If people rose form the dead on a regular basis so that Jesus' resurrection was now "probable" Christians would lose their basis for the rational belief in his diety.
Yes, his resurrection was improbable, improbable to the point of unique. Hence, we have good reason to believe his testimony about himself and those truths we have no means to investigate.
Hi StormTrek. I kind of agree with your first paragraph---but recall, Moses and Lazarus, The widow's son, and the centurian's daughter were also raised from the dead, and that didn't make them God. Even if we could establish that Jesus raised from the dead, I think Christians would have a further demonstration they needed to make--why does the resurrection make Jesus God? The second paragraph is a complete mystery to me :-)
Did Lazarus or the centurion's daughter claim diety?
We're talking about a guy who made claims to place himself in a specific context and then followed through in action.
Jesus was a guy standing in a Jewish nation. A nation looking for God to save them from Roman rule and deliver them from "Babylonian exile". His testimony, the testimony Christians believe, is Jewish through and through. He attached himself to the Jewish God through word and then followed through in action.
Hi StormTrek, so if Lazarus would have claimed to be God, would that have made him God? I agree Jesus should be seen in a very Jewish Context, but I don't see that he accomplished much for the Jews qua Jews or for the Jewish Nation.
Ha. Lazarus didn't claim to be God, but Caesar did.
By the way, you're talking to a Christian, one who thinks he is grafted in; a son of Abraham. One who thinks the gospel is the proclamation that the King has established his Kingdom and returned his people from exile into covenantal fellowship with God forever. In other words, Jesus fulfilled Jewish eschatology. I think Jesus did *that* for Israel.
I don't understand this "claim to be God" business. Anyone can claim to be God. So what?
What impressed Jesus' contemporaries was that he spoke with authority. It was his special spiritual insignt into mysteries that impressed, not his claim to be this or that.
I'm going to do a response :) I should have it up tonight. I am wondering though did you get the impression that I was trying to 'prove' the resurrection?
Is there a better word to describe what you were doing? I think you were claiming that it was possible to give arguments to make believe in the resurrection (a) reasonable, and (b) probable. I agree you can do (a), I disagree you can do (b). I claim you can do neither from naturalistic evidence.
randy- It seems this word 'probable' is where we are getting caught up on. Do you consider the testimony's found in the Bible as being naturalistic evidence? How do you parse out when ones experience and the interpretation of such an experience shifts from naturalistic to being something else?
Hi Jack, sure, what's in the bible is naturalistic evidence. I just don't think that the process of reading the Bible and becoming a believer in Jesus is anything at all like the process of reading a physics textbook and becoming a believer in physics. I think a religious experience can be recognized as such by it having some radically life-transforming power to it. the example which Luke Timothy Johnson gives illustrates the point nicely: (cont)
(cont, to Jack) Suppose a pastor one sunday preaches on the Sermon on the mount. Afterwords, to people come up to the pastor. The first says "ah, your sermon was so wonderful, I put an extra $20 in the offering plate to help our soup kitchen." The second says "wow, your sermon was so great, it convinced me to sell everything I have and give it to the poor" and from then on the person forsakes all worldly gain and lives only for others. (cont)
(cont, to jack) these two had the same "evidence" given to them, but the 2nd person had an experience which went light-years beyond what the first person did. Take your case jack--anybody who is as charasmatic as you are could take a job selling BMW's to rich people and be making $250k a year. If you let "empirical evidence" drive what you were doing you wouldn't have dedicated your life to ministry. But this doesn't mean you are being irrational or unreasonable at all.
You're welcome. Slightly apropos what you were saying in the last portion of your video, I have a video on Calvinism that I'm editing. I hope to get it uploaded some time today.
Well, the crucifixion was a rush-job, due to the holidays, so there is a chance that he wasn't fully dead yet. Keep that in mind, but I don't think it matters, really. The resurrection might have been a last minute addition to the dogma as well.
meow
thepeacecat 3 years ago
Randy,
If people rose form the dead on a regular basis so that Jesus' resurrection was now "probable" Christians would lose their basis for the rational belief in his diety.
Yes, his resurrection was improbable, improbable to the point of unique. Hence, we have good reason to believe his testimony about himself and those truths we have no means to investigate.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Hi StormTrek. I kind of agree with your first paragraph---but recall, Moses and Lazarus, The widow's son, and the centurian's daughter were also raised from the dead, and that didn't make them God. Even if we could establish that Jesus raised from the dead, I think Christians would have a further demonstration they needed to make--why does the resurrection make Jesus God? The second paragraph is a complete mystery to me :-)
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Did Lazarus or the centurion's daughter claim diety?
We're talking about a guy who made claims to place himself in a specific context and then followed through in action.
Jesus was a guy standing in a Jewish nation. A nation looking for God to save them from Roman rule and deliver them from "Babylonian exile". His testimony, the testimony Christians believe, is Jewish through and through. He attached himself to the Jewish God through word and then followed through in action.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Hi StormTrek, so if Lazarus would have claimed to be God, would that have made him God? I agree Jesus should be seen in a very Jewish Context, but I don't see that he accomplished much for the Jews qua Jews or for the Jewish Nation.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Ha. Lazarus didn't claim to be God, but Caesar did.
By the way, you're talking to a Christian, one who thinks he is grafted in; a son of Abraham. One who thinks the gospel is the proclamation that the King has established his Kingdom and returned his people from exile into covenantal fellowship with God forever. In other words, Jesus fulfilled Jewish eschatology. I think Jesus did *that* for Israel.
StormTrek 3 years ago
I don't understand this "claim to be God" business. Anyone can claim to be God. So what?
What impressed Jesus' contemporaries was that he spoke with authority. It was his special spiritual insignt into mysteries that impressed, not his claim to be this or that.
Trollschool 3 years ago
"...he spoke with authority..."
What does that mean? Loud volume?
indignant99 3 years ago
It means that he gave answers that people at the time thought were edifying, and were not the same tripe they were getting from other exegetes.
Socrates did the same thing in the dialogues. You can read them and decide for yoursef if there is anything there which appeals to your spirit.
Trollschool 3 years ago
"Anyone can claim to be God. So what?"
Right. Caesar did.
The difference is that Jesus backed up his claim.
StormTrek 3 years ago
Thanks for the response.
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
come on, jack, you can tell me if I'm completely confused here :-).
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
I'm going to do a response :) I should have it up tonight. I am wondering though did you get the impression that I was trying to 'prove' the resurrection?
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
Is there a better word to describe what you were doing? I think you were claiming that it was possible to give arguments to make believe in the resurrection (a) reasonable, and (b) probable. I agree you can do (a), I disagree you can do (b). I claim you can do neither from naturalistic evidence.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
randy- It seems this word 'probable' is where we are getting caught up on. Do you consider the testimony's found in the Bible as being naturalistic evidence? How do you parse out when ones experience and the interpretation of such an experience shifts from naturalistic to being something else?
TogetherForPeace 3 years ago
Hi Jack, sure, what's in the bible is naturalistic evidence. I just don't think that the process of reading the Bible and becoming a believer in Jesus is anything at all like the process of reading a physics textbook and becoming a believer in physics. I think a religious experience can be recognized as such by it having some radically life-transforming power to it. the example which Luke Timothy Johnson gives illustrates the point nicely: (cont)
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
(cont, to Jack) Suppose a pastor one sunday preaches on the Sermon on the mount. Afterwords, to people come up to the pastor. The first says "ah, your sermon was so wonderful, I put an extra $20 in the offering plate to help our soup kitchen." The second says "wow, your sermon was so great, it convinced me to sell everything I have and give it to the poor" and from then on the person forsakes all worldly gain and lives only for others. (cont)
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
(cont, to jack) these two had the same "evidence" given to them, but the 2nd person had an experience which went light-years beyond what the first person did. Take your case jack--anybody who is as charasmatic as you are could take a job selling BMW's to rich people and be making $250k a year. If you let "empirical evidence" drive what you were doing you wouldn't have dedicated your life to ministry. But this doesn't mean you are being irrational or unreasonable at all.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Jesus is Lord.
3rdWorldCrusader 3 years ago
modern christian are some of the most faithless faithful people on the planet.
windham666 3 years ago
Nice job, Rand-esau.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
;-) thanks Prof.
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
You're welcome. Slightly apropos what you were saying in the last portion of your video, I have a video on Calvinism that I'm editing. I hope to get it uploaded some time today.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Looks like we've got a lot of the same hot-button issues in common....
randyhelzerman 3 years ago
Indeed.
ProfMTH 3 years ago
Well, the crucifixion was a rush-job, due to the holidays, so there is a chance that he wasn't fully dead yet. Keep that in mind, but I don't think it matters, really. The resurrection might have been a last minute addition to the dogma as well.
ruzz3ii 3 years ago