Brad
I'm reading the paper and I just can't escape how trivial our argument is in the scheme of things. You're a nice guy. You seem to believe in the core message of Jesus (Love others...). My quarrel isn't really with people like you. Sure, I think you perpetuate superstition but there are so many other things out there in the world that are far worse than anything you are up to.
Anyway...
Here's the score.
I agree that for all intent and purpose Jesus was really a human being who preached a new form of religion that expanded the notion of a personal relationship with the Jewish God.
I don't need any convincing on that score. Jesus lived.
The real question is: was he really a deity, did his death really wash away the sins of the world, was he resurrected?
As far as I know, the only evidence for his resurrection are the four gospels. There is no extra-biblical evidence. (And I am aghast at your author's bald and unethical attempt to contrive some.)
So, perhaps our next turn is to examine the veracity of the gospels.
As I understand it, of the synoptic gospels, Mark is believed to be the source text for Mathew and Luke (or vice versa, that Mark conflated Mathew and Luke to write Mark). Others believe in the Q document as the second source for Mathew and Luke. What seems clear is that few believe they were written by their namesakes. That there was a lot of copying going on. And, for the 4th, it seems there is quite of bit of disagreement over John -- many believing it was written by the apostle John and many believing it was written around 90-100 by an anonymous non-eye witness.
What this all tells me is that there is far too much controversy over the authorship and credibility of these books (even among Christians) to treat them as evidentiary. I know that when someone seeks to simply copy another work, their aim is not to record the truth but to probably create propaganda.
What strikes me as salient here is that the very foundations of the Christian religion are built on these flimsy scraps of papyrus. Take Sathya Sai Baba for example. Here's a guy who is living today. You or I could hop a plane and go visit him right now. Consider those people who are writing about him at this very moment. Consider the scholars, scientists and debunkers who seek to discredit him (and become believers instead). Consider that even now in this age of information that we can't get a straight answer on whether this guy is really performing miracles, has really raised people from the dead: yet, with all this unfolding today before us, you cling to the belief that those scraps from the gospels are evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. We can't confirm or discredit Sathya Sai Baba but you feel confident that you can attest to the authenticity of the gospels by offering them your life's work.
Could they be evidence? Certainly. But, given everything we know about how believers and fanatics actively distort the truth or are actually blinded by their desire to see what they want, why would you choose to put your faith in something so flimsy?
You find evidence in the gospels? We have much more evidence of that sort in the Book of Mormon but do you really believe the Angel Moroni appeared to Joseph Smith?
Mahatma Gandhi's teacher Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to having witnessed resurrections in his lifetime (as well as performing many miracles himself). Do you believe him? You can probably track down living, corroborating witnesses to these resurrections today. But, instead, you choose to believe in the gospel accounts written 2,000 years ago.
William Branham claimed to raise a boy from the dead. That boy is still alive today. Do you believe this miracle? There is more evidence for it than for the resurrection of Jesus.
David Hogan claims to have personally witnessed 28 resurrections. He is alive today. You can travel and meet him. Do you believe these? Their's is first hand evidence available to you right now.
We can never prove that Jesus was or was not resurrected. You can't prove that I am actually sitting here in Portland tonight as I write this. But if you are going to place your faith in something, if you are going to dedicate your life's work to something, why not choose something that has a little more obvious credibility?
Are you actually afraid to go to hell? Is that what motivates you? You've based your entire life's work on not going to hell and helping others to prevent the same? All based on beliefs that you have poor to no evidence of, and all the while surrounded by massive evidence to the contrary.
Are you actually so joyful at the prospect of an eternity at God's side, and do you actually feel the drive to light that way for others? Is that what motivates you? Yet, you base this belief on so little evidence in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.
You say that science relies on faith just like religion does. Let's assume that is true for a moment. What science has going for it with its "faith" (aka theories) is that they are repeatable, extensible and confirmable. They not provable in the sense you would like. But, we can assume that they are true, that we can take real actions in the real world and confirm their truth. This means that experiments can be performed by people other than the original scientists and yield the same outcomes. Further, theories can lead to or even predict other theories and each can confirm themselves independently. You can build on these. And, yes, sometimes you are building a house of cards and it all comes tumbling down. But then science just starts over.
Brad, maybe it's time for you to start over.
With religion you have one theory: Jesus was resurrected. You have no ability to confirm it. You have no unbiased confirmation of it. You have no clear evidence of it. And everything we know about human nature -- about the human ability to see what we choose, to twist the truth, about fanaticism, about group-think about the behavior of cults, about inattentional blindness... everything calls your scant evidence into question.
So, this leaves me where we began this blog. We can never prove or disprove the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, none of it. In life you must examine the evidence you have access to, you must listen to your heart and then you must decide.
And, based on the evidence at hand, based on my "heart", based on the mutually inconsistent yet passionately held contradictory belief systems out there, I conclude that Christianity is bunk. Jesus was just a man. And that all of religion is a waste of time and a diversion from what really matters.
I can still live an ethical life. I can still love, experience joy and sadness, seek answers to hard questions. I still have a strong moral compass. And I can do all that and more and completely reject Jesus.
Further Reading:
Hey Jeff -
It's interesting that you mentioned David Hogan. I know him personally, stayed at his home in Brownsville Texas, played basketball with him & such.
I met him through 2 people I know well through a small church I attended for 20 years. They went to Mexico to be missionaries and work closely with Hogan.
These men are not liars. It seems that since Mexico has basically a more believing culture, they experience more supernatural manifestations, both through God and demons. Interestingly enough, my friends main opposition in Mexico is the catholic church. They've actually had contracts put on them to have them killed. My friends have had to relocate on many occasions because of it. In God's wisdom however, the Gospel reaches more people this way!
Anyhow, Hogan and crew do these things through the power of the Lord who lives in and works through them, as the gospels attest that they should.
Posted by: passionate | October 16, 2007 at 10:41 AM
Jeff,
You are way smarter than me and you know so much more about Christianity than me. I have never heard of the things you write about.
Before I found God I could also do all the things that you say you can do without Jesus. I could live an ethical life, love others, experience joy and sadness, seek answers to hard questions. I had a strong moral compass. I think we can all do these things because we're created in the image of God.
But there was still something missing without God. I described before how I felt to be missing something without even knowing what I was missing. Its like Trinity whispering in Neo's ear that he's there because of a question, a question, a question. And finally Neo states the question, "What is the Matrix?"
I think my search for God was similar to Neo's search for an answer to the question, "What is the Matrix?" The world we live in is like the Matrix because there remains so many things that are unseen. I had so many questions that I couldn't answer. I knew there was a God. But I didn't know if He was good or if He loved me. I thought He must be mean and vengeful and waiting to crush people if they stepped out of line.
So I spent my whole life running away from God - because I was so scared that He was out to hurt me. I think a lot of people feel that way actually.
But God did finally come to me and say, "Here I am." I'm still learning but I think God is turning out a lot different than I feard He would be. I just can't described how good He really is. You just have to taste and see for yourself. To do this, you just have to give up control and throw yourself at the living God. That's what I did and He caught me.
So now He is healing me so that I can truly live.
Posted by: Linda | October 16, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Jeff you said: "What this all tells me is that there is far too much controversy over the authorship and credibility of these books (even among Christians) to treat them as evidentiary."
To me you are exactly proving the supernatural truth of the gospels - it is so illogical that they should be believable, and yet they have withstood the test of time and are as unified in their message as they ever were. As you described - written by such a diverse authorship, and yet their message is a single one that covers all audiences.
I pray that you will find the peace you are seeking as well as the Glory of our Lord!
JOhan
Posted by: Johan Potgieter | October 17, 2007 at 07:58 PM
Johan
Thanks for your wishes.
Your statement about illogic proving the validity of the gospels is typical of others who believe what you do. But it is hardly a credible explanation. Were it so, then Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Confucianism and other religions would also be proven by your method. They are each widely held beliefs by a significant number of people. Each is illogical. Each has withstood the test of time. And, of course, all are mutually exclusive.
Of the many options for believing illogical, supernatural doctrines which claim to describe the nature of existence you've chosen Christianity. My prayer to you is that you will be enlightened enough to recognize the folly of that belief and will be awakened to a greater reality that is less influenced by fantasy.
Posted by: Account Deleted | October 18, 2007 at 08:34 AM
I agree with Jeff with regards to the 'illogical' argument. I find Greek Mythology illogical - that certainly doesn't make it true.
However, Johan brings up an incredibly important point - and that is the 'diverse authorship and single message' concept. There has NEVER been an issue in Christendom with the central importance of Christ. (There has been arguments that pertained to the "nature" of Christ - but the center of the Faith has always been Jesus.)
2000 years later it may not seem that significant - but if you analyze this in the first 3 centuries this is HUGE. It represents a non natural 'handing off' of power. John the Baptist - with a growing following says "THIS is the one we now must follow." The Apostle Paul starting MANY churches emphasizes to his Churches that "You do not follow PAUL - or APOLLOS (another Church planter) - you follow JESUS."
How easy would it have been for ANY of these individuals to put emphasis and power on themselves - but they didn't. As Johan put it - there is a SINGLE message.
Interstingly enough - even the hundreds of Non Canonized books (the ones that didn't "Make" the Bible) for the most part maintain this message.
I didn't meet Jesus. I don't know anyone that has. The ONLY information I have about Jesus was written thousands of years ago. BUT it is amazing that ALL of these different writers - different educational backgrounds - different professional backgrounds - writing to different audiences - having different agendas (and yes, OF COURSE they had agendas) - maintained a common theme. Jesus IS the Saviour.
Is that Proof?? Of course not. But it's pretty impressive.
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 18, 2007 at 09:06 AM
Humble,
What do you mean by "meet?" Did Paul the Apostle "meet" Jesus? I think he did - but that was already after Jesus had left the world physically. Like Paul, I think many people "meet" Jesus on their own roads to Damascus. Its not that we actually meet Jesus physically. But I do think Jesus does stand at the door and knock. If we open the door - then He "meets" us where we are.
Posted by: Linda | October 18, 2007 at 10:37 AM
You're right - Paul (Saul) didn't PHYSICALLY meet Jesus. It was a blinding light vision.
In terms of do WE meet Jesus - that's one of those Theological issues that can be debated The kind that sometimes bug you. :)
Jesus tells us that he will leave to be with the "Father" but that he's leaving us the "Spirit." This is one of the major sources for the "Trinity" doctrine.
I would argue that OUR experience with God is not with Jesus but with the Spirit. Having said that - if someone tells me that they really DID experience Jesus (Like Paul tells us that he did.) Well, I'm not going to tell them that they didn't. How would I know??
Posted by: Humble Pie | October 18, 2007 at 11:19 AM