determined the true author, or was this written by someone else?
- what type of literature is this? If it is written as historical narrative, it should be interpreted as such. If parable or poetry, then primarily it should be interpreted that way
- what does it mean in its immediate context?
- what does it mean in the overall context of the work?
- has external evidence confirmed or contradicted it? thing like other written history, science, archeology, etc?
- if it makes extraordinary claims, do the verifiable parts of the work lend towards credibility in the extraordinary claims?
- and of course, on a personal level, does it reflect reality as I have come to understand it? If not, how do I evaluate my understanding vs. this new one? Which one seems more valid?

You are correct, though, that threats end rational discussion. However, when you are dealing with the uneducated and foolish, discussing the real consequences of not listening with those who are stubbornly holding on to their ideas is sometimes all you have left.

Can you imagine disease prevention education that doesn't mention the consequences of, say, promiscuity? The fool says "you are just trying to threaten me with the risk of disease, but I'm going to bet I can beat the odds." Sometimes a fool won't listen to reason, and we can all be fools at times. This is why scripture says to us (us = you and I) "the fool does not listen to wisdom - instead, he needs the rod of correction" (my paraphrase of many proverbs).

This is also why it says "the fear of the Lord is the *beginning* of wisdom." While fear is a poor long term motivator, it is an excellent wake up call. Fear of consequences, or the actual experience of them, can wake us from our stupor.

So don't write off fear or "threats" as totally improper in the spiritual life. They are appropriate when we are not listening. However, in the hands of immature and unskilled preachers, they are also a weapon of idiocy and destruction. And I agree with those who say that way too much of Christianity (mostly the sin-focused, cultural isolationist fundamentalists, as opposed to the evangelicals) never matures past this point. I made that point in Why Most Churches Suck.

[Sam]

Hey Guys,

If the Bible's always right, how come every image of Jesus Christ that you have in your house is of a Nordic White Man? I mean, if we're going to be so concerned with accuracy, shouldn't your images of Christ feature someone who at least resembles that described in the Bible?

And Agent Tim, do I want to risk being wrong about the Bible? Absolutely - and I don't appreciate you using, as the crux of your arguments, a blatant scare tactic. That's an awfully condescending way to go. I mean, what if you're wrong, and Hinduism is right? Would you appreciate it if I went around saying, "If Hinduism is right, do you want to risk being wrong?" Of course not. So knock that off. You seem like you're smarter than that anyway.

[Aaron]

The poorly crafted images of white Jesus with blue eyes, has little to do with the Bible, Sam.

I think most people with any knowledge beyond basic understands that Jesus looked nothing like those pictures. He was Jewish so he looked Jewish. I have no problems with that, but on the flip side my faith will not be destroyed because a children's Sunday School class has a white Jesus picture.

It does, however, point to a deeper problem of Christianity and religion in general. Instead of confroming ourselves in God's image, we like to form God (Jesus included) in our image.

[LotharBot]

I don't have any images of Jesus in my house. Sorry to burst your bubble, Sam.

[seeker]

That's definitely a Catholic thing. Protestants are more interested in the historical Jesus than the ethnic one. But a lot of the Jesus imagery used by Catholics is somewhat true to what a jew from that period might have looked like - most have brown eyes and dark hair - I haven't seen any blond-haired blue-eyed Jesus pics lately, although I am sure they exist. Heck, there's even a Che Jesus.

[Agent Tim]

Sam,
I meant that statement as a thinking point, not as a point to prove any point. You know it obviously doesn't prove anything.

Also, I wanted to address the question of many non-Christians: "Who Made God?"

Well, I believe no one did. "That's dumb." It sure sounds like it at first, especially when you look at the First Law of Thermodynamics:

"Energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

Science is based on observation, so the statement should read this way, "[As far as we have observed,] Energy can neither be creatd nor destroyed." You can't observe energy being initially created, and you no one has observed it being destroyed. This statement is not scientific, but "philisophical" as Norman Geisler puts it.

So let's assume that the universe was not created for a moment. In that case, the question asked by many ("Who Made God") can't be asked. Nothing was made. It's a meaningless question.

Also, I like this statement from Norman:

"God does not need a cuase because he did not have a beginning."

If we assume all created things that have a beginning have a cause, then that statement is true. Nothing came from nothing. Nothing ever could. (Ahh...Julie Andrews).

"According to the second law of thermodynamics, the universe is running out of usable energy. But if the universe is running down, it cannot be eternal. Otherwise, it would have run down completely by now. While you can never run out of an unlimited amount of energy, it does not take forever to run out of energy. Hence, the universe must have had a beginning."

Think about an old clock. If it slowly unwinds and has to be rewound would have had to been wound up in the first place.

--The universe had a beginning
--Whatever had a beginning must have had a beginner.
--Therefore the universe must have had a beginner (God)

As to the statements on Jesus, I agree whole-heartedly with Aaron. It does not matter what Jesus looks like in the least.

[Sam]

I'm glad that you guys think that the image of Jesus doesn't matter, but I'm almost certain that, in the history of our times, the image of Jesus has mattered. I think a lot of people have genuinely believed that because they did, or didn't, look like Jesus, that was a problem. I think the history of the image of Jesus is dangerous and very unfair.

Also, I was asking a question. Your answers are totally cool.

[Louis]

When I saw this, I immediately thought of you guys. Don't you think this is an outrage?
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050526/NEWS01/505260481

To seeker: Do you really think I am one of the "uneducated and foolish" who needs to be threatened?

Also, I think "fear" in the context you cite means "awe" more than it connotes terror. Thus, feeling awe in the presence of God is truly the beginning of wisdom.

My point remains that Shakespeare is fiction while the Bible purports to record the very Word of God. A bit of a difference, no?

[seeker]

Loius:

1. I don't know anything about your education, but assume you are not unedumacated. You do, however, never seem to answer my direct questions ;)

2. We are all foolish at times, and you sometimes exhibit foolish tendencies like extremism, asbolutism, and well, hotheadedness. But no, I am not calling you a fool who needs to be threatened.

3. While some theologians and others like to translate the word fear as "awe", they don't do so for good theological or linguistic reasons, imho. They just don't like the the idea of fear in religion. However, there are many instances, esp. when people met angels or the risen Jesus, that they experienced dread. John the Disciple said "I fell at his feet like a dead man." I truly believe this is in part a reaction of fear - holy fear, whatever. But awe doesn't cut it.

4. Just because shakespeare is fiction does not invalidate its use in the example i gave. However, if you would rather use, say, the works of Josephus in the example, then you can. The point is that number of copies is used primarly to detect how much or little a text has been edited over time, and therefor how sure we are of the contents of the original. The bible fares well, nay, exceedingly better than all other texts due to the incredible number of extant copies and the the resulting extraordinarily high confidence we can have that our copies are faithful to the original in theological content, and to a large extent, to the very words.

[Louis]

1. Masters in English. Avoiding direct questions is a rhetorical strategy.

2. Thanks (I think). I tend to react to extremism and absolutism by taking the opposite tack (ie, absolutist in my responses). I get angry when people hurt others with their absolutism. The damage (including to myself) that anti-gay opinions and behavior has done is incalcuable. I'm also angry that xtianity is infected with it.

3. I think awe has a good portion of fear in it. The way I use it is as a kind of "holy" fear, a fear which arises in the face of tremendous mystery and power. For instance, I am in awe of violent thuderstorms. I feel some fear for my personal safety and at the scale of power being unleased, but also wonder and transcendent delight at the power and beauty displayed. I feel the same when I really try to contemplate the scope of the universe. Thus, I think "awe" is a better word here, because it does include holy fear, but also wonder and joy at the numinous nature of the holy. I DON'T use it in the sense of fearing God because I've been a bad boy and am gonna get slammed (ie, moralism).

I don't think we really disagree here, do you?

4. I'll grant you the argument here. However, I will say that the texts can be an accurate rendering of the original author's intent while still being untrue in their contents. It's a matter of faith.

[seeker]

Louis:

On fear v. awe, I thik we agree. I think of awe as having no component of personal jeopardy, while fear involves the possibility of injury. So I think that for me, let's just say that the biblical word translated fear probably contains all of what I think of as awe, and at least some fear of personal harm as well (real fear).

On number of manuscripts, at last we agree. But we have to first determine that the copies we have represent the original texts.

Once we do that, we can go on to the next step of verifying meaning. That is, applying rules that help us figure out what the author was saying.

Then, we can determine if we agree with what they are saying by validating or invalidating their ideas - their historicity, scientific validity, metaphorical and theological content, and truth or falsity.

So perhaps the next step would be to determine if we agree on how such a document is to be intpreted (hermeneutics). For example, we could discuss intrepreting specific scriptures within the
- author's stated purpose (if given)
- genre (e.g. is it meant primarily as historical narrative or parable or poetry...)
- immediate context
- larger context of the entire bible
- cultural and historical idioms and context of the period in which it was written
- the context of its intended recipients

Since this started around the whole "is jesus god" question, the next step might be to take a passage that seems to indicate that, using the above rules to answer

"does the bible claim that Jesus was God."

If we conclude that it does, *then* we could go on to discuss why or why not we think that is valid. Like how we address the claims of the bible when they agree with our world view, and what we do when it does not, esp. when there are supernatural claims.

We don't have to do all that, just thinking about the process that would be used to constructively address that question.

Not that I am deeply interested in discussing this question, just following up on the earlier thread.

[Louis]

Since you are not "deeply interested" in pursuing this question, I see not reason to proceed.