A "proof" for God

[dshix]

Where is the evidence that Jesus was a deceiver and what did He stand to gain?

What is the evidence of Jesus’ divinity if we take away the account of the Gospel? To use the gospels to prove Jesus is God, and to use Jesus to prove the gospels were true, is circular logic.

He stood to gain fame after death. Many men in those ages, once they realized how fleeting life was, would do things only for glory; that includes dying a martyr, to obtain fame in perpetuity.

(Understand that I personally disagree with what I say in the above two paragraphs, and have an answer against both objections. The purpose of this is to clear in the OP’s mind what he/she will answer to these objections when they come up. I have no doubt that you, tonyrey, disagree, because I am fully aware that these are flawed arguments.)

 

[tonyrey]

Pope Francis explains:

"Therefore, God you meet walking, on the journey. And at this point someone may say that this is relativism. Is it relativism? Yes, if it is intended as evil, as a kind of indistinct Pantheism. No, if understood in the biblical sense, by which God is always a surprise, and therefore we never know where and how we’ll find him, we can’t fix the time and place for meeting with him. We must therefore discern the meeting. For this discernment is critical.

I have one dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life, God is in the life of each. Even if a person’s life has been a disaster, if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else, God is in his life. You can and should seek in every human life. Even if a person’s life is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a place where the good seed can grow. You have to trust God."

laciviltacattolica.it/articoli_download/3216.pdf

God wouldn’t abandon anyone for any reason.

 

[tonyrey]

Where is the evidence that Jesus was a deceiver and what did He stand to gain?

How can we take away the Gospels? They exist and require a satisfactory explanation.

If Jesus hadn’t existed they would still require a satisfactory explanation.

He stood to gain fame after death. Many men in those ages, once they realized how fleeting life was, would do things only for glory; that includes dying a martyr, to obtain fame in perpetuity.

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on unselfish love and concern for others which are incompatible with pride, ambition and deception. Only a vainglorious impostor or a lunatic would have washed the feet of his disciples to obtain fame in perpetuity. How could such a person have devised the noblest moral principles known to mankind?

 

[ClearWater]

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

Yes, from the beginning to the end, it’s one story running thousands of years! It makes so much sense when put together. I absolutely agree!

 

[shoe]

What is the evidence of Jesus’ divinity if we take away the account of the Gospel? To use the gospels to prove Jesus is God, and to use Jesus to prove the gospels were true, is circular logic.

He stood to gain fame after death. Many men in those ages, once they realized how fleeting life was, would do things only for glory; that includes dying a martyr, to obtain fame in perpetuity.

(Understand that I personally disagree with what I say in the above two paragraphs, and have an answer against both objections. The purpose of this is to clear in the OP’s mind what he/she will answer to these objections when they come up. I have no doubt that you, tonyrey, disagree, because I am fully aware that these are flawed arguments.)

My response to your first paragraph is this: I don’t believe that using “the gospels to prove Jesus is God” is circular logic. The Bible has shown itself to be flawlessly accurate in such things as history, geography, culture, etc. Archaeologists indeed have verified many of the historical accounts of the Bible, and new discoveries in archaeology are continuing to substantiate the impeccable accuracy rating of the Bible. And the Bible has also shown itself to be flawlessly accurate in the abundance of fulfilled prophecies, which it also has been able to substantiate through verified historical accounts, including the historically accurate record of the Gospels concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And, therefore, using the Gospels to prove that Jesus is God is not circular logic, since we are using the Gospels first to establish certain facts and then to base our conclusions on the sound logical consequence of those facts.

 

[D_Martin]

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.

How did Jesus prove God to the people He walked amongst? Wasn’t it the Spirit and power that was of God made manifest with Him the proof? Wasn’t it the same for the Apostles when the time came? Why should it be any different for anyone who follows the Lord Jesus Christ? It is God who proves He is with you in the sight of others, should He chose to do so. That is what Jesus did, that is what King David did, Moses, Samuel and the rest. God proves He is with you. Thus proving there is a God who has a relationship with men.

But the true bottom line is, one should be more concern with is, it is God who proves us.

 

[Bradski]

An uncritical approach is not to be recommended…

Then I’m sure that if you were to play the Devil’s Advocate, you’d be able to point out the flaws in the arguments as well.

 

[inocente]

Certainly heavenly glory, but I can’t think of much from a “worldly” point of view that they gained. Love and admiration from their fellow sufferers, but there are far easier ways to find worldly admiration.

Yes but don’t suicide bombers get promised 70 heavenly ladies or whatever?

I appreciate all the responses this is getting, but I disagree that it’s an argument better left unmade. I don’t think it backfires at all, quite the opposite, IF it serves to turn the conversation toward the moral character of suicide bombers, Jim Jones and other cult leaders, etc… vs the morals of men like St. Peter, St. Paul, St. John and the other Apostles, who at least dictated epistles and Gospels if they didn’t write them with their own hands. There is BTW reasonable evidence that many were in fact written extremely soon after the events they portray.

I’m just saying why go there, why invite such comparisons.

What I’m trying to say is that it’s a very weak counterargument to say “Well, anyone can die for a belief”. Yes, they can, but we’re not talking about just “anyone” here. These men reached the pinnacle of what we can hope to acheive in this world (with God’s great help of course). How so? They didn’t build great buildings or rule nations or invent revolutionary technologies. So what makes them the best? The same thing that made Christ the best - namely Love. They died while loving and praying for their executioners. They didn’t kill themselves, and they didn’t go out defiantly, which would characterize every other type of person mentioned in this counterargument. They went peacefully and willingly to their deaths. The one great “revenge” they hoped to have against their enemies was that their deaths might draw some of them over to Christ by witnessing their love.

You are assuming they died as martyrs and it’s not just legend. Can you back up that assumption? Then I think a number of Sikh martyrs died at the hands of executioners and a number of other examples could also be found.

Now I do agree that this argument could backfire badly, but only if the person presenting it failed to address the anticipated counter-arguments…and that’s really true for any logical debate isn’t it? The non-Christian response is easy to guess, but it also **helps **the main argument by forcing them to consider what type of people are worthy of imitation. If someone can’t manage to see that the Apostles were great men, then they may not be in a place currently to appreciate God’s peculiar wisdom. Allow me to share an appropriate passage:

This is one of those arguments which a Christian may find convincing because we know the story, but a non-Christian finds problematic. For instance a Muslim might ask “why, if Christians didn’t learn from these guys, you’re holding them up? How come the Crusades, which were not exactly great outpourings of non-violence and love?”

More generally the problem is that usually a non-Christian only hears the word martyr in connection with terrorist extremists, so the word has immediate connotations of being far from normal and not, on any account, someone to get involved with. That’s the bottom line on why I think it can backfire.

 

[mgoforth]

Yes but don’t suicide bombers get promised 70 heavenly ladies or whatever?

Again, that only serves to strengthen the initial argument and shows that one group must be wrong. Why would God reward hateful violence the same as self-sacrificing love? He wouldn’t, so the question becomes “who do you think is right?” Who would you really rather imitate - a suicide bomber or St Peter?

I’m just saying why go there, why invite such comparisons.

Why not?? The comparisons are entirely material. One group dies for the glory of God, the other group dies for their own glory.

You are assuming they died as martyrs and it’s not just legend. Can you back up that assumption? Then I think a number of Sikh martyrs died at the hands of executioners and a number of other examples could also be found.

Everything we think we “know” about history before our own lifetime is an assumption. Do you doubt that Lincoln was assassinated? Why not? Perhaps he blew his own brains out in despair and the story we have today is just a pious American legend. Can you truly back up that story in a different way than I could back up the stories of the Apostles’ martyrdom? I think not because both cases depend on the testimony of eyewitnesses. In the case of Lincoln, not many people have trouble accepting the story as true because it doesn’t cause them to face the possibility of other truths that would be personally difficult for them - like the existence of God.

This is one of those arguments which a Christian may find convincing because we know the story, but a non-Christian finds problematic. For instance a Muslim might ask “why, if Christians didn’t learn from these guys, you’re holding them up? How come the Crusades, which were not exactly great outpourings of non-violence and love?”

More generally the problem is that usually a non-Christian only hears the word martyr in connection with terrorist extremists, so the word has immediate connotations of being far from normal and not, on any account, someone to get involved with. That’s the bottom line on why I think it can backfire.

I never claimed this was a foolproof method to convert people, as there’s no such thing. I think it’s a powerful argument, but of course many will not. God gives the grace of faith to those who desire it. Our arguments are just crude tools in His hands.

 

[mgoforth]

How did Jesus prove God to the people He walked amongst? Wasn’t it the Spirit and power that was of God made manifest with Him the proof? Wasn’t it the same for the Apostles when the time came? Why should it be any different for anyone who follows the Lord Jesus Christ? It is God who proves He is with you in the sight of others, should He chose to do so. That is what Jesus did, that is what King David did, Moses, Samuel and the rest. God proves He is with you. Thus proving there is a God who has a relationship with men.

But the true bottom line is, one should be more concern with is, it is God who proves us.

I like that. Very nice way to think about this.

 

[Hrvatski]

I believe that God is sufficiently subtle to make it impossible for man to reason to His existence. In my own experience, I didn’t reason to God, He came for me.

 

[tonyrey]

Then I’m sure that if you were to play the Devil’s Advocate, you’d be able to point out the flaws in the arguments as well.

If there were flaws I wouldn’t accept them! Can you specify one?

 

[tonyrey]

I believe that God is sufficiently subtle to make it impossible for man to reason to His existence. In my own experience, I didn’t reason to God, He came for me.

God doesn’t have to go out of His way to conceal His existence. Our finite minds are incapable of fully grasping the Infinite Being.

 

[Bradski]

If there were flaws I wouldn’t accept them! Can you specify one?

No. I’d like to see if you can look at them critically and point one out yourself. Or say that there are no flaws at all.

 

[dshix]

How can we take away the Gospels? They exist and require a satisfactory explanation.

If Jesus hadn’t existed they would still require a satisfactory explanation.

But that doesn’t answer the question of how we can trust them to be accurate. Sure, they have a good message, but are they true?

The entire teaching of Jesus is based on unselfish love and concern for others which are incompatible with pride, ambition and deception. Only a vainglorious impostor or a lunatic would have washed the feet of his disciples to obtain fame in perpetuity. How could such a person have devised the noblest moral principles known to mankind?

Good answer.

My response to your first paragraph is this: I don’t believe that using “the gospels to prove Jesus is God” is circular logic. The Bible has shown itself to be flawlessly accurate in such things as history, geography, culture, etc. Archaeologists indeed have verified many of the historical accounts of the Bible, and new discoveries in archaeology are continuing to substantiate the impeccable accuracy rating of the Bible. And the Bible has also shown itself to be flawlessly accurate in the abundance of fulfilled prophecies, which it also has been able to substantiate through verified historical accounts, including the historically accurate record of the Gospels concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. And, therefore, using the Gospels to prove that Jesus is God is not circular logic, since we are using the Gospels first to establish certain facts and then to base our conclusions on the sound logical consequence of those facts.

Good answer.

 

[eschator83]

Those who die for what they believe must be respected, but it can’t prove their beliefs are true.

The incredible affirmation of all eleven Apostles, plus Matthias, seems virtually indisputable. Where is any comparable affirmation?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

The incredible affirmation of all eleven Apostles, plus Matthias, seems virtually indisputable. Where is any comparable affirmation?

Islamic martyrdom, right from the founding? There are examples of slaves embracing Islam and being continuously tortured by their masters. Between the founding of Islam and the formation of the Caliphate, persecution was absolutely rampant.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Just as I expressed it. I think anyone who reads the Scriptures, front to back will be convinced if they are honest.

Linus2nd

I doubt they’d get far.

“God creates universe in this order, on these days.”

"errr, scratch that, different order, no referenc

 

[inocente]

Again, that only serves to strengthen the initial argument and shows that one group must be wrong. Why would God reward hateful violence the same as self-sacrificing love? He wouldn’t, so the question becomes “who do you think is right?” Who would you really rather imitate - a suicide bomber or St Peter?

You just changed horses. Your point wasn’t about non-violence, it was about earthly gain. You said “Certainly heavenly glory, but I can’t think of much from a “worldly” point of view that they gained. Love and admiration from their fellow sufferers, but there are far easier ways to find worldly admiration.” My answer was another example of those who die without thought of earthly gain.

But even your new point is dangerous, inviting the immediate come back of how many civilians has the Christian US killed with drone attacks?

*Why not?? The comparisons are entirely material. One group dies for the glory of God, the other group dies for their own glory. *

Nope. For instance the Islamists shout Allāhu Akbar (I-AM is the greater). They too believe they are doing it for God.

Everything we think we “know” about history before our own lifetime is an assumption. Do you doubt that Lincoln was assassinated? Why not? Perhaps he blew his own brains out in despair and the story we have today is just a pious American legend. Can you truly back up that story in a different way than I could back up the stories of the Apostles’ martyrdom? I think not because both cases depend on the testimony of eyewitnesses. In the case of Lincoln, not many people have trouble accepting the story as true because it doesn’t cause them to face the possibility of other truths that would be personally difficult for them - like the existence of God.

Whoa! Not even remotely the same. You’ve got photos and documents of Lincoln. As I said before, James, patron saint of my country supposedly came to Spain, then returned to Jerusalem were he was decapitated by Herod Agrippa (Acts 12), then “his body was taken up by angels, and sailed in a rudderless, unattended boat to Iria Flavia in Iberia, where a massive rock closed around his relics”.

Does anyone claim that Lincoln moved to Chile, then for some reason returned to Washington were he was shot, then his body was taken up by angels, and sailed in a rudderless, unattended boat back to Chile, where a massive rock closed around his relics?

I never claimed this was a foolproof method to convert people, as there’s no such thing. I think it’s a powerful argument, but of course many will not. God gives the grace of faith to those who desire it. Our arguments are just crude tools in His hands.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[inocente]

The incredible affirmation of all eleven Apostles, plus Matthias, seems virtually indisputable. Where is any comparable affirmation?

I gave examples before. There a lots, unless you don’t look for them, when of course you won’t find any.