Flying Spaghetti monster

[CentralFLJames]

Further to all the above discussion we can infer through indirect means that there was highly plausible evidence of the resurrection by the behavior of those who did not believe in the resurrection - Orthodox Jews who would not convert. In a counter intuitive sort of way their commitment to disbelief gives a certain credibility to the conviction of those they persecuted for their counter convictions.

If there was not widespread belief that “something” extraordinary happened (let’s go ahead and accept the possibility of mass hysteria or extremely competent rebel-rousing) then there would not have been a reason for the Jews nor the Romans to severely persecute the Christians. Nor would there be reason for officials and historians to write letters and leave archaeological evidence that lingers into history to complain about these Christian “cannibals” (those who eat the flesh of their leader) and these crazies who immerse and drown their own children (a polemic against the widespread Christian baptisms going on all over). If it was mass hysteria it would be unlikely that it would have permeated across the many different social peer classes and would have remained only in the class strata from which in emerged (the shepherds, fishermen, construction workers [Joseph was a construction worker not a carpenter] and lower caste Jews). Nor would there have been a need for Saul, a member of the Jewish elite who becomes the apostle Paul to persecute the early Christians. But what we see is a RAPID migration of The Christus teaching that penetrates every single social class from fisherman, to prostitute, to tax collector, to Sanhedrin, to Zealots, To Roman Officers, to wives of Roman Governors and Jewish Kings to Rabbis etc. That is not mass hysteria - that is revolution founded on real and genuine widespread belief that “something profound happened” in this Christus character.

We can measure the strength of the conviction by the level of tension that came out of this event. Going forward in history we can see that the conviction has spread across the planet and across all social tiers and has survived every one of its early antagonists and seen empires come and go while it has gathered momentum and still grows like a mustard seed scattered to grow new bushes wherever the winds blow.

At some point the only evidence that is relevant is the test of time and the sustained production of good fruit consistent with original principals.

At this point in time the more pertinent question becomes “why ask why?”

James

 

[Strategery]

I don’t want empirical justification, just a solid reason.
My question is why faith?

One answer which I think found reasonable was that although humans can understand some truth the human mind is limited.

My next question why believe Christ rose from the dead?

The only reason provided was the testimony of the martyrs.

I think this is inadequate because (though I do not believe this) they could have been lying, deluded or brainwashed.

I’ve only read through post 85 so if I missed some answers, please forgive me.

First - kudos for putting up an interesting thread. I do think the argrmentative style (ie, extremely short answers, answering questions with questions) doesn’t typically lead to good discussion. That’s just my opinion.

OK, on to the questions.

1. Why faith? Because it has to be that way. God gave us free will. He gave us the will to choose belief or unbelief. For it to be truly free will, there can’t be an “answer” that can be logically verified through worldly means. If that were the case, the path to salvation would only be open to those “smart” enough or “logical” enough to figure it out.

In the end, no amount of testimony can convince us as individuals. It all boils down to personal experience. Have we tried to find God? If so, what was the answer?

Also - as some have alluded to - the framing of the discussion pretty much restricts the discussion to the “flesh”, as opposed to the “spirit.” That’s of course a problem for a spiritual discussion.

1. Why believe Christ rose from the dead?

This is really a pretty good question. For me, in the end it boils down to personal experience with the risen Savior. I personally believe it because I have experienced his presence in my life, and I have come to understand through study of scripture why his death and resurrection were necessary to God’s revelation to man. However, the believing ulitmately came from personal experience.

How do I prove that to you? I can’t, because you’re asking me to prove the spiritual using paradigm of the flesh.

I do know one thing – if you are truly seeking an answer to this question, the best way to get the answer is by seeking God. Try and talk to him. Ask him to reveal Himself to you. Be persistent with this, and see what you get.

 

[rpp]

The burden of proof is upon you, you made the claim.

Oh brother. Get some books and READ. Try to LEARN something instead of calling other people fools from a position of ignorance.

But then I and the other posters on this thread appear to be talking to a wall. I am done here.

 

[SFTor]

Just a quick question:

we do not actually have any eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Christ, do we?

The gospels must be at least two generations removed from the actual event.

Wouldn’t that make it hearsay?

Best,

Tor

 

[Tantum_ergo]

OK, let’s suppose that I, at age 20 or so, voted for Jimmy Carter.

At around age 80 I decided, on looking over various old letters, diaries, and my own ‘memory’, to write about that election in a published book.

Gee --it’s 60 years after the fact that I WROTE about it.

Guess I must not have been an eyewitness after all, writing two whole generations later about my experiences. . .

 

[mlchance]

To take a different approach, Pete_, you’re sig negates your OP. Richard Dawkins is most definitely not a credible source when it comes to theology; therefore, by your own recommendation, why should we listen to you?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Philthy]

What I am asking is, why faith?

In regards to Richard Dawkings writing the book their is reasonable evidence to suggest that Dawkings wrote the book.

The question you must ask yourself is: in 2000 years will the evidence which now seems so reasonable(to support the claim that Dawkins wrote the book) remain reasonable?
I think the “evidence” 2000 years from now will be weak and unconvincing according to the standards you have proposed. It doesnt change the fact that he wrote the book, however. If you dont trust an eyewitness - make that 11 eyewitnesses - who’s credibility is established not only by the consistency of their writings but also by refusing to recant and having their lives taken from them(ie deathbed confession) - then you are asking for a level of certainty regarding a historical event that simply doesnt exist.

 

[Philthy]

Is more evidence required for something extraordinary or not?

If I said that I had just eaten a banana and pointed to a peel in the bin and my mother testified that it was true would you believe me?

If I said that the banana had jumped out of its peel of its own accord and pointed to a peel in the bin and my mother testified that it was true would you believe me?

I would have a lesser degree of certainty that the event did not occur. It would be inappropriate to describe that as believing you. Your witness and your mothers become united as the testimony to the event. It’s not a question of believing you, its a question of believing whether the event occured.

 

[SFTor]

OK, let’s suppose that I, at age 20 or so, voted for Jimmy Carter.

At around age 80 I decided, on looking over various old letters, diaries, and my own ‘memory’, to write about that election in a published book.

Gee --it’s 60 years after the fact that I WROTE about it.

Guess I must not have been an eyewitness after all, writing two whole generations later about my experiences. . .

Well, if you were the actual eyewitness that would be an eyewitness account. But you are not suggesting that any of the gospel writers were actually present when it happened, do you?

That would be the first time in history that this claim has been made. Nobody believes that any of the gospel writers were present at the actual event. They are not identified with any of the apostles. As a matter of fact they are entirely unknown.

 

[mlchance]

That would be the first time in history that this claim has been made.

No, it wouldn’t be.

Nobody believes that any of the gospel writers were present at the actual event.

Not really the point since the Gospels themselves are clear that no one witnessed the Resurrection itself, but rather people witnessed the resurrected Christ.

They are not identified with any of the apostles. As a matter of fact they are entirely unknown.

That’s also not entirely true. There is no good reason to doubt that Matthew, Mark, and John wrote at least the large portions of the Gospels identified with their names. All three men were part Christ’s circle of disciples, and two were Apostles.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Because the 10 eyewitnesses to said event (11 if you include Paul) were willing to suffer horrible and painful deaths rather than go back on what they saw.

**Actually, it was several hundred. St. Paul says that nearly 500 saw the Risen Jesus. But even at the very moment of His Ascension, there were some who doubted, according to Matthew.

Now, if Richard Dawkins and his cohorts will willingly die for what the KNOW to be their own fiction (namely the FSM and IU), I can’t do anything about it–but I’ll bet when push comes to shove they won’t.

But these others TRULY BELIEVED they had seen the Risen Christ, so the comparison doesn’t hold water.**

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Just a quick question:

we do not actually have any eyewitness accounts of the resurrection of Christ, do we?

Response: To the actual Resurection Event, no. To his very public death, yes. To the Resurected Christ, yes.

The gospels must be at least two generations removed from the actual event.

**Response: Why do you assume that? Are you just repeating the biased assumptions of secular minded “scholars” who are inheritors of a Atheist or Deist tradition? The same tradition that originaly asserted the gospels were not written for 2-3 centuries after events described, but 150+ years of textual finds and legitimate literary-form criticism keeps reducing that “gap” to a few decades, within the lives of the original witnesses–but the so called called scholars seem to think a couple of decades in an oral history culture means the same as two centuries of “drift” **

If we examine the Early Church Fathers, we find claims of Matthew (apostle witness) written (in Aramaic or Hebrew, a litle later in Greek) within 11 years of the Resurrection, Luke within 25 years, Mark (secretary to Peter, apostle-witness) written after Luke (circa 55 AD) but published first, and the majority of John’s Gospel (apostle-witness) written circa 65-69 AD.

Wouldn’t that make it hearsay?

Response: 2 direct Apostle-witnesses, 1 Apostle writing through his secretary, and one historian (Luke) writing through multiple witness accounts. That’s not hearsay.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Suggesting they were present?

I’m not suggesting. . .I’m confident that they were.

From Dei Verbum (English Translation):

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(1)
19. Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven (see Acts 1:1). Indeed, after the Ascension of the Lord the Apostles handed on to their hearers what He had said and done. This they did with that clearer understanding which they enjoyed (3) after they had been instructed by the glorious events of Christ’s life and taught by the light of the Spirit of truth. (2) The sacred authors wrote the four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had been handed on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to a synthesis, explaining some things in view of the situation of their churches and preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion that they told us the honest truth about Jesus.(4) For their intention in writing was that either from their own memory and recollections, or from the witness of those who “themselves from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word” we might know “the truth” concerning those matters about which we have been instructed (see Luke 1:2-4).
20. Besides the four Gospels, the canon of the New Testament also contains the epistles of St. Paul and other apostolic writings, composed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by which, according to the wise plan of God, those matters which concern Christ the Lord are confirmed, His true teaching is more and more fully stated, the saving power of the divine work of Christ is preached, the story is told of the beginnings of the Church and its marvelous growth, and its glorious fulfillment is foretold.
For the Lord Jesus was with His apostles as He had promised (see Matt. 28:20) and sent them the advocate Spirit who would lead them into the fullness of truth (see John 16:13).

 

[SFTor]

No, it wouldn’t be.

OK, so the claim has been made before.

Not really the point since the Gospels themselves are clear that no one witnessed the Resurrection itself, but rather people witnessed the resurrected Christ.

You don’t sound very convinced yourself. Do you wish to make a positive claim that one or several of the gospel writers are identified with the apostles, and is there any evidence to back this up?

Best,

Tor

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Well, I’d like to see your positive proof–and please be sure that it comes, like my example above, from a source more “authoritative” than some ‘Catholic scholar’ or ‘seminar’ and states as definitive Catholic teaching that the gospels were **not **written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, that the gospels were proven to be written at least 2 generations ‘after’ Christ’s resurrection, etc.

 

[SFTor]

Well, I’d like to see your positive proof–and please be sure that it comes, like my example above, from a source more “authoritative” than some ‘Catholic scholar’ or ‘seminar’ and states as definitive Catholic teaching that the gospels were **not **written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, that the gospels were proven to be written at least 2 generations ‘after’ Christ’s resurrection, etc.

Tantum,

you know better than this. I have never claimed that the gospels were not written by the apostles themselves. I am saying that we don’t know who wrote them. For instance Elaine Pagels states in the Gnostic Gospels that “we know virtually nothing about the authors of the gospels.” That is my quote, and my source.

You have made a half-hearted claim that they were written by eyewitnesses.

Do you have any evidence that backs up any claims that the gospels were written by eyewitnesses?

Best,

Tor

P.S. I just read your previous post. That is no evidence at all, I’m afraid.

P.P.S. You’re a smart guy, Tantum. You know what is meant by evidence.

P.P.P.S. You may also note that I am not so concerned that the source be “authoritative Catholic teaching.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

ELAINE PAGELS?

Ah, yes, whose speciality is that of the gnostic/feminine ‘gospels’.

A prime example of how a little learning can be a dangerous thing–this woman has excellent scholarly credentials and a laudable purpose (at least to start) but she has allowed herself to take data and make it ‘adapt to her theory’. If it ‘can’t’ adapt she plays the old cards of “corrupted sources/conspiracy theories” or my personal >favorite< (being a woman myself) of the “suppression of the feminine in order to maintain the patristic structure of society”.

So you are taking the word of one woman who is acknowledged to have a feminist/gnostic ‘worldview’ and using that as your source to claim that “we know virtually nothing about the authors of the gospels?”

Come on, Tor. If I used ONE SOURCE to make a claim like that as being ‘Catholic teaching’ or even ‘scholarly consensus’ in a HIGH SCHOOL PAPER, my teacher would give me a well-deserved F.

You know better than that.

Remember, I used Dei Verbum (from Vatican 2 and I mean from the actual DOCUMENTS of Vatican 2) which stated, The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(

---

The Church states, “Apostolic” and gives the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. . . not “an origin which is 2 generations later than the resurrection” and "we know virtually nothing about who wrote the gospels’.

I’m sticking with the CHURCH.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think this is worthy of being repeated as a stand-alone and not buried in a post:

From Dei Verbum, Vatican Council II:

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(

Not: The gospels came 2 generations or even more ‘after’ the apostles.

The names given are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not '“the artists known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though we really have absolutely no proof that they weren’t written by some nebbishes named Moishe, Barabbas, Tobias and–most especially–Miriam (as in Mary Magdelene, before she was ‘suppressed’.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

From Pope Benedict’s general audience of August 30, 2006:

**Lastly, let us remember that the tradition of the ancient Church agrees in attributing to Matthew the paternity of the First Gospel. This had already begun with Bishop Papias of Hierapolis in Frisia, in about the year 130. **
He writes: “Matthew set down the words (of the Lord) in the Hebrew tongue and everyone interpreted them as best he could” (in Eusebius of Cesarea, *Hist. Eccl. *III, 39, 16).
Eusebius, the historian, adds this piece of information: “**When Matthew, who had first preached among the Jews, decided also to reach out to other peoples, he wrote down the Gospel he preached in his mother tongue; thus, he sought to put in writing, for those whom he was leaving, what they would be losing with his departure” (*ibid., *III, 24, 6). **
**The Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew or Aramaic is no longer extant, but in the Greek Gospel that we possess we still continue to hear, in a certain way, the persuasive voice of the publican Matthew, who, having become an Apostle, continues to proclaim God’s saving mercy to us. And let us listen to St Matthew’s message, meditating upon it ever anew also to learn to stand up and follow Jesus with determination. **

 

[SFTor]

I think this is worthy of being repeated as a stand-alone and not buried in a post:

From Dei Verbum, Vatican Council II:

The Church has always and everywhere held and continues to hold that the four Gospels are of apostolic origin. For what the Apostles preached in fulfillment of the commission of Christ, afterwards they themselves and apostolic men, under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, handed on to us in writing: the foundation of faith, namely, the fourfold Gospel, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.(

Not: The gospels came 2 generations or even more ‘after’ the apostles.

The names given are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, not '“the artists known as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John though we really have absolutely no proof that they weren’t written by some nebbishes named Moishe, Barabbas, Tobias and–most especially–Miriam (as in Mary Magdelene, before she was ‘suppressed’.”

So you are stating unequivocally that all four gospel writers were eyewitnesses to the resurrection of Jesus?

I must also say that I don’t understand your issue with Elaine Pagels in this case. I understand that you may disagree with her agenda, but in this case she is simply stating ignorance on an issue I think she would dearly like to have an answer to.

It doesn’t seem to help her agenda. I don’t understand why she would claim ignorance on this point, as she surely is in the business of Bible study.

Repeating your quote from Vatican II doesn’t seem to help your case. It simply declares the position of the Catholic Church. It is not evidence. Any corroborating evidence from contemporary or near-contemporary historians, like Josephus for instance? Tacitus maybe?

Best,

Tor