A "proof" for God

[mgoforth]

I’m not the first to suggest this line of reasoning, but haven’t been able to find it presented in the forums anywhere. It’s one of my favorite “proofs” and really helped shore up my faith when I first read it. Any civilized responses are welcome.

1. It’s widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him to be a true historical person as well.
2. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.
3. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever recanted or altered the Gospel message.
4. It’s highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie. Really, what did any of them ever stand to gain from their efforts - besides eternal life of course?
5. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.
6. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.
7. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

 

[JRTJ]

 

[inocente]

I have a problem with points 3 & 4. The apostles were obviously fully convinced, but so were the martyrs of Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, revolutionary movements and so on, along with soldiers who die for their country, sometimes in great pain. Those who die for what they believe must be respected, but it can’t prove their beliefs are true.

 

[travissbeloved]

I’m not the first to suggest this line of reasoning, but haven’t been able to find it presented in the forums anywhere. It’s one of my favorite “proofs” and really helped shore up my faith when I first read it. Any civilized responses are welcome.

1. It’s widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him to be a true historical person as well.
2. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.
3. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever recanted or altered the Gospel message.
4. It’s highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie. Really, what did any of them ever stand to gain from their efforts - besides eternal life of course?
5. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.
6. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.
7. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

I like this explanation as well but in my experience with atheists, they usually refute this by saying that crazies also put together cults and had hundreds of people willingly kill themselves to be with God or some other deity. So I sometimes like to point out the way Jesus went about his mission and how he ended up being the first to die while these other cult leaders usually are the only ones left alive after a massacre.

 

[ClearWater]

I’m not the first to suggest this line of reasoning, but haven’t been able to find it presented in the forums anywhere. It’s one of my favorite “proofs” and really helped shore up my faith when I first read it. Any civilized responses are welcome.

1. It’s widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him to be a true historical person as well.
2. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.
3. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever recanted or altered the Gospel message.
4. It’s highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie. Really, what did any of them ever stand to gain from their efforts - besides eternal life of course?
5. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.
6. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.
7. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

I would tend to agree except for #2. Christ only had one incarnation but existed, without a physical body, since before the world was created.

As to the marytyrs, some might argue Muslim were also martyred for their faith. However, one difference between Islam and Christianity was that in Islam, it was private revelation, no witnesses. In Christianity, the actual witnesses to the events were willing to be tortured to death. Even Judas witnessed in his own way.

Now, another thing was that some might try to maintain that Christ suvived the crucifixion. However, soldiers were very careful not to allow those under their charge to survive. I don’t even know what the penalty would have even been for that, likewise, those guarding the tomb to allow someone to escape.

If the body were, indeed, stolen as claimed, I think had the Romans actually believed that story that those guards would have been severely punished…execution…something.

Further, had a body been hidden, the Romans were experts with their torture and all the rest at getting to the bottom of issues.

There are other modern scientific information, as well. such as the account in the Garden of Eden where Christ “sweat blood”. That’s actually possible! It’s called “hematidrosis”,

Here’s a non-Catholic website which even talks about the reality of that condition.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hematidrosis

Further, we know when someone dies, the blood will separate, like the account given of blood and water flowing from Christ’s chest after it was opened by a lance.

When we get archeological evidence and other information, it backs the Bible.

 

[ClearWater]

Well, of course, you have St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God. I think one of the apologists has a list of 20, now!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’m not the first to suggest this line of reasoning, but haven’t been able to find it presented in the forums anywhere. It’s one of my favorite “proofs” and really helped shore up my faith when I first read it. Any civilized responses are welcome.

1. It’s widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him to be a true historical person as well.
2. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.
3. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever recanted or altered the Gospel message.
4. It’s highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie. Really, what did any of them ever stand to gain from their efforts - besides eternal life of course?
5. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.
6. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.
7. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

This argument has been offered for a couple of hundred years. My personal reason is the inner coherence of the Scriptures. I don’t think man could construct such a " story. " I think the whole structure, coherence, and story are beyond human ingenuity.

Linus2nd

 

[tawny]

Well, of course, you have St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God. I think one of the apologists has a list of 20, now!

Yes. St. Thomas Aqiunas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God is excellent reference. We use it for RCIA and CCD.
Pax et Bonum:bible1:

 

[mgoforth]

I have a problem with points 3 & 4. The apostles were obviously fully convinced, but so were the martyrs of Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, revolutionary movements and so on, along with soldiers who die for their country, sometimes in great pain. Those who die for what they believe must be respected, but it can’t prove their beliefs are true.

True, their death alone is not a proof per se. That’s why I used “proof” in quotes.

I like this explanation as well but in my experience with atheists, they usually refute this by saying that crazies also put together cults and had hundreds of people willingly kill themselves to be with God or some other deity. So I sometimes like to point out the way Jesus went about his mission and how he ended up being the first to die while these other cult leaders usually are the only ones left alive after a massacre.

To answer both responses, we have to look at the qualities of the men we’re talking about. The lives of the Apostles show us that they were not self-seeking or self-aggrandizing as cult leaders inevitably are. Also their beliefs were (and are) entirely consistent with each other.

So they obviously went to their deaths believing 100% that Jesus is God. As you both point out, many people have gone to their deaths for dubious beliefs. I think the difference when it comes to the Apostles is in the character and past actions of the men being martyred.

Islam is a belief that I struggle to understand, especially since the Church says that Muslims believe in the same God. However, I would speculate that martyrdom in Islam would be more closely related to jihad?? I really don’t know and would welcome any insight from someone who does. I consider jihad to be hatred and violence in disguise, whereas the Apostles died in a state of love for their executioners.

 

[mgoforth]

This argument has been offered for a couple of hundred years. My personal reason is the inner coherence of the Scriptures. I don’t think man could construct such a " story. " I think the whole structure, coherence, and story are beyond human ingenuity.

Linus2nd

Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the age or origin of this argument.

Agree that Scripture as a whole is self-reinforcing and far too complicated for any individual or group of people to invent.

 

[mgoforth]

Well, of course, you have St. Thomas Aquinas’ 5 proofs for the existence of God. I think one of the apologists has a list of 20, now!

Agreed. The Five Ways are still probably the best. However, they posit a God that can’t directly be seen or experienced. I think many non-believers forget that Christians believe in a God who was directly experienced by many people - Jesus Christ.

 

[mgoforth]

I would tend to agree except for #2. Christ only had one incarnation but existed, without a physical body, since before the world was created.

Sorry if I was unclear, I didn’t mean to imply that God the Son came into existence at the Incarnation. Like you, I believe He has existed before time began along with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

 

[St_Francis]

This argument has been offered for a couple of hundred years. My personal reason is the inner coherence of the Scriptures. I don’t think man could construct such a " story. " I think the whole structure, coherence, and story are beyond human ingenuity.

Linus2nd

I so agree! I love that about the Faith I never thought of it as a proof, per se–how would one present that?

 

[ColdComfort]

I’m not the first to suggest this line of reasoning, but haven’t been able to find it presented in the forums anywhere. It’s one of my favorite “proofs” and really helped shore up my faith when I first read it. Any civilized responses are welcome.

The evidence of scripture is very convincing to me for this reason and others. Another poster has mentioned the inner coherence of the books of the Bible written by different inspired writers spread over a millennium and more. Another reason to mention is that the philosophy of the Hellenistic world, developed without knowledge of Jewish or Christian Revelation, supports the revealed ideas in Scripture. How could this be unless the ideas given to the Jewish people, who were philosophically disinclined until they came into cultural contact with the Greeks, were receiving their religion from the Truth itself ? E. Gilson points out that St. Thomas’ distinction between essence and existence, while understandable by human reason, is part of Revelation. It is based on the ’ I am who am’ of Exodus and the opening passage of Genesis: one God who created all. An amazing coincidence?

Add to this the many miracles of God acting in history from the stigmata of St. Francis to the apparitions of Our Lady. We not only have plenty of convincing evidence but the different lines converge to the same conclusions.

Anyone can look at the Gospels and say but it doesn’t in itself prove that Jesus was the incarnated God but as any Judge will say in a court case ‘consider all the evidence’. At that point we have certainty.

 

[ffg]

I think the biggest proof is that by definition there is no support for ‘no God’.

It’s impossible to whip up a formula that has God subtracted out of it and come to a conclusion of that which is subtracted, does not exist.

 

[tonyrey]

Countless people throughout the world have become Christians because the truth shines by its own light. An obscure carpenter brought up in a primitive society which advocated barbaric customs like an eye for an eye, animal sacrifice and stoning a woman to death for adultery has not only given us the greatest moral teaching known to mankind but He was also the embodiment of faith, hope and love throughout His life, trial and execution. If that is a myth who invented it and why does it correspond to the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which are universally recognised as the only rational basis of civilization?

 

[tonyrey]

This argument has been offered for a couple of hundred years. My personal reason is the inner coherence of the Scriptures. I don’t think man could construct such a " story. " I think the whole structure, coherence, and story are beyond human ingenuity.

Linus2nd

And their correspondence to reality.

 

[tonyrey]

I have a problem with points 3 & 4. The apostles were obviously fully convinced, but so were the martyrs of Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, revolutionary movements and so on, along with soldiers who die for their country, sometimes in great pain. Those who die for what they believe must be respected, but it can’t prove their beliefs are true.

The OP’s points are intended to be taken in conjunction not in isolation…

 

[dshix]

I’m not the first to suggest this line of reasoning, but haven’t been able to find it presented in the forums anywhere. It’s one of my favorite “proofs” and really helped shore up my faith when I first read it. Any civilized responses are welcome.

1. It’s widely accepted that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. Historians living in the first century, such as Flavius Josephus, describe his Crucifixion as a historical event. Josephus was not a Christian, and is considered a completely reliable scholar of the ancient world. We have no reason to doubt his account and not many serious historians today doubt it. Incidentally, Josephus also described the imprisonment and execution of John the Baptist, so we can consider him to be a true historical person as well.
2. The Gospels record Jesus’ own words, where we can see that he claims to be God incarnate multiple times in multiple ways.
3. I realize that those accounts obviously aren’t enough by themselves to convince non-believers, but the actions of the men who wrote the accounts are much more powerful evidence. Eleven of the twelve Apostles (eye-witnesses and Jesus’ closest friends) were tortured and executed for teaching the same message written in the Gospels, and the twelfth (John) was exiled to the island of Patmos where he lived in a cave. None of them ever recanted or altered the Gospel message.
4. It’s highly unlikely that twelve men would have been willing to endure that level of suffering to perpetuate a lie. Really, what did any of them ever stand to gain from their efforts - besides eternal life of course?
5. It’s highly unlikely that Jesus, along with the twelve Apostles were all suffering from mental illness.
6. Therefore, the Gospel accounts are credible.
7. Therefore, Jesus of Nazareth is God.
8. Therefore, God exists.

I agree with all of your points and your train of thought, but would like to play Devil’s Advocate to help you out if you present this to someone in the real world. There are at least three points which a clear-thinking atheist would probably try to refute: 2-4.

---

DA:

1. The Gospels aren’t a true account. They were written by Jesus’ followers, and thus were most likely biased towards him. Further, even if the Gospels were truly written by Jesus’ apostles, over time they would have been modified in generation after generation, with various myths added to them, including the miracles.
2. The Apostles could have been entirely convinced that Jesus was God. Jesus alone could have been the deceiver who fooled everyone into thinking he was God, by various tricks, and then of course the apostles would die for him; they really believed it.

The Apostles would have clarified among themselves what the Gospel message was, together, before preaching it to the world. Just because none of them had a different version of the story doesn’t mean that they weren’t all fooled.

1. (Same as first paragraph of 3.) The Apostles could have been entirely convinced that Jesus was God. Jesus alone could have been the deceiver who fooled everyone into thinking he was God, by various tricks, and then of course the apostles would die for him; they really believed it.

---

Now, there are answers to all of these objections; if you can refute the objection against your second point, the rest naturally follows.

 

[mikekle]

Islam is a belief that I struggle to understand, especially since the Church says that Muslims believe in the same God. However, I would speculate that martyrdom in Islam would be more closely related to jihad?? I really don’t know and would welcome any insight from someone who does. I consider jihad to be hatred and violence in disguise, whereas the Apostles died in a state of love for their executioners.

Well, what we consider to be violence, is, according to their muslim beliefs, is ‘getting rid of an infidel’ and they see nothing wrong with this, in fact it is looked upon as a good thing.