Does the Bible really say that? (Based on something Ithy said in a GOP thread)

[HLGStrider]

Copied from an old post of Elgee's, then merged into this thread to make it look like she started it. - Mike

[HLGStrider]

In a recent thread Ithy posted a few reasons why he thought we shouldn't believe the Bible, due to doctrines he said it taught which were unreasonable. Other members posted that they didn't remember those being in there or that he had it wrong and was misinterpeting.

I thought I'd take each one and examine it in a seperate thread. In most cases this will be to see if they are really in the Bible. In at least one I think it will turn into a moral debate as to whether or not the forbidden thing is wrong.

I'd like to try and stay on topic in each thread and not get into side tracks about other things the Bible says. We can eventually start threads for those things, but I'd really like to do one thread at a time for them. It will be too distracting otherwise.

Most of what he mentioned is from Exodus and/or Leviticus. I believe that most of Jewish ceremonial law was abandoned by Christians when they were freed from the law by Christ's death and resurection, so some of this isn't applicable to Christianity, but some is.

I thought I'd start with a simple one (the one I consider the simplest and least controversial.).

Ithy said that according to the Bible, if we were to follow its teachings, women couldn't wear pants. (Meaning literally and not in the "who wears the pants in this family" context).

As a Christian female who wears pants more than skirts I thought I'd examine this (Actually, I prefer to wear skirts, but I have a bad habit of sitting in ways that make it inappropriate for me to wear skirts. . .).

I do not think this is in the Bible because at the time even men weren't wearing pants. They were wearing robes.
In the laws in Leviticus (I believe. I looked for the verse and couldn't find it) it is forbidden to have steps up to the altar because the worshippers going to the altar would "expose themselves." Later special under garments were described for the priests to wear under their robes to avoid this happening. Men weren't wearing pants, and I don't think they are ever mentioned in the Bible.

What Ithy could be meaning is something I once heard was in the Bible from a trustworthy source but that I haven't been able to find. There is a law (somewhere) that forbids men and women from wearing each other's clothes. . .In other words, the Bible forbids cross-dressing.

Now some people may not like that it does, but a lot of people don't like a lot of things that are forbidden in there being forbidden.

Now to make Ithy's arguement by that (again, I can't find the verse. I just remember a passage from the book "The Bronze Bow" which says that it is forbidden), you would have to prove that pants always have and always will be men's garments. I don't think that would be easy to do, seeing as what garments are men's and which are women's is something set by fashion, propriety, and popular opinion, things that change.

It is, however, possible that I am getting all this wrong. . .and that's why I started this thread. Ithy obviously felt quite sure about what he was saying and he isn't one just to blast things off the top of his head. He had either read this in there or heard it from a source he considers trustworthy.

So here's the thread.

[Thorin]

When we look at the Bible (especially the OT), we do need to sort through what is cultural and society driven and what is expected directly by God for His people. When it comes to dress, the Bible makes it plain to be modest in dress and fashion. What that idea of modest is is basically a cultural thing. There was to be a direct distinction between the male and female. The current culture would dictate what those boundaries were.

The issue is not just an OT issue. 'Old fashioned-ness" dictated the same thing to my parents when they were young, even without any religious connotation to it. Long hair for guys and short hair for girls was unacceptable to the old school of our ancestors. Times have changed, however. The modesty issue still plays a role for the Christian or Jew, but the context is different because the culture is different.

The issue today would be more like, "Should Christians be wearing pins and needles in their nose, eyebrows, belly buttons and nipples. Should they be wearing skimpy clothing that continually shows their midriff and cleavage?"
And there are alot of girls who try to look as 'butch' and masculine as possible and vice versa. These are the issues that face Christians today. The principle is still the same.

My church organization is BIG on issues of dress and adornment. Whew! Try being a church school teacher and having to deal with these issues with students!

[Ithrynluin]

Sorry Elgee, can't give you any quotes because I don't have a copy of the Bible handy. I read about those things a couple of years ago and I asked a friend of mine (who is knowledgable on the Bible) to confirm the things I said in the other thread. I was hoping someone who knows the Bible well (is Leviticus considered part of it?) would provide the quotes for those things, but ah well. :(

Another friend of mine reminded me of a few other things that are 'a bit' in the extreme:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as suggested in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans but not Canadians. Can you clarify?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus (Ex 35:2) clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, and if so, how should I do that?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Leviticus 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or are correctable defects in vision excluded from the aforementioned proscription.?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Leviticus 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Leviticus 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm on which he violates Leviticus 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field. His wife likewise violates Leviticus by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (a cotton/polyester blend). Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Leviticus 24:10-16). Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws (Leviticus 20:14)?

[HLGStrider]

Now don't get me off topic! I wanted to take the things one at a time that you said in that other thread and deal with them each in a seperate thread. . .

The bull one I can answer now. It was customary to offer animal sacrifices to atone for sins. Christ died for our sins so that is no longer necessary.

The menstral thing is for cleanliness. At the time they didn't exactly have tampons.

The ones dealing with slavery were ones I was going to take in one of the other threads because I wanted to deal with them one at a time and you'd already mentioned those.

The shellfish issue you also already mentioned. Most of the animals that were listed as unclean are animals more likely to carry diseases. I don't see what homosexuality has to do with shellfish.

The Sabbath I am not a big expert on. Jesus's disciples once picked grain on the Sabbath and he rebuked the pharisees for rebuking them. We can deal with sabbath law on another thread. . .

The sight one. . .The altar of God was only to be approached by a very special, picked few. This wasn't as if he was excluding people just due to disabilities. They had to be a member of a certain family, then adhere to a certain moral code very strictly, then be physically sound. This was in part symbolic. They were supposed to be lambs without blemish.

The hair one is a modesty issue, similar to the clothing one. You can see Thorin's post for how modesty issues change.

I think there is a difference between a dead animal and the skin of an animal killed for the purpose of making something. This is a cleanliness issue. They weren't to be touching corpses.

I don't think most of these things are a stoning issue. Yes, there are laws against them. And no, you aren't supposed to violate the laws. Considering they didn't have prison at the time, they probably used some form of corporal punishment, but in a lot of the cases listed above, it wasn't death.

Really, I wanted to stay on topic, so I'll wait for the quotes from your friend so we can deal with the clothing issue, and then we can move on. I hadn't decided which issue to deal with yet, though I was consideirng the shellfish one.

[faila]

the law no longer applies. Only what christ reiterated on earth are we supposed to follow.

It was different for the culture then as well

[Ithrynluin]

It's exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the other thread, when the subject of spanking children came up, Elendil posted a quote from the Bible which was supposed to be viewed as a guideline ever-applicable. So many of the rules and commandments in the Bible are outdated or based on ignorance or/and blind hatred. They were written by Men, who even though claim were inspired by God in writing it, are just as imperfect and fallible as the rest of us, and were guided by their own likes and dislikes, their own wisdom and misperceptions, and their word I do not take as the truth. There are several truths, or things that I personally percieve as truths, in the Bible, such as 'thou shalt not kill' and similar, IMHO ever-applicable statements that will never cease to be true. But much else, even something as 'trivial' as a law dictating child spanking, I reject it being anything more than a short-sighted, narrow-minded view of a man.

I'm mostly reiterating what I said here (http://www.thetolkienforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12251&perpage=15&pagenumber=2&postid=329757#post329757)

I'll end my rant right about here.

[Eriol]

Take a look at Romans 13:

Let every soul be subject to higher powers. For there is no power but from God: and those that are ordained of God.

2 Therefore, he that resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist purchase to themselves damnation.

3 For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good: and thou shalt have praise from the same.

4 For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.

5 Wherefore be subject of necessity: not only for wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

6 For therefore also you pay tribute. For they are the ministers of God, serving unto this purpose.

7 Render therefore to all men their dues. Tribute, to whom tribute is due: custom, to whom custom: fear, to whom fear: honour, to whom honour.

8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another. For he that loveth his neighbour hath fulfilled the law.

9 For: Thou shalt not commit adultery: Thou shalt not kill: Thou shalt not steal: Thou shalt not bear false witness: Thou shalt not covet. And if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10 The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.

11 And that, knowing the season, that it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep. For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed.

12 The night is passed And the day is at hand. Let us, therefore cast off the works of darkness and put on the armour of light.

13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day: not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy.

14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ: and make not provision for the flesh in its concupiscences.

This is the main chapter of the Law for Christians, in my opinion. And look especially at versicle 10:

The love of our neighbour worketh no evil. Love therefore is the fulfilling of the law.

Love is the Fulfilling of the Law. Everything in the Law is fulfilled by love. Every instruction in the Law before Christ came was perfected and made visible in His person, as Love.

Love is the Fulfilling of the Law. I could repeat this as a mantra several times :)

Every controversy about the Bible and the Law is solved by this simple principle: LOVE IS THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW.

[HLGStrider]

Good points, Eriol.

However, just because we are no longer forced to do the laws in Leviticus doesn't mean that most of them were a good idea, God's idea.

A lot of them were for health reasons. A lot were ceremonial.

The bit in Proverbs that Elendil quoted was not a law. Most of the things in Proverbs aren't laws. They are guidelines to live a healthy life. Laws can be this, of course.

[faila]

there are two reasons for old testament laws:
1.set apart
2. healthy
Example:
Circumcision to set apart
Not eat pork healthy: Pork must be cooked thouroughly to be unharmful easily caries diseases.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by faila
there are two reasons for old testament laws:
1.set apart
2. healthy
Example:
Circumcision to set apart
Not eat pork healthy: Pork must be cooked thouroughly to be unharmful easily caries diseases.
Actually, faila, that is incorrect. Pig and other animals labeled unclean were done so because they were naturally unclean. No amount of cultic ritual or ceremonial cleansing could change that fact. The people were shown how they were to cook clean meats (i.e. no blood or it was an abomination). Unclean meats weren't even in that category.

There is a third category you missed and that is of 'universal law' or 'moral law'. Some of this universal law was separate from the ceremonial law, some of it was in the middle of it. These laws are absolute and are not part of the laws that Christ did away with at the cross (as much as many Protestants would like to think so). The Ten Commandments (all of them) and clean and unclean meats are part of that universal law both of which pre-date Leviticus and Exodus before the ceremonial law was given to the Israelites.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Walter
I wouldn't judge so quickly, Thorin, there might be more practical applicability and usability in faila's definition than what first meets the eyes. And "naturally unclean" used to distinguish living or dead organic matter seems a highly questional term when when examined from a microbiological point of view....
But you can't judge it by a microbiological point of view. The fact is, and we may not even be able to say why it is, is that God set apart certain animals that were fit for consumption and some that were not. What makes them unclean, only God truly knows.

For example: an Israelite was considered unclean whether he touched a clean animal's carcass or that of an unclean animal. Likewise, when either animal was touched alive, neither made the Israelite unclean. The clean and unclean went beyond ceremonial law. Here is a quote from a bible scholar, Dr. Gerard Hesel, who has written extensively on the subject:The innate, inherent, or designated uncleanness is an uncleanness which can never be removed by any ritual or cultic activity specified in ceremonial law. It is never removed by time, or a combination of cultic activity and time as in the case of the ritual/cultic uncleanness that has become attached to something that was originally clean. In other words, there is no possibility to remove innate and non-acquired uncleanness by cooking, boiling, washing, sacrifice, lapse of time, or by anything else. None of these activities, nor any combination of them, will make an unclean animal clean.

This demonstrates that the uncleanness of animals designated unclean/detestable is of a different origin and has a different purpose than cultic or ritual uncleanness. The ritual and cultic uncleanness is acquired by someone or something which was not previously unclean. Thus there is need, by means of some appropriate ritualistic/cultic action, to restore such to the former clean status. The innate or inherent uncleanness, to the contrary, is
permanent and unremovable. It is not in need of a ceremonial cleansing. It is divinely designated unclean for food purposes.

A third observation is in order regarding the non-acquired uncleanness of animals in Leviticus 11. The uncleanness inherent in live animals cannot be transferred to those who come into contact with unclean animals. The non-transferability of the inherent uncleanness indicates that it is of a different nature than ceremonial, ritual, cultic uncleanness. This is different from what was true of certain other ancient cultures among Israelite
neighbors.14 In Israel only the carcass of dead animals, regardless whether clean or unclean, brought about uncleanness by contact. No live animal by itself whether clean or unclean brings impurity to humans.

If the uncleanness of live animals were cultic or ritual in nature, there would be a cultic, ritual transference of uncleanness to persons or things that come into contact with such animals. But this is not the case. Therefore, there is no need for a prescription for the removal of pollution/impurity caused by live unclean animals. In short, the non-transferability of uncleanness from live unclean animals seems to reveal that the uncleanness of animals is of a
different kind than ritual, ceremonial uncleanness, i.e. it is non-cultic and non-ritual.

In view of these distinctions, the following may be concluded:
1) There is a ritual/cultic uncleanness, one that is acquired and is in need of removal by some sort of ritual (with or without time) as is prescribed in ceremonial law.

2) There is to the contrary also a non-ritual, non-cultic uncleanness which is non-acquired. It is innate and inherent to those creatures that are designated unclean/destestable, and it is non-ceremonial in nature and purpose.

3)Inherent uncleanness cannot be removed. It is permanent. There is no action or ritual provided for its removal, because it is different in origin, nature and purpose.

4) The non-ritual, non-cultic uncleanness of a live animal
does not pollute or cause impurity or uncleanness whether cultic or
other. This indicates that it is non-cultic in nature and not part of
ceremonial law.

[HLGStrider]

Actually, Galleo didn't contradict the Bible. He contradicted Ptolmy, the church sponsored (though very much a predecessor of the church) astronomer. I got into this arguement with my writing instructor Professor Tangent (Not his real name).

And he wasn't burned at the stake. Just put under house arrest.

However, I think you misunderstood Thorin. He was saying that moral right doesn't depend on scientific knowledge in most cases. It is wrong to lie not because it is scientifically proven to be wrong but because it is morally wrong.

This could turn into another arguement on moral relativity, but I think we should reserve that for the skeptics thread.

[Dr. Ransom]

Keep in mind though, that the faults of the Roman Catholic Church during the dark ages are not a standard by which to judge an unrealated document... The Bible. My ancestors also were killed by the thousands for what they believed... and that didn't stop until they came to America. (Read up on Menno Simons if you're interested) Heck, almost all of the great founders of science itself were deeply commited Christians.

If it is fair to judge Christianity by the doings of the Roman Catholic Church a thousand years ago, than certainly it is even more reasonable to judge all of Islam for the Attacks on Israel and 9/11 within the last 5 years! I'm sure Beleg would be happy to voice his disgust at the very thought! (And I would agree with him, about 95%)

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Walter
Only recently the Vatican has opened his Inquisition archives for the first time to a few selected (and known as catholic-friendly) journalists, the first reports have already been published, but until today the Catholic church has not clearly distanced itself from the crimes commited by its proponents during inquisition.

Perhaps because the Church never answers for crimes committed "by its proponents". The inquisition is a very touchy issue -- Thorin himself has accused the Church to burn MILLIONS of victims, which is laughable. There were many inquisitions; the Roman Inquisition was established to control and prevent abuse in the very common practice of heretic burnings (which was much more prevalent in the parts of Europe outside Catholic influence, precisely because of the lack of an instituted tribunal).

Torquemada was a member of the Spanish Inquisition -- an arm of the Spanish state, whose abuses were repeatedly condemned by many popes throughout its existence.

Well, I was responding to the "naturally unclean" remark - which, frankly, seems a rather absurd theory when examined in the light of today's scientific knowledge, not to anything about "moral right" vs. scientific knowledge.

The point of clean/unclean is not even moral, as I see it -- it is a matter of obedience to God. If God says you should not do it, then you should not do it. It is common sense if you believe in God (the big hurdle). There is no reason to question God's motives.

It is outside Natural law in my opinion -- it is a commandment of God, that incidentally was revoked (I think) in that vision of the feast. God commands, and he can revoke his commands. We can try to understand it, sure -- our God given reason was made to be used :D. But if we don't understand, it is no reason for us to not do it.

[HLGStrider]

Why do you consider it silly? The idea of not eating something is silly to you, but it wasn't, apparently, silly to God.

I'm sure, if you combed the world, you would find someone who thought every moral law was silly, from lying and adultry to murder and rape. I bet you would find lots of people.

The issue isn't whether we think it is silly or not. What we think is based on our experience, and knowledge you have elsewhere stated to be limited.

So how are we to judge that being ordered not to eat something is silly?

Would it be sillier if it were something that you thought was good to eat and not so silly if it was something unusual to eat?

God in that chapter forbade people to eat vultures. That doesn't seem so silly (unless you want to know why they would consider vultures in the first place as edible).

The only reason pigs being forbidden seems sillier to you is because you probably have eaten pig at one point. For all you know vulture might taste as good. Some people may have a taste for it and prefer it to pig.

So, we are left judging whether or not God, who by the Biblical definition knows everything (and since we are dealing with the Bible we have to use the Biblical definition to judge what he said in it), made silly laws by our own knowledge of sillyness. . .

And what exactly do you mean by silly?
Comical? Flippant? Pointless?

It really isn't that comical.
Well, I don't think God was being flippant or he wouldn't have bothered putting it with things that are obviously not flippant.
And as for pointless, we have to assume that God doesn't have a point which would be like a student on the first day judging an action or rule of the teacher who has been teaching for twenty some years. . .only more ridiculous, as teachers are fallible, and God is not.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Eriol
It is outside Natural law in my opinion -- it is a commandment of God, that incidentally was revoked (I think) in that vision of the feast. God commands, and he can revoke his commands. We can try to understand it, sure -- our God given reason was made to be used :D. But if we don't understand, it is no reason for us to not do it. Ah. You're thinking of Acts 10. Another misunderstood text. Read what Dr.Hesel says about that.
Acts 10-11, however, is frequently invoked as indicating that the
distinction of unclean/clean animals is removed for the Christian. It has been shown that the distinction of "common" (koinós/koinóo) and "unclean" (akáthartos) is of vital importance and that the traditions of Judaism, not of the Old Testament, made the "clean" into something "common" or "defiled" through contact with the "unclean." Thus the "clean" creatures were now made "common" by contact in the sheet with the unclean creatures.

Peter refuses to comply with the command, "Sacrifice and eat" (Acts 10:13). "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything common [koinós] and unclean [akáthartos]" (vs. 14). Evidently Peter did not understand the saying of Jesus in Mark 7:19 in the sense of removing the distinction of clean and unclean animals of the Law. The "unclean" creatures were the ones so declared in the dietary laws of the Pentateuch. The "common" creatures were the ones designated "clean" in the dietary laws. However, in Jewish tradition they had become "common" by contact with the "unclean" ones. The Rabbinic
declaration that the "clean" would become "common" by contact with the "unclean" was in direct opposition to the Old Testament where the "unclean" animals made nothing "common" or "unclean" by contact.

Therefore, the declaration, "What God has cleansed [katharízo], you must not call common [koinós]" (vs. 15, RSV), indicates that "you," Peter, as a man, must not designate something "common" that God has declared to be otherwise. What God has declared clean,103 must not be made into something that is "common" by man.

The whole issue in Acts 10-11 is not the matter of clean/unclean food but the problem of the association with Gentiles. They were not to be considered "unclean" or "common" and thus unworthy of being a member of the worshiping community of God. This unwarranted Rabbinic distinction as applied to human association was shown to be against God's declaration and Peter and other Christians were not bound by such Jewish traditions of associations between Jews and Gentiles.104 Here too the issue is not one of foods to be eaten, but it is a case of social association and fellowship between Jew and Gentile.

[Thorin]

Originally posted by Walter
We know for sure that the bible has not been written by God (the OT not by Moses either), we have a vague knowledge of the various authors involved and their separate opinions/visions of God. We can also be fairly sure that God has not "dictated" the Bible literally (there are too many inherent contradictions).....However it is - according to my own personal interpretation - silly and partly non-sensical to take everything that is written in the bible as - literally - Gods words and/or intentions or - even more so - to take the contents of the bible as the ultimate word in history, knowledge and science...
Nobody has said the Bible was written by God. Through the Holy Spirit's inspiration and by direct communication, God has revealed it to his servants, the prophets and they recorded it. Moses is only credited with writing the Pentateuch (the first 5 books of the OT).

Of course not EVERYTHING is directly from God. Of course cultural aspects and limited cosmology are recorded. However, these are not direct spiritual aspects that can only come from God. The Bible must be taken in its context according to the time period and culture of those writing it.

For example, the cosmology of the Hebrews was quite primitive. They believed that the earth was covered with a vast, solid expanse of which was surrounded by water, as in the case of creation, "And God divided the waters from the waters"; and when it rained for the Flood "And the windows of heaven were opened" Within this expanse, the stars, moon and clouds were all contained. Look up at the sky and that is what it seems to look like. Today the moon was partially showing and it was so large that it looked like it was within our atmosphere just by simple illusion. How could you not come to this conclusion when you don't know better? Though they didn't have a telescope to see what we now can see, it doesn't change the meaning they were trying to portray: That God is an awesome God who made the universe.

So because they didn't describe quasars and black holes and endless galaxies, the Bible should be discarded as the word of God? Obviously there has to be some human element to it. God uses the human element all the time. When I see "Women should wear robes and not pants" I interpret that as cultural. When I see "The Lord says, thou shalt not kill", that is direct from God. You must be able to discern what is spiritual and what is cultural

[Eriol]

We have Jesus' word that His Church would be protected by the Holy Spirit; and we know that the Bible was compiled (both Old and New Testament) by that Church. So, if you believe that Jesus is the Son of God, that is your evidence.

This is not as circular as it seems; the gospels were written before many other items in the New Testament, and they are the evidence of Jesus' divinity; they were written before there was anything as a "Bible", and even non-Christian scholars agree to their authenticity.

[HLGStrider]

I wasn't upset. I was just that your idea of silly was really abstract, and you still haven't explained why you consider it silly.

As I said, we are arguing the Bible and the Bible states itself to be the word of God. Therefore, if we are not argueing whether it is the word of God or not (which would be another arguement) it seems silly to argue that it is silly. . .

[Sador]

Interesting chat going on here. Here is my 2 cents worth:
Why should it be necessary for Jesus to be the son of God? I think his teachings would hold more weight if people weren't always trying to convince me about supernatural origins and miracles. If he was a normal(extrordinary really) man with a great vision and leadership I would be more inclined to follow. Its all the magic and mumbo jumbo that puts me off. It throws all the real stuff into doubt.
In short; Why can't Jesus be more like Buddha?

[Malbeth]

In short; Why can't Jesus be more like Buddha?

In short, because the eyewitness testimony we have of Jesus is different than the testimony we have of Buddha. You can say you don't trust this testimony, but then you have to doubt all of it, which includes what Jesus taught. The testimony we do have, even disregarding miracles, show Jesus clearly claiming to be God. You can trust him when he says that, you can think he's a loony, or you can dismiss this claim as a fabrication of the early Christian community, but this third option creates problems of its own...

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Malbeth
can say you don't trust this testimony, but then you have to doubt all of it, which includes what Jesus taught.

No you dont, people can add anything they want to the history books so it fits in with them and what they want,. Doesnt mean you have to doubt all history...
What jesus taught is plan to see and makes sence, "miracles" are a lot harder to believe, and unless you are nieve. You generally dont believe them without seeing them with your own eyes...

[Malbeth]

No you dont, people can add anything they want to the history books so it fits in with them and what they want,.

So you think the third hypothesis, the fabrication theory, is right... now tell me, who did the fabrication, when did they do it, how did they do it and why did they do it?

[Celebthôl]

Your telling me that you believe all that is written about Jesus?!

Who would you think changed them?

My guess who could have...the very people that killed him perhaps....

[Malbeth]

Your telling me that you believe all that is written about Jesus?!

No, not all... just the eyewitness testimony... I don't believe he went to India for instance, or as a child killed another child who teased him with an act of will.

Who would you think changed them?

My guess who could have...the very people that killed him perhaps....

Who do you mean by these people? The jewish and roman authorities? Why would they say that Jesus performed miracles, was ressurrected from the dead, and claimed to be God? Why did they persecute Christ's disciples, who claimed that Jesud did just that?

Anyway, I don't think to claim that a fabrication happened is enough... you have to prove that it happened. The gospels claim to be eyewitness testimonies of Jesus. If you say they're not, you should prove that whoever wrote them is a liar.

[Celebthôl]

You doubt some of it, so you must doubt all of it, your words not mine...

I will believe that he performed miracles when you can proove it...

[BranMuffin]

You can't prove a miracle just as no one can prove creation. That relies on eyewitness accounts and the validity of those who saw it. If you do not trust who saw it then don't believe the thousands of people tha Jesus performed miracles in front of. It relies on faith and trust in those who recorded the events and things they saw.
Jesus Christ was not just another good teacher. Where others said come look at my teachings, Jesus said take up your cross and FOLLOW me. Where some said the way is through goodness and obeying the law and teachings I showed, Jesus said I am the Way the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through me. He showed many times over his divinity. If you dismiss the Bible as another "good book" that is another whole story.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by BranMuffin
You can't prove a miracle just as no one can prove creation. That relies on eyewitness accounts and the validity of those who saw it. If you do not trust who saw it then don't believe the thousands of people tha Jesus performed miracles in front of. It relies on faith and trust in those who recorded the events and things they saw.
Jesus Christ was not just another good teacher. Where others said come look at my teachings, Jesus said take up your cross and FOLLOW me. Where some said the way is through goodness and obeying the law and teachings I showed, Jesus said I am the Way the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father except through me. He showed many times over his divinity. If you dismiss the Bible as another "good book" that is another whole story.

You are asking me to believe a story that was written some 2000 years ago and trust the authors, that is a large request, and i have nothing to proove to me that it is true. I have faith, just not in humankind and what it wrote 2 millenia ago
IMO the bible is just a story book, nothing more. . .or at least, very loosly based on true events.

[BranMuffin]

Do you believe in the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates(pronounced So Krates). Well the Bible has been historically proven to be more reliable than all of these. To have credability you must have an old source of the same writing. All the philosophers writings have a huge gap from when they wrote it to the oldest know copy we have today and have very few of them. The Bible's(New Testament) gap is only a couple decades and we have a couple thousand plus copies of it. You say the credability is questionable? I do not think so. They believed what they say and wrote about it. Why would 100+ people make up stories about one man? To fool use? No, they didn't make them up they wrote what the saw so that we may believe.

[Celebthôl]

I dont know the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates...

I agree with Walter on his point.

[Malbeth]

This, btw., is just another reason why I don't believe in the bible as - literally - God's word. I cannot understand why and omniscient omnipotent benevolent God, would only save those 33% (~2.000 mio) of the worlds population who believe in Christianity...

This is referring to Jesus' claim to be the way, the truth and the life. You don't have to think of the bible as God's word to accept that Jesus indeed has said that... you just have to accept the eyewitness testimony... why do you doubt it? Tell me the historical criteria (with no metaphysical assumptions) for doubting this testimony that does not impeach all ancient history... you'll be hard-pressed to do it I think... I was.

By the way, this specific claim does not mean that all Christians will go to Hell; it means that whoever is saved, is saved through Christ, whether he believes in Him or not.

[Sador]

Eye witness testimony is never reliable as any lawyer will tell you.
Extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof. I will not believe stories of miracles just because the witness believes it. I will keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.
What kind of God offers salvation only to those who ask for it, not those who deserve it. The saintly *insert religion of choice here* is condemned to eternal torment because he never heard of Jesus. How can anyone believe in a god of love who would send the majority of his children to hell?
Personally I think the miracles were added later as propaganda to recruit followers to the early church. A miracle working god was more attractive than an ordinary man who tried to teach people love each other.

[Malbeth]

Eye witness testimony is never reliable as any lawyer will tell you.
Extrordinary claims require extrordinary proof. I will not believe stories of miracles just because the witness believes it. I will keep an open mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.

My brains seem to be working just fine, thank you :) do you mean that you will only believe in miracles if you see one yourself? Why just miracles? Why not disbelieve the existence of Plato or Socrates? All historical documents are, in the last analysis, eyewitness accounts (at best... many times it is just government propaganda)... people write about what they saw... if eyewitness account are not reliable, neither is history. Of course, if there is any other evidence that disproves the eyewitness account, then you may disregard it... but certainly not before. Is there such evidence?

What kind of God offers salvation only to those who ask for it, not those who deserve it. The saintly *insert religion of choice here* is condemned to eternal torment because he never heard of Jesus. How can anyone believe in a god of love who would send the majority of his children to hell?

I don't know how... I certainly do not believe in this God... I do not believe the majority of mankind will go to Hell or vice-versa, I have no knowledge at all regarding this. God did not give such knowledge to us, and when the apostles asked Jesus if many are saved Jesus just said "strive to enter" meaning "This knowledge is none of your business... do your best to be saved and to save as many as you can". Certainly no one is condemned to eternal torment because he never heard of Jesus. Jesus is the Logos, the light that enlightens every man. If someone never heard of Jesus but nevertheless loved the Logos he can be saved just as any Christian. Also, the great saints are the first to admit that they're great sinners... they recognize that, in justice alone, God does not have to save him; but thankfully God is Love (a specifically Christian idea, related to the Trinity) and Love goes beyond justice.

Personally I think the miracles were added later as propaganda to recruit followers to the early church. A miracle working god was more attractive than an ordinary man who tried to teach people love each other.

Later when exactly? When Christians were being persecuted and martyred for preaching that these miracles happened, and that they knew a man who claimed to be God? Christianity was being strongly persecuted up to 313 A.D., and certainly this "fraud" had been going on long before... why did people tell a lie that had, as its only result, their persecution, torture and death? Many times all they had to do to be set free was to admit this "lie". Why didn't they? I think you should answer all these questions before claiming "propaganda". I think if you really have an open mind, you'll try to answer them.

Also, if Jesus was an ordinary man who taught people to love each other, why did so many hate him and wanted to kill him? No, Jesus was killed for blasphemy, and if he was indeed just a man the jewish authorities were right to kill him (according to the Law), since he had claimed to be God (the ultimate blasphemy to jewish ears, and incidentally, specially hard to be believed by Jews... why did the apostles (jews all) believe him?).

[Sador]

If I see a miracle I will believe it. There may or may not have been individuals named Plato and Socrates, all I have to go on is the existence of books. Doesn't concern me if they were named Fred and Dave, the philosophy exists.
Surely the onus of proof rests with those making claims of miracles. Its not my responsibility to disprove claims of supernatural occurrences, it is up to those who claim such things to offer proof. No such proof exists because things like that don't happen in the real world.
I'm glad to hear that not every christian is so keen to condem non-christians to hell because they don't know Jesus.
As for when people started inventing the miracles, ever heard of chinese whispers? Stories will grow in the telling. I'll concede that maybe people say these things in good faith, but that does not make them true.
I can't tell you why those martyrs died rather than renounce their faith, but again that is no proof that what they believed was true. There are people today who will strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up in the name of faith, are you going to argue that doing that prooves that what they believe is true?
Perhaps I am a bit cynical, but people will believe whatever they want, regardless of truth and telling me it must be so because it was written down a long time ago by sincere witnesses is like saying that Santa Claus must exist, because you got a christmas present.

[HLGStrider]

Perhaps I am a bit cynical, but people will believe whatever they want, regardless of truth

You have. You've chosen to believe it is not true. We have, we have chosen to believe it is true.

Therefore these statements have no wait and all that should be done now is to put out our logical arguements one way or the other.

We know that the Bible is a very old book and most of the copies that are circulated today are almost to the letter what was circulated back then (though translated into English), so we can date that the Bible we used now was used as close as fifty years after Christ's death.



You doubt some of it, so you must doubt all of it, your words not mine...

Thol, the things he was quoting are not in the Bible. They are fables that have arose. . .sort of like the story of the Fouth Wiseman and a few other things.

I don't see why I should listen to Jesus if he was just a moral teacher anyway, anymore than I should listen to Thol, who I don't listen to.

[Malbeth]

It's getting very late here in Brazil, so I'll just comment on this for now:

Its not my responsibility to disprove claims of supernatural occurrences, it is up to those who claim such things to offer proof. No such proof exists because things like that don't happen in the real world.

Does this sound a bit circular to anyone? I know that all eyewitnesses accounts regarding miracles are false because miracles do not occur in the real world. And I know miracles do not occur in the real world because there is no reliable proof o f them. The proofs are not reliable because they claim miracles happened and we know miracles do not happen because there is no reliable evidence of a miracle ever occur in the real world... and so on...

Seriously, how can you be sure that miracles do not happen? What is it that makes the occurrence of miracles impossible? You said it was my responisiblity to prove the miracles ocurred... what proof would be acceptable?

I can't tell you why those martyrs died rather than renounce their faith, but again that is no proof that what they believed was true. There are people today who will strap explosives to themselves and blow themselves up in the name of faith, are you going to argue that doing that prooves that what they believe is true?

Are you telling me you don't see the difference between "I believe that there is only one God, Allah, and Muhammad is His prophet" and "One man I knew claimed to be God, performed many miracles to prove it, and even ressurrected from the dead!" ? The suicide terrorist, ignoring the moral problem here, is in the same position I would be if someone tried to kill me for my faith. I accept what these eyewitness tell me about Jesus, and accept His claims, and would die for my faith... but I can't be absolutely sure... the early martyrs, like St. Peter and St. Paul, had a lot more certainty, and therefore their martyrdom (martyr means "witness" by the way) is a far greater proof of the claims of Christianity than my martyrdom would be.

telling me it must be so because it was written down a long time ago by sincere witnesses is like saying that Santa Claus must exist, because you got a christmas present.

No it's more like the following: suppose believing in Santa Claus merited a death-by-torture penalty. And you met a whole bunch of people who claimed to have been to the North Pole and talked with Santa and Santa told them that whoever believed in him would be given eternal life. Naturally, they're are all put to death-by-torture. None of them says it was a prank and all of them joyfully sing as they're being tortured, and some even tell jokes like "You can turn me now; I'm not quite well done on my other side" while being roasted alive. You can still disbelieve and say that they're a bunch of loonies, but I would tend to trust their testimony...

[Sador]

Asserting that the onus of proof is on those who make extrordinary claims is not a circular argument. The absence of any such proof is just what I have observed.
I can be as sure as I am of anything that miracles do not occur, because I believe in the consistency of reality. Yes this is an act of faith. It may very well be that I am wrong and that the laws of physics are subject to periodic suspension by some supernatural being. Maybe my toys wake while I'm asleep and have picnics in my clothes basket, but it doesn't seem likely.
Those tortured early christians certainly had remarkable faith, but I'll say it again; Just because they believed doesn't make it true.
Some one said that there would be no reason to follow Jesus if he wasn't God incarnate. I see it the other way. If Jesus was a normal mortal "son of man" then his vision and commitment is all the more great for its rarity. If he is the son of God then he couldn't have acted in any other way.
Anyway people have argued this back and forth for millennia and I don't expect we will solve it here. I do enjoy this kind of debate. I hope I haven't offended anyone. Gotta go. Seeyas.

[Malbeth]

Sador:

Your post will have to be answered with a long reply... and I'm travelling today :( , but I'll be back on Monday... I'll address it then, sorry... I will only say that you have not offended me at all... how could you offend me by having the same doubts I had a few years ago?

Walter:
Thanks for your welcome... you can say my brother and I share an agenda, but I simply think that we share an worldview which we think we have good reason for believing it... as for my ability to do a good job defending his stance...I doubt it very much to speak the truth, since Eriol is smarter than me...

Basically the same goes when I am told about some people who claim to have eyewitnessed a "re-surrection". That this was what actually happened is not what comes to my mind first.


It's not what comes to my mind first either... I just don't discard it out of hand... I don't know enough about the universe to say a ressurrection cannot happen; therefore if all other explanations have deep flaws, I can accept the ressurection; what is your explanation?

But let's disregard miracles for an instant and concentrate on this:
However I have no problem in believing that there was a person (let's call him Jesus for convenience's sake) who claimed that he is the way, the truth and whatever else. Heck there are a thousand preachers of whatever sorts travelling all around the world and claiming such things.

Do you think Jesus made this claim? Sure a lot of loonies have made this claim, but if you believe Jesus made this claim and you think he was not telling the truth, he's a loonie. A loonie can't be a great moral teacher, a loonie doesn't have the insight about other people that Jesus had.

This seems to be some family habit that always the others have to prove their point of view, whereas the own standpoint is considered to be some absolute truth...

But that is not the way it goes. You are entitled to belíeve what you wish to believe, but so am I. In some cases either one of us may be wrong, in others we both or none of us. You may share your point of view here, but so may I. What I do not understand is why some people here always seem to think they are in possession of some higher or absolute truth and that they feel such a deep need to convince anybody else about that...

No, our "family habit" is to let each find the truth for themselves. but try to help other people to see the truths we've found... in this matter, for instance, our sister was the only one to have remained a Christian after adolescence but never could convince us of Christianity's truth; I "re-converted" about 3 years ago, just after I turned 20, and began to buy a lot of apologetics books one year after that, being fascinated by them; Eriol and I read a lot, and he began to read the books I bought, and bought some other philosophical books as well, and I think (we never talked about it) that these books were important to his "re-conversion". We rarely argued about it before his conversion, if you can believe that:)

Now, of course we're entitled to believe whatever we want to and to share our points of view... I certainly do not wish to censor you:) but if I think you're wrong I will say so and why, and I hope you'll do the same to me, since I hope all of us want to believe the truth; if I think I have good reason for believing Christianity is true shouldn't I talk about it?

By the way, I'm not convinced of possessing a larger, absolute truth; what I believe is true I will believe only until someone proves to me that the arguments for what I believe are false... but until someone does that, since I think this is a very important truth, I'll tell people about it, and yes, even try to convince them, though I realize that nothing I can do is, in the end, worthwhile; it is a matter of will, though guided by reason.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the way, this specific claim does not mean that all Christians will go to Hell; it means that whoever is saved, is saved through Christ, whether he believes in Him or not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now with that first sentence you have lost me...

Sorry, I meant non-Christians....

[HLGStrider]

It is true, Walter, that you can learn a lot about an author by reading their novel, an artist by looking at their painting, or a musician by listening to their music. . .but you could also read their biography, listen to the accounts of people who have talked with them, or try to meet him.

Now this exactly is where I see the problem, Malbeth: Christianity has a bad habit of trying to "convince" all those who don't share their views. And where does that lead to? Proselytization, missionarism, crusades, inquisition.

So you think that even if you truly believe something is true you shouldn't try to convince other people of it. . .just let them be wrong.

Even if you can't prove it you still want to convince. There are a lot of things that are like this. This is because ideas and beliefs have consequences, and you want people to know the truth. You want people to find the treasure you have found.

And as long as you don't start torturing people you have a right to do this. Let all ideas be argued and heard and I believe truth will out.

[Walter]

Well, Elgee, but you - and many other Christians - are constantly presuming that you - the Christians - are right and the others wrong. What if they are right and you wrong? Or we all are right or we all are wrong?

What is it that makes Christianity so superior?

The Fair of Religions

My friend and I went to a fair. Not a trade fair, a religious fair. But the competition was as determined, the advertising as loud.
At the Jewish stand we got folders that said God is all-merciful and the Jews are his Chosen People.

At the Islamic stand we learned, God is full of mercy and Mohammed his only prophet. Salvation can be achieved by listening to the only prophet of God.

At the Christian stand we detected that God is love and that there is no salvation outside the Christian church. Only a member of the church does not risk eternal condemnation.

As we were leaving I asked my friend: "Now, what do you think of God?"

He answered: "Well he must be narrow-minded, fanatic and cruel."

Home again I asked God: "What do you make of this all? Don't you realize that you have been brought into discredit for centuries?"

God said: "I did not organize this fair. I would have been embarrassed to even go there..."

Anthony de Mello; translation: ChW

[Sador]

Walter I love that quote.
I also agree that the only miracle is the existence of the universe itself. But I don't think I could ascribe that miracle to a conscious being.

[Malbeth]

Disclaimer: this post is addressed mainly to Walter. I'm still travelling, and there's a lot more "meat" in Sador's post a little way back that I'll still save it for later. Sador does not pretend to be impartial, he just argues what he thinks is true, and deserve to be answered in the same way... so, please Sador, don't be offended by my rhetoric in this post, I can be a lot nicer than that...

So, about Walter's quote from Anthony Mello: it's a nice quote, sure... no logic, no argument, just saying all ( monotheistic, revealed) religions are intolerant... very tolerant indeed:rolleyes:

If it's wrong to tell what you think the truth is, what are you doing here? Aren't you telling us that there is no such a thing as a miracle but existence itself? Don't you think that's true?

What if they are right and you wrong?
Than I hope they show me so...
Or we all are right or we all are wrong?
We can't all be right for A and non-A can't be right at the same time... if we are all wrong, I hope that you show me I'm wrong and that I show you you are wrong. That´s why we discuss these thing, isn't it? To share our thoughts trying to find truth? Or is it just a pointless exercise?

What is it that makes Christianity so superior?

The arguments for Christianity convinced me, ... that's what makes it superior to my eyes... if the arguments are refuted, I will admit I'm wrong.

Now my stance on this is: God created the universe and its laws. Nature is God's creation and by learning about nature I am learning about God. When I sometimes sit idly in the afternoon sun and watch the clouds slowly passing by, listen to the gentle breeze of the wind and see how it makes the leaves sway, watch the bees and the butterflies flying from flower to flower gathering nectar, and if my heart and my mind is open I feel afterwards as if I have - in such little time as an hour or so - already learned more about God's greatness than all philosophy books or the bible are able to tell me. Frankly I don't need to see someone walking on water to recognize a miracle, nature itself in all its aspects is the greatest miracle of all and - trying - to understand nature is trying to understand God. IMO trying to understand God's greatness with our petty brains doesn't bring us any further, but trying to understand God's greatness with our hearts and minds will.

Although this won't tell me one thing: That God is Catholic or Christian!

Yes, nature is, in a way a miracle, we all agree with that. Does this mean that miracles in the ordinary sense do not happen?

Then you say that looking at nature teaches you more about God than any book, including the Bible, ever will... this just assumes that you are the be-all of human wisdom, and that no one has anything to teach you... a very humble attitude, to be sure...

But in the end of your post, you let the cat out of the bag... you don't want to learn from what other people have to tell you (through books) because that might tell you, not that God is Catholic or a Christian (He isn't... by the very definition of religion, God can't have any) but that this religion is the one by which God has told us more truths about Himself; and that would sure be a lot of trouble, wouldn't it? It is for me, I admit...

Now this exactly is where I see the problem, Malbeth: Christianity has a bad habit of trying to "convince" all those who don't share their views. And where does that lead to? Proselytization, missionarism, crusades, inquisition.

Well... if you want to argue the evils Christianity has led to... what about the evils the hatred of Christianity has led to? There have been many millions more Christians killed by non-christians for religious reasons than vice-versa... but that's probably not polite to point out...

[Walter]

Sador,

Anthony de Mello was IMO a rather wise guy, he has been able to reconcile the Christian religion with eastern philosophy, something I have found rather appealing.

As for the conscious being: I don't think that God can be considered a conscious being in the image we have of conscious beings like us human conscious beings, I truly believe that our brains are unable to perceive or describe God per se, to me it wouldn't make much difference whether we called it God, or the "basic principle", for we "understand" neither...

---

Malbeth,

now slow down a bit, will you?

Indeed I do not like "tolerance", for it is the position - or attitude - of the strong towards the weak, I would prefer "understanding". But while I think I understand this attitude of supremacy I do not approve of it.

Luckily enough - for Christianity - not all Christians are so intolerant and narrow-minded as some, it was not Christianity as such, which is responsible for the countless crimes (incl. inquisition and crusades) that happened in the name of Christianity, but certain Christians, individuals, who show neither understanding nor tolerance for others point of view...

Malbeth, I do not want to argue this with you, your post above already gives a taste where that might lead to...

[Sador]

There are several books by Australian scientist Paul Davies which might interest you Walter. "The Mind Of God" is one of them. He actually won a religious prize(the Templeton)not something shared by many Astronomers.
He attempts to reconcile religion with science. He argues that life and intelligence are emergent properties of the "laws of physics".
He goes on to suggest that God is in the laws that govern physical behaviour.
He doesn't believe in an interventionist God. If I understand your position neither do you.

[Malbeth]

...You're free to not argue with me of course... but you probably think that you've been polite and impartial on this thread and I replied with undue strength.

So, for the record, let's just see what you've claimed in this thread alone (if I bring in the thread from the discussion you had with Eriol it will be cowardice)

Well, Elgee, but you - and many other Christians - are constantly presuming that you - the Christians - are right and the others wrong.

Here, you blame Christians for an universal attitude (or at least an attitude you yourself have... don't you think you're right and we're wrong?).

Now this exactly is where I see the problem, Malbeth: Christianity has a bad habit of trying to "convince" all those who don't share their views. And where does that lead to? Proselytization, missionarism, crusades, inquisition.

Now you say that this trying to convince others of Christianity has led to unspeakable evils... perhaps (even though in my opinion only the last two can be even considered to be evil), but you're also trying to convince us... or at least I hope so, for otherwise you're just bashing (not refuting, mind you... just insinuations) our beliefs for no reason at all...

This seems to be some family habit that always the others have to prove their point of view, whereas the own standpoint is considered to be some absolute truth...

Family habit? Welcome to my family, Walter... weren't you asking for proofs about miracles?

What I do not understand is why some people here always seem to think they are in possession of some higher or absolute truth and that they feel such a deep need to convince anybody else about that...

Perhaps because the name of the thread is "Did the Bible actually say that?" So, to me this is a thread to argue about the veracity of the Bible, not a thread to bring in the Crusades and Inquisition in an attempt to refute Christianity.

[HLGStrider]

What if they are right and you wrong? Or we all are right or we all are wrong?

As Mal said they both can't be right. If we're all wrong then we can have fun just debating.

I believe truth will out. I believe that it is naturally stronger and absolute and will eventually win as many people to its belief system as possible. I believe that it uses tools to do this and one of those tools are people arguing on its behalf. What we are left to do is decide which is truth by our common sense, our logic, our ability to think, and occasionally instincts.



he has been able to reconcile the Christian religion with eastern philosophy, something I have found rather appealing.

Why?

Let's say you have two friends standing at an intersection argueing which way to turn, left or right. This is saying that because one says left and the other says right the answer is to go straight.

Now the answer may be to go straight, as it may be to go left or right,but it isn't because one said left and the other said right. If anything it is in spite of it.

And, yes, I do not believe in a omniscient omnipotent God who constantly needs to intervene in order that things in his creation go as he intended. I think he did it right the first time....

This is based on two assumptions
A. That time exists to God (I believe it is a creation He exists outside of)
B. That creation is finished and not an ongoing project. That He decided the world was done with at some point and left it alone instead of cultivating it like a garden or leading it towards the finish like a play.

[Walter]

Originally posted by HLGStrider
Let's say you have two friends standing at an intersection argueing which way to turn, left or right. This is saying that because one says left and the other says right the answer is to go straight.What if both (or all three) lead to the same destination? Which one is the right one, then? Omnes viae Romam ducunt - all roads lead to Rome - is a mediaeval proverb and I think that maybe not all, but many ways lead to God.

So, if the one path I choose leads me there, can I be sure that I was using the right one, if other paths would have brought me there as well? And to decide which one is shortest or easiest to walk upon, may not always be clear at the crossroad, one needed to have taken them all to finally decide...

This is based on two assumptions
A. That time exists to God (I believe it is a creation He exists outside of)
B. That creation is finished and not an ongoing project. That He decided the world was done with at some point and left it alone instead of cultivating it like a garden or leading it towards the finish like a play. [/B]IMO creation was a singular event, but anyway, this is an interesting comparison: God - the gardener wants some plants to grow, others - that look different or less pleasing to his eye - won't be watered or will be torn out of the ground... Interesting thoughts indeed, but they look all-too-human to me...

Now why would an omniscient and benevolent God favour part of his creation? Why would such an omniscient and benevolent God be partial? I mean these all are interesting questions to which each of us has to find his/her own answer. Sharing those answers one has found a good thing, but to think that the own answers are more valid than all others, has in the past and will in the future lead to problems. IMO religions needed to learn to understand each other rather than just tolerate each other (to a certain degree).

This all is pre-posing that creation has a "purpose" and a "goal" that is to be reached. If we take away purpose and goal our conclusions will be different.

[Merry]

Sorry to have joined this conversation so late but I must say that I have really enjoyed reading your posts.

I consider myself to be a bible student and I love discussing these matters.

However a lot of you are asking questions about God and his son Jesus and whether all beliefs are acceptable or not etc, when in truth the bible answers all of these. The bible offers a reliable account of the beginning of creation, the rebellion of Satan, the promise of restoration and the coming of Gods kingdom.

Is the bible written by men who may have got it wrong? Not according to 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is inspired of God for teaching, for reproving and setting things straight". The mosaic law may have been cultural but that was only temporary until Jesus came and replaced the now redundant law.

The holy scriptures help make us "fully competent, completely equipped" to carry out the "good work" of teaching people about God's Word (2 Tim 3:17). What though about all those adherents of the churches of Christendom? They have access to the Bible. How could one book help some people to become competent ministers and not help others? The answer lies in our attitude toward the Bible. Sadly many who attend church do not accept the Bible's message "just as it truthfully is, as the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13). Christendom has built up a shameful record in this regard. After spending years studying in theological institutions, are the clergy equipped as teachers of God's Word? Not really, some students begin seminary studies as believers in the bible but graduate as skeptics. That's why true Christians follow the example of Jesus.

As for different paths?! God is a jealous God, jealous in a positive way over his sovereignty and his name and he has clear instructions about how he should be worshipped, again this is clear in the Bible.

Sorry if this has been here and there but please feel free to comment.

:)

[Malbeth]

Since you asked me not to argue with you, I won't, but for the record... my post just before the one that annoyed you had a lot of questions... instead of addressing them, you bashed the attitude Christians have of talking about Christianity... so we were not arguing before, since you refused to answer my questions...

[Sador]

Merry I don't think I can accept the bit about the bible being the word of god just because it says it is.
I see sad people in the street who talk to God all the time, they must be talking to the real God, because God wouldn't lie to them.
I'm being a bit flippant I know. Sorry.

[HLGStrider]

So, if the one path I choose leads me there, can I be sure that I was using the right one, if other paths would have brought me there as well?

Personally, I have a map, and all that remains is to debate whether tha map is accurate or not. Which was the original intent of this thread.

Each religion provides a map or directions to follow. The question is which is accurate.

There are belief systems that say all end up in the same place. That is one map, a map where all the roads are lines which eventually lead to the same place. This map disagrees with the other maps, and therefore it can be held up and examined to the best of our knowledge and logic.

That's what the point is.

As I said, truth will out, and I believe that there are pointers that will make the true map findable for anyone who searches.

[Beorn]

Now that I've cleaned this up, lets try some peaceful discussion.

[Malbeth]

I'd like to apologize for all posters in this thread for my part in this late fiasco... I hope nothing like that happens again.

[Malbeth]

The absence of any such proof is just what I have observed.

I know you don't mean by that that you have examined all the truth claims of miracles in an individual basis and saw that they were false.

So, you have what I called before "metaphysical assumptions" that you bring into your historical inquiry... and that's all right, of course, everybody does that... so, before we can make our historical inquiries we should examine our metaphysical assumptions.

Let's begin by definining miracles; a possible definition could be: "A miracle is a striking and religiously significant intervention of God in the system of natural causes." (Peter Kreeft)

Do you agree with this definition? It has two relevant factors, God and the system of natural causes.

If you do and you believe miracles do not happen, it can be for many reasons; The first three are from the God-side, the others are from the Nature-side of the equation.
1- You believe God does not exist (and therefore cannot make any interventions)
2- God exists but is not all-powerful (and therefore does not have the power necessary to work miracles)
3- God exists, is all-powerful but considers it unfitting of His dignity to work miracles.
4-Nature's manner of being is such that She rejects miracles.
5- The laws of nature are like the laws of non-contradiction, and a miracle violates them.
6- God made nature, and therefore it is an affront to His glory to imply that He should have to "patch things up" by miracles.

What is(are) your reason(s)? Is there any other that I haven't listed? (it would be a great deal of trouble to refute all of them "in the void" that's why I prefer it if you state your reasons).

[Thorin]

As interesting as it is to see Walter, LG, and Malbeth hammer it out on this thread, Merry's post is back to the whole point of this thread....I doubt it will stay on topic though.Originally posted by Merry
Is the bible written by men who may have got it wrong? Not according to 2 Tim 3:16 "All scripture is inspired of God for teaching, for reproving and setting things straight". The mosaic law may have been cultural but that was only temporary until Jesus came and replaced the now redundant law.
The problem with some adherents to Christianity (most Protestants, that is) is the lack of discernment as to what the Mosaic law entailed. What was part of the Mosaic and Universal (moral) law? Which OT beliefs are still binding for the Christians and which were done away with at the cross? We must be careful when we read Paul's statements about the law. Too many have thrown out the baby with the bath water and made invalid many important things because of the lack of understanding of cultural context in which Paul said the many things he did in his epistles concerning the law.

Most of the time, Paul was talking about the way the law was kept, not whether it was valid or not. Too many have ignored this, but many are coming to realise that the law is valid today in many aspects that were currently ignored.

[Elendil3119]

Here is a little food for thought concerning the validity of the Scriptures.

Charles Haddon Spurgeorn, from a sermon entitled 'The Bible':
I might tell you, if I pleased, that the grandeur of the style is above that of any mortal writing, and that all the poets who have ever existed could not, with all their works united, give us such sublime poetry and such mighty language as is to be found in the Scriptures. I might insist upon it, that the subjects of which it treates are beyond the human intellect; that man could never have invented the grand doctrines of a Trinity in the Godhead; man could not have told us anything of the creation of the universe; he could never have been the uathro of the majestic idea of providencem -- that all things are ordered according to the will of one great Supreme Being, and work together for good. I might enlarge ujpon its honesty, since it tells the faults of its writers; its unity, since it never belies itself; its master simplicity, that he who runs may read it; and I might mention a hundred more things, which would all prove, to a demonstration, that the book is of God. But I come not here to prove it.....

[Sador]

Originally posted by Malbeth
Let's begin by definining miracles; a possible definition could be: "A miracle is a striking and religiously significant intervention of God in the system of natural causes." (Peter Kreeft)

Do you agree with this definition? It has two relevant factors, God and the system of natural causes.

If you do and you believe miracles do not happen, it can be for many reasons; The first three are from the God-side, the others are from the Nature-side of the equation.
1- You believe God does not exist (and therefore cannot make any interventions)
2- God exists but is not all-powerful (and therefore does not have the power necessary to work miracles)
3- God exists, is all-powerful but considers it unfitting of His dignity to work miracles.
4-Nature's manner of being is such that She rejects miracles.
5- The laws of nature are like the laws of non-contradiction, and a miracle violates them.
6- God made nature, and therefore it is an affront to His glory to imply that He should have to "patch things up" by miracles.



I believe in occams razor. All of nature, I believe, can be explained without the need for a supreme being. Why include one?
I think you underestimate people if you think they couldn't have invented it.
Sorry no time to stick around today, so it was brief.

[HLGStrider]

Why would they have invented it?

When I look over religions I see three sorts of deities. (disreguarding atheism or agnosticism).

Human/Deities, the Gods of Olympus. They are powerful but fallible humans that had lives not unlike the stars in our tabloids.

Hazy-Power-Non-Personalities. Sort of an idea or a thought more than a perso, a power or force if you will. Hinduism has some of this and some of the above. Buddism is an example.

Or All Knowing Sumpreme being, Judaism, Christianity, Mohamadism. God has power. God has a personality and character traits but maintains perfection.

The first I can understand being invented. They are made to explain things that men couldn't at the time: Lightening bolts, volcanoes, seasons. . .

The Hazy power does deal with those and neither, under most situations, does the All Knowing. The Hazy power is nature but doesn't cause it. The All Knowing creates nature with rules and laws which govern nature and intervenes in special incidents.

The All Knowing does explain the meaning of life. It does explain the complexity of nature. The first I can see the people making up because of a need. The second is just a fact.

[Malbeth]

You have chosen option 1 then;I believe in occams razor.

I'm glad you said "believe", for occam's (a Franciscan monk by the way) razor, while a good principle for science, is not at all something that can be proved. Let's give an example. Suppose someone is sick; a scientist says, after investigating the matter, that this person is sick because he has microorganisms in his body who are making him sick. A witch-doctor says that this person is sick because demons are attacking him. I agree with the scientist, but there's no way to prove the witch-doctor is wrong.

But anyway, I don't think that even if I do accept Occam's razor that means that all nature can be explained without need of a supreme being.

Our ethical sense, as Eriol has been saying in the "skeptical's view of christianity" thread is something that cannot be totally explained by natural causes; but I'll let him argue this point if he wishes, because ultimately it leads to questions about whether evolution could create this ethical sense, and he knows a lot more about evolution than I do.

The point I'm trying to make here is very well put by C S Lewis in his book "Miracles"; but since I can't just tell you "go read the book", I'll do my best to write here Lewis' argument.

If our reason is the result of "natural causes", than it is simply false, and cannot tell us anything about the universe (see that I'm not saying that our reason is false, I don't think it is).

Think it this way: if your thoughts are the result of natural causes, and my thought is a result of natural causes, and we have no say in the matter, they would occur whether they were true or not. As Professor J B S Haldane puts it:[quote]"If my mental processes are determinde wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

So, unless our thoughts are free from the constraints of natural phenomena we are wrong to believe them; I realize I haven't yet shown here that God exists, but I think I have shown that strict naturalism, the belief that all events in nature are interlocked and that nature is the only thing to exist "on its own", independently, is a belief that contradicts itself, for our thoughts, to be true, cannot be totally interlocked with the rest of nature.

[Sador]

Malbeth... I can't see how the conclusion follows from the premise.
Because the functions of my brain are determined by natural laws, then they must be false????How does that work? Makes no sense to me. Sounds like:Because the Earth's orbit of the sun is determined by natural laws, then we must be about to crash into Saturn.
My personality/mind/"soul" is, I believe, entirely the result of the interaction of my body(brain included) with the world around me.
I won't pretend that a person is not more than the sum of his/her parts, but that difference is the result of natural proccesses, not some workshop in the sky.

[Malbeth]

Because the functions of my brain are determined by natural laws, then they must be false????

Not exactly...I expressed myself badly; but if they are the products of natural causes, if they are of the same nature of the earth's orbit, than your thoughts, like the planets' orbit, just are, and they would happen whether they corresponded to reality or not, and so there's no reason to think they are true.
You don't ask of the earth's orbit whether it is true or not. You ask if the account given of it is true. A natural fact just is.
The thought must be free from natural causes, to be determined only by the truth of the perceived object. Insofar as it is determined by natural causes, it is not reasonable to believe it.

Mind you, we are very far away of the Christian God yet; I'm just saying that if it is true that material reality is the only thing around, we cannot know any truth, including the truth that material reality is the only thing around. To perceive truth we need a faculty that is not determined by natural causes alone.

[Sador]

A couple of posts back I said that my view of reality is based on faith. I believe in the consistency(constance?) of reality. I have to have faith that what my senses tell me is reality, is in fact reality.
To believe otherwise is to believe in magic and fairies. Just because my world is perceived through my senses does not disprove the veracity of my perceptions. I may at times be deceived, or mislead myself by misunderstanding what I see, but to then say because I was wrong once that I'm wrong all the time doesn't follow.
How can thought be seperate from natural causes? It happens inside your head. Your head is the size and shape it is from natural causes, its contents are there because of natural causes, you are alive and walking around talking because of natural causes(I assume you eat to stay on your feet). But then you tell me that unless my thought processes are somehow isolated from the real world they are unreliable. I've had fevers when I can tell you I've had some pretty crazy thoughts(the real world encroaching and distorting my thoughts).
The mind is a product of nature combined with nurture. There is nothing supernatural about it. We are the product of millions of years of evolution. To say that our social systems(ethics etc) can't be explained in purely evolutionary terms is quite likely correct. But then again explaining the beauty of a bird in flight in terms of aerodynamic equations would be pretty hard to do as well. Albeit possible.

[Eriol]

The problem with your view is not that it is based on the senses; it is that it is based on natural causes only, mind + senses. You ask how can thought be separate from natural causes, and I tell you that this question of yours proves that it is separate. Natural causes could not question themselves -- they would just be issued from the brain in response to stimulus. All of your post is a denial of your theory.

If thought is the result of natural causes only, it can be called a secretion of the brain, just as a spider's web is a secretion from glands. This post of yours is a secretion. And so is mine. You can't decide which view is correct, for they are both secretions from minds. You can't say anything about "consistency with reality", since secretions have no correspondence to anything; in fact your view is that there is no absolute truth. And this is why you are wrong, Sador; not because you were wrong once, when drunk or sleepy or feverish, but because by assuming that thoughts are secretions with no relation to reality, then there can be no certainty behind any conclusion -- including, of course, your own. There is no absolute truth. You have faith that there is no thing to have faith about.

Quite likely, the secretions will be geared to the evolutionary motif: leaving a great number of descendants in the world. So the thoughts will be those who lead us to be fruitful and multiply. But why then do people think at all? Do you really think that pure thought is a great help in reproduction in the world today? Who left more descendants, Aristotle or Alexander?

What is the evolutionary advantage of finding out about evolution? About the mind? About reality? Most animals live quite well without it.

[Sador]

[
Point 1
Can you explain to me what you mean when you say "Natural causes coud not question themselves"?
Since I am the product of natural forces and I am questioning everthing, I can't concede your point.
Point 2
You view everthing in such a linear fashion! Why would my mind work exactly like a spider's bum? Just because they are natural doesn't mean they have to be simple. Even if they were mere secretions why would they have no relationship with anything? Surely they would be related to the state of mind that produced them. My mind is a feed-back process between my body and the world, mediated by experience.

Point 3
Your assumptions not mine. I believe in absolute truth, I don't pretend to have proof though.

Point 4
Well I'm not a scientist, but I would think intelligence has so far worked pretty well in an evolutionary sense. What is the dominant life form on Earth again? I spose you could argue bacteria, but I'm biased and I'll say its that clever bald ape in the Toyota.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Sador

Point 1
Can you explain to me what you mean when you say "Natural causes coud not question themselves"?
Since I am the product of natural forces and I am questioning everthing, I can't concede your point.

Not quite everything; you are not questioning the sentence "I am the product of natural forces". This is the point being discussed, after all. A definition of "Nature" would be welcome at this point; I suspect you are using the word to relate to "everything that is", you are using the word to describe all that ever is, was, or will be. "Nature" is then a synonym for "Everything", and not a very useful concept :).

I, on the other hand, use "Nature" in a more restricted way; the word itself meant "that which is born", of course, in Latin, but the loose sense in which we usually refer to it is "what is, without outside interference". "Outside interference" can be human; and so we say that the Toyota is not natural, even though every atom there belongs to Everything (by definition -- as I said, it is not a very useful concept). It can also be supernatural, at least in theory, if you don't rule out the possibility beforehand (which is a philosophical -- not empirical, not scientific -- theory in itself and raises problems).

At this point we must note that "outside interference" is really inimical to the idea of Nature as Everything; for nothing can be "outside" Everything. But just as the sentence "this Toyota is not natural" can be easily understood by all, let me emphasize that this is the sense in which I am using "Nature".

If you take my sense of "Nature", you see (I hope) that questioning itself must come from the "outside"; you can't look at "itself" from the inside. You can't see your eyes without a mirror. A mirror is "outside" you.

Point 2
You view everthing in such a linear fashion! Why would my mind work exactly like a spider's bum? Just because they are natural doesn't mean they have to be simple. Even if they were mere secretions why would they have no relationship with anything? Surely they would be related to the state of mind that produced them. My mind is a feed-back process between my body and the world, mediated by experience.

Turning the point around, just because they are complex does not mean that they can break the rules of logic. The one-on-one correspondence between thought and reality is broken if thought is a secretion. In fact, "reality" becomes a meaningless concept if we accept this view. There is no "reality", only perceptions; and all of our statements must be confined to the perceptions. If your mind really is a feed-back process between your body and the world, it has no validity at all as a judge of reality; it could never have developed that concept in the first place.

Point 3
Your assumptions not mine. I believe in absolute truth, I don't pretend to have proof though.

Belief is good enough :). There is no reason, no explanation, for such a belief if your mind is a feedback process between your body and the world; your belief is simply a deception, a trick that evolution played on you to function better. And yet, even after realizing that, you cling to it. Why?

One answer is that your conclusion that this is a deception is deceptive, since it was derived from logic, and logic is deceptive, being a secretion; this way lies madness. But this is the honest way to go -- madness is the way if this is right.

Luckily (for me at least :) ) I think I can prove that there is absolute truth; simply because the negation of that statement would have to be absolutely true if there were no absolute truth, and therefore there would be absolute truth anyway. Of course, I am relying on the laws of logic to conclude that; if we doubt logic we can't function at all. And why would we trust it if it is a secretion?

Point 4
Well I'm not a scientist, but I would think intelligence has so far worked pretty well in an evolutionary sense. What is the dominant life form on Earth again? I spose you could argue bacteria, but I'm biased and I'll say its that clever bald ape in the Toyota.

The point is not the "evolutionary race" (though certainly bacteria are ahead of us in that :D); the point is that evolutionary mechanisms could not account for that. I can explain it further if you wish... but I'm in a hurry now.

[Sador]

OK the nature of consciousness is not really what this thread is supposed to be about, but I don't fully understand why you say that nature alone(I mean physical "laws") can't be responsible for the workings of my brain. I can't see the need for outside influence.
I don't think you will convince me whatever arguments you use.(I'm almost as stubborn as Yaygollum sometimes).:D
So in a belated attempt to get back on track: Is there anywhere in the bible where Jesus refers to himself as the son of God?
I thought he said he was the son of man. That we are his brothers and sisters and that we are all God's children.
He preached against organised religion didn't he? What was the tearing of the veil in the temple all about?
I'm no bible scholar, but can anyone answer these questions?

[Eriol]

I won't be bold enough as to translate the Bible from Portuguese, Sador, but check John 8. Jesus is very clear in this chapter, saying to the Jews that he is more than Abraham, their father, and that "before Abraham was, I AM". Now, these words -- I AM -- are the name of God in Hebrew. The only other place in which they happen in the Bible is when the flaming bush speaks with Moses. So there can't be any doubt about what Jesus was saying.

[HLGStrider]

There is also the use of terms he used to refer to God, I think Abba. . .That was a highly intimate term which would've been almost sacriligious for someone else to use.
Here. . .wait a minute. . .I'll dig some references up. . .

The phrase "Son of Man" is a direct referal to Daniel 7:13-14

"The Son of Man was a divine figure in the Old Testament book of Daniel who would come at the end of the world to judge mankind and rule forever. Thus, the claim to be the Son of Man would be in effect a claim to divinity." (William Lane Craig, quoted in a book by Lee Strobel)



There is also his claim to forgive sins. Jesus said, "Whoever acknowledges me, I will acknowlegdge before my Father in Heaven." . .Not very many humans would make a claim like that. Not many other humans have this power. . .more power than the basic human.

What was the tearing of the veil in the temple all about?

Interesting you should bring this up because he didn't do this directly. It was supernatural occurance caused by his death. The significance was that before this only select people were allowed to approach God (priests, and only very pure priests). Now that was down and anyone could come to God.

In his life time Jesus backed the tithe, which is one of the main things about organized religion. . . Personally, I believe that everything involving humans will eventually become organized.

Like Alexis De Toqueville said of Americans, we are "forever forming societies."

He preached against organised religion didn't he?

He taught against hypocricy. That was his main problem with the priest of his day. He never went back in the past to critisize Aaron or Moses (I don't think). That was organized religion. . .

He also honored the temple in that he clensed it. That was what casting money lenders out of the temple was about. Sometimes the most loving thing you can do, to a person or institution, is to reform it. If he hadn't have cared about organized religion he wouldn't have gone through the trouble of casting them out and calling it his father's house.

[Malbeth]

Complementing what Eriol said about John 8... this claim (before Abraham was, I AM) is the end of a long discussion between Jesus and the Jewish leaders. Those leaders had no doubt at all about what Jesus was claiming here, as can be shown by their immediate action; the discussion ended and they tried to stone him for blasphemy (and, if he was not God, it was a blasphemy; the greatest blaphemy possible).

[HLGStrider]

He actually also used that exact same statement in John (eighth chapter I think) after he walked on the water. Most modern translations have him saying, "Fear not, it is I," but actually, in the original langauge, it is that phrase again, "Fear not, I am."

I think there are a few other references. . .If I were really as motivated as I should be I'd start digging for them. . .

[Sador]

Thanks for that. I only asked because a friend of mine said all that and I wanted to see if he was right.
So by the rules around at the time he did commit some pretty bad crimes. I suppose if some one were to try the same church reforms these days they would probably meet some stiff objections from the powers that be.
So it all rests on whether or not you think he was an inspired lunatic or the son of the supernatural creator of the universe.
I'll stick with thinking the former.

[Malbeth]

So it all rests on whether or not you think he was an inspired lunatic or the son of the supernatural creator of the universe.

Yes, it does indeed rest on that... now all I can do is ask you to read the Gospels... ignore the miracles for now, since you do not believe them. Look at the Gospels as you would look any other book, and try to know their main character. Look at the character of Jesus and see if this character is compatible with having a Divinity Complex. This complex is well documented in psychological studies so you can try to look up its traits too. I think you will see that Jesus, as shown in the Gospels, does not have those traits. You can still say then that Jesus is an ordinary, sane, intelligent and kind man who just happened to think he was God of course, but this would be as unique an event as the Incarnation (and more hard to believe in my opinion... how can someone think: I am God! without becoming a complete lunatic?).

[HLGStrider]

And why would a lunatic develop such a following?

On the other thread, Cel stated that he would've been crucified 2,000 years ago if he said what he said now then (trying to relate himself to Christ who he believes fits into his views of life). I didn't say so at the time, but I seriously think he's wrong. I seriously think anyone who said what Cel said then would've been considered a harmless lunatic, unless they started to in some way threaten the Romans and then they might be a dead harmless lunatic. I don't think Cel could develop a following. For one thing he wouldn't have miracles to back him up.

For another, Jesus had a great sense of love and compassion that was conveyed to everyone about him and gained followers. All he'd have to say was 'follow me' and people followed.

Cel has never had this draw for me, personally. I'm not insulting him, it's just fact.

I think the Jews would've considered him suntouched or something and the Romans would've laughed and occasionally thrown stones, unless he said something to threaten the emperor and someone actually listened, of course, then I think there would've been something going on, but it probably wouldn't have gained a lot of attention.

"Those dang Romans killed that dang lunatic, John."
"Really, Peter? I should've known that would happened."

Jesus was saying things equatable with lunacy, but he didn't get this response.

[Eriol]

Here are some problems with the "lunatic hypothesis"

1) The miracles -- they should not be disregarded lightly, for the people around him did not disrgard them, quite the contrary;
2) Christ's personality traits;
3) Christ's impression on people;
4) Christ's wisdom;
5) The prophecies announcing his coming, in great detail;
6) His message -- never a lunatic had such a message to the world. Compare Christ with other lunatics and you'll see what I'm talking about. Lunatics are boringly predictable, and their "message" is usually the same -- and usually wrong;
7) The "novelty value" of His message; if you study the thought of contemporary philosophers and thinkers you will be shocked by the striking difference (not of degree, but of kind) between Christ's teachings and other people's teachings. If Christ is not God, he is by far the greatest genius who ever walked the earth... lunatics usually don't fit into this description;
8) The empty tomb, and the resurrection.

9) This is really an effect of all that was said above, but it is such a startling effect that it must point to an extraordinary cause -- the expansion of the Church in the first centuries. It is the evidence that all of the above was perceived as real by the persons around him.

You don't get many lunatics who can make such an impact on mankind.