INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

Of course it has, because it allows one to create qualifications for what God is. That is going to be successful. The arguments however have not really actually been challenged until the start of the 19th century and there were plenty of arguments around but threats of being called a heretic pushed them down, I'm sure you know of them.

I do not defend what Catholics did to challengers. However these ideas have been far more effectively challenged long before now as of lately. The Dawkins's and Hitchens are not in the Niche's and Hume's leagues. Intellectual atheism has been replaced by militant atheism these days. Christians have no possibility to define what God's characteristics. We have been stuck with what ignorant men recorded 5000 years ago. Fortunately they were right.

As for your point in the Tower of Babel, again you are relying on commentary yet not what is being said

If you find many independent accepted scholars almost all who have the same interpretation of events and more access to al the evidence and texts than we ever have then it is certainly a factor in my understanding of scripture but what your suggestion easy to resist was the fact God would not have any objection to simple human cooperation and achievement. He was not threatened by it, it was not something he warned against, it was it's intention he objected to.

I got side tracked in the middle of this and ran out of time. I will try and get back to it as soon as I can. Have a good one.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I do not defend what Catholics did to challengers. However these ideas have been far more effectively challenged long before now as of lately. The Dawkins's and Hitchens are not in the Niche's and Hume's leagues. Intellectual atheism has been replaced by militant atheism these days. Christians have no possibility to define what God's characteristics. We have been stuck with what ignorant men recorded 5000 years ago. Fortunately they were right.

If you find many independent accepted scholars almost all who have the same interpretation of events and more access to al the evidence and texts than we ever have then it is certainly a factor in my understanding of scripture but what your suggestion easy to resist was the fact God would not have any objection to simple human cooperation and achievement. He was not threatened by it, it was not something he warned against, it was it's intention he objected to.

I got side tracked in the middle of this and ran out of time. I will try and get back to it as soon as I can. Have a good one.

Of course you have Scholars who have agreed, but that's still a human interpretation, why put into interpretation exactly what God has said?

And I was not talking about atheist. I was talking about those who had different opinions of the nature of God and his relationship with Jesus Christ.

The Dissolution of the Church of Jerusalem left a void that was rapidly filled by the gentile churches of Asia Minor, and not all those churches even agreed.

 

[cottage]

That is perfectly wrong. That is why the Bible is the most scrutinized and cherished book in human history. Books about non-fictional claims with no evidence do not inspire histories greatest minds to study them over and over. That is also why its primary character is the most influential person in human history. It is also why billions even when guaranteeing hardship and persecution became convinced it was true. That is also why many of histories most intelligent, logical, rational, scientific, mathematic, critical, legal, and historical experts have adopted its claims. In fact by far most of the worlds inhabitants by far have believed the evidence made the lack of a God a logical absurdity.

I’m sorry but what is ‘perfectly wrong’ is your assertion that ‘a lack of a “‘God’” is a logical absurdity’. If it were such then the statement There is no God would imply a contradiction, but self-evidently it does not!

I will go against my usual shyness of absolutes. There is absolutely no way your claim is even remotely justifiable.

I must ask you to explain what evidence exists, indeed how it can even be possible, to have knowledge of a supernatural world when it is from this world of experience that we must call upon to make our arguments? There may of course be grounds for belief, where we make inferences from experience e.g. to a First cause as an unadulterated concept, but that is certainly not evidence. And is there really a good reason to think actual gods exist, other than from a doctrinal belief? All of the things you mention, intelligence, logic, science, mathematics, and (ahem!) ‘historical experts’ do not move us an iota beyond speculation and/or belief-as-faith since we cannot venture beyond our world. And there is no practical difference between a god without evidence and a god without existence. And even if, for the sake of argument, we allow the concept of Supreme Being by turning a blind eye to the contradictory dependence upon a contingent principle, there is nothing necessarily implied in that concept other than that of a creator and sustainer. No particular deity or religion is self-evident in the concept; and the arguments run to a contradiction where the Supreme Being is said to seek a relationship with its creation and is benevolent by its very nature, logically in the former case and empirically in the latter.

And yes, it is true that millions of people throughout the world have religious beliefs and this is sometimes used as an argument in favour of a deity. But it is also true that millions of people throughout the world have never experienced gods - including a great many who believe in them! Then there are the religions that do not feature gods at all, as well as those with pagan beliefs. And we must not forget the contradictory nature of many of the beliefs and faith systems which effectively cancel one another out. There are also those who say rather vaguely ‘I believe in something’! So these ‘millions of people’ do not have a single, universal and coherent belief and it would be misleading to lump them altogether with all their manifest differences and then appeal to their numbers as if there were some unifying necessary link. Even if the millions all appealed to the same deity, in exactly the same way, a statistical argument cannot be held up as some kind of evidence or proof of the supernatural but only as a shared commitment to a belief held from faith.

 

[Thief]

The problem with defining God is that it becomes the personal God, and the personal God is different depending on the person/culture/group.

Between Judaism, Christianity and even Islam, it doesn't even look like all three believe in the same God.

I missed this item earlier....ooops...

And shall we abandon all of dogmatic faith that we find God?

I have.

.....back to the singularity.....again.

 

[Agnostic75]

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

An article at Craig on Vilenkin on Cosmic Origins quotes Vilenkin as saying that "Theologians have often welcomed any evidence regarding the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God.......So what do we make of a proof that a beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena's remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of creation."

The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

Why couldn't the energy that caused this universe to begin have come from another universe? Many physicists believe that it is plausible that other universes exist.

How do some particles come into existence for a short time out of nothing?

Even if a God exists, science alone cannot reasonably prove that.

Why won't you discuss these issues with some experts at Physics Forums?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

An article at Craig on Vilenkin on Cosmic Origins quote Vilenkin as saying that "Theologians have often welcomed any evidence regarding the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God.......So what do we make of a proof that a beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena's remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of creation."

Indeed. Vilenkin has been pretty explicit on this point, even going so far as to write to Craig-

"Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology."

Which is no surprise, since all the BGV theorem purports to prove (if successful), is that an inflationary universe extrapolated indefinitely into the past must have a finite boundary to the inflationary region. Put simply, for any inflationary universe, the inflationary period cannot have been past-eternal. The inflationary period, not the universe. Which is why the BGV doesn't help Craig with his premise that the universe began to exist, and doesn't corroborate Christian creation mythology.

Also, it should be noted one last time that the BGV, along with other competing pre-Big Bang cosmological models, are highly speculative- and even Vilenkin admits as much. The BGV operates within a classical framework- and we know classisical physics breaks down pre-Big Bang, so it could well be the a fully integrated quantum theory of gravity completely invalidates it- so far as it goes. Confidence one way or the other, particularly on the part of laymen not qualified to take sides in a heated dispute between top experts in the field, is simply dishonest or delusional. But this is moot since, as we've noted repeatedly, the BGV does not prove the universe began to exist.

And just to make things nice and crystal clear, here is the conclusion from the actual peer-reviewed paper-

IV. Discussion. Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work [8] in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20].

 

[1robin]

Of course you have Scholars who have agreed, but that's still a human interpretation, why put into interpretation exactly what God has said?

God used cultural language use, Literary styles like apocalyptic and parable, and constructed the Bible specifically to be a treasure hunt that never ceases to have more truth in even simple versus than anyone can get in a lifetime. Your interpretation is just a human interpretation. There are very reliable methods used by textual experts developed over thousands of years to interpret things. Another thing is your interpretation is not what the verse said, it is what you think what the verse said means. The Bible must be read with common sense, it must be read within context, it must be read within a larger context of it's entire narrative. God being afraid of what humans would do makes no sense. They had no chance what so ever to reach heaven with a tower. They were no threat. They were however trying to do what he forbid and earning a ticket to Hell. I have read that verse many times. Not once did I think it was because God did not want man acting together.

And I was not talking about atheist. I was talking about those who had different opinions of the nature of God and his relationship with Jesus Christ.

Every disagreement must be resolved alone. The reason you might think Genesis is ambiguous in one verse is independent of why someone may think Jesus nature is ambiguous. The fact is that when 1800 bishops were invited by Constantine to resolve the matter, I think only two existed on one side and everyone else was on the other. So the disagreements even about very mysterious things like Christ's nature are not very significant. Not necessarily you, but these slight uncertainties are blown way out of proportion so as to be used to deny something that is not liked or preferred.

The Dissolution of the Church of Jerusalem left a void that was rapidly filled by the gentile churches of Asia Minor, and not all those churches even agreed.

You are going to present what the disagreement is before it can be evaluated.

 

[1robin]

I’m sorry but what is ‘perfectly wrong’ is your assertion that ‘a lack of a “‘God’” is a logical absurdity’. If it were such then the statement There is no God would imply a contradiction, but self-evidently it does not!

I am lost here. My statement was to another person. I went back three posts plus and did not see the original subject it was dealing with. It was certainly not in the context of the philosophy of non-contradiction. I will have to ask that you amplify this before I can respond.

I must ask you to explain what evidence exists, indeed how it can even be possible, to have knowledge of a supernatural world when it is from this world of experience that we must call upon to make our arguments? There may of course be grounds for belief, where we make inferences from experience e.g. to a First cause as an unadulterated concept, but that is certainly not evidence. And is there really a good reason to think actual gods exist, other than from a doctrinal belief? All of the things you mention, intelligence, logic, science, mathematics, and (ahem!) ‘historical experts’ do not move us an iota beyond speculation and/or belief-as-faith since we cannot venture beyond our world. And there is no practical difference between a god without evidence and a god without existence. And even if, for the sake of argument, we allow the concept of Supreme Being by turning a blind eye to the contradictory dependence upon a contingent principle, there is nothing necessarily implied in that concept other than that of a creator and sustainer. No particular deity or religion is self-evident in the concept; and the arguments run to a contradiction where the Supreme Being is said to seek a relationship with its creation and is benevolent by its very nature, logically in the former case and empirically in the latter.

The supernatural is not exclusive to the natural. The supernatural may act on the natural producing a change in nature that no known natural law can explain. You are also getting my arguments context and purposes all mixed together. I make certain arguments for the supernatural in general, I make others for the Biblical God in general. They should not be mixed up.

I am very very skeptical of miracles. I usually think about 95% of the claims are fake, mistaken, etc.... However that still leaves thousands of claim that no other explanation is possible and are recorded in very reliable ways. I will give you a few I have experienced.

I had the same person pop up when I turned the TV on twice in response to a prayer about an issue (turns out he is an expert in it), I went to a book store and told God that the first person I met I would ask for a book on that subject. Out of at least 2 dozen experts and many books by laymen I was sent after a book from the same person. I have been knocked into the kitchen floor and lay there in perfect contentment for 30 minutes by the power of God. That is before I had ever heard of that ever happening to anyone. I had a pinched nerve completely cease to trouble the instant I prayed. I have a friend with a documented tumor that disappeared in a day or two. I have heard someone speak in tongues, and someone who did not know them interpret it. I was born again and instantly lost any desire for habits I had tried to break for years and failed. I knew certain doctrinal claims were true that just a week prior to was hostile towards. I could not stand to hear cursing even though I had cursed like a sailor until that moment. Add to this 2500 prophecies, unknown knowledge at the time recorded by ignorant men, demonic possession, etc.. Anyway I can go on quite a while like this, and recorded history is full of these things. No one or even everyone is powerless to render many of them unreliable.

And yes, it is true that millions of people throughout the world have religious beliefs and this is sometimes used as an argument in favour of a deity. But it is also true that millions of people throughout the world have never experienced gods - including a great many who believe in them! Then there are the religions that do not feature gods at all, as well as those with pagan beliefs. And we must not forget the contradictory nature of many of the beliefs and faith systems which effectively cancel one another out. There are also those who say rather vaguely ‘I believe in something’! So these ‘millions of people’ do not have a single, universal and coherent belief and it would be misleading to lump them altogether with all their manifest differences and then appeal to their numbers as if there were some unifying necessary link. Even if the millions all appealed to the same deity, in exactly the same way, a statistical argument cannot be held up as some kind of evidence or proof of the supernatural but only as a shared commitment to a belief held from faith.

Christianity is unique. All other faiths are mans attempts to reach God. Christianity is God's attempt to reach man. That is more than a slogan. Christianity (among the major faiths, and maybe them all) alone offers and demands of every single follower of Christ a supernatural experience with Christ. Billions claiming to agree with an intellectual proposition is meaningless. Billions that claim they have experienced God is not. The Biblical authors constantly took on empirical burdens they had no necessity to if they were lying. An example is the claim that Jesus rose bodily from the grave. No one expected a bodily resurrection. It was far easier if the were lying to claim he rose spiritually. That way the body did not have to magically disappear from a sealed tomb with guards who would lose their lives if compromised. They had no need to claim he walked around with them if they were lying. Yet they went the infinitely harder route of claiming he is no longer physically dead or in the tomb. Almost all NT scholars on every side agree he was killed and the tomb was found empty. Why did not the Romans or the Sanhedrin just produce the body. They had every motivation and every opportunity to do so. Religious claims are not all equal.

BTW did you ever find my response to your Greenleaf posts?

 

[1robin]

An article at Craig on Vilenkin on Cosmic Origins quotes Vilenkin as saying that "Theologians have often welcomed any evidence regarding the beginning of the universe, regarding it as evidence for the existence of God.......So what do we make of a proof that a beginning is unavoidable? Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist. As evidenced by Jinasena's remarks earlier in this chapter, religion is not immune to the paradoxes of creation."

I disagree with Craig here, and I do not remember him claiming proof in this context. My claim is that the universe proposed by the Bible and the one all the evidence suggests we have and consistent. No it is not proof, it is just one more piece of very consistent evidence.

The National Academy of Sciences is neutral on the existence of God.

Their stances do not contain a consideration of God. Secular organizations take secular stances. Most of histories greatest scientists have been theists though. What a scientists thinks about theology is of no more value than anyone's. You won't see him in a telescope.

The majority of leading physicists do not believe in God.

That is only true of the modern secular world. The greatest physicist in history wrote more on God than science.

I use science for what science does. Once they conclude the universe most likely had a beginning then they are done and the philosophers and theologians take over. Your getting your peanut butter in your chocolate.

Why couldn't the energy that caused this universe to begin have come from another universe? Many physicists believe that it is plausible that other universes exist.

I never said it could not but they does not help any claims that God does not exist. It only kicks the can down the road a piece. There is also no evidence of any other universes. I have one life to make my decisions in. In no other area do people not decide until all the evidenced is obtained. Why do it in God's case? What we know exists is consistent with God. Arguments about other universes and infinity are arguments from silence.

How do some particles come into existence for a short time out of nothing?

They don't, though atheists contently misstate they do. They come from a quantum energy field. That is something, not nothing. When Hawking or who ever writes a book about something coming from nothing, just look close, their nothing is always something.

Even if a God exists, science alone cannot reasonably prove that.

I agree, though they seem to insist they can disprove him. They can't and have never even dented faith in deities but they claim they have.

Why won't you discuss these issues with some experts at Physics Forums?

Why would I debate a physicist about theology? I use the best physicists already for physics claims. No one on a forum would know more than they.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

God used cultural language use, Literary styles like apocalyptic and parable, and constructed the Bible specifically to be a treasure hunt that never ceases to have more truth in even simple versus than anyone can get in a lifetime. Your interpretation is just a human interpretation. There are very reliable methods used by textual experts developed over thousands of years to interpret things. Another thing is your interpretation is not what the verse said, it is what you think what the verse said means. The Bible must be read with common sense, it must be read within context, it must be read within a larger context of it's entire narrative. God being afraid of what humans would do makes no sense. They had no chance what so ever to reach heaven with a tower. They were no threat. They were however trying to do what he forbid and earning a ticket to Hell. I have read that verse many times. Not once did I think it was because God did not want man acting together.

Every disagreement must be resolved alone. The reason you might think Genesis is ambiguous in one verse is independent of why someone may think Jesus nature is ambiguous. The fact is that when 1800 bishops were invited by Constantine to resolve the matter, I think only two existed on one side and everyone else was on the other. So the disagreements even about very mysterious things like Christ's nature are not very significant. Not necessarily you, but these slight uncertainties are blown way out of proportion so as to be used to deny something that is not liked or preferred.



You are going to present what the disagreement is before it can be evaluated.

The disagreement between the Church of Jerusalem and the Gentile Churches seems to revolve around leaving behind their Jewish Roots. Among it as well if one looks at the writing of James and Paul's reaction to the church in Galatians between that of salvation of grace versus salvation of works with grace already given.

Something that occurs 10 years after the death of Jesus.

 

[1robin]

Indeed. Vilenkin has been pretty explicit on this point, even going so far as to write to Craig-

"Whatever it's worth, my view is that the BGV theorem does not say anything about the existence of God one way or the other. In particular, the beginning of the universe could be a natural event, described by quantum cosmology."

You are using my argument in another context again. I never said anything Vilenkin said has anything to do with God directly. I said the universe the BBT and the BGV theories propose is consistent with what the Bible proposes. I use scientists for the science part of the cosmological argument, and I use philosophers and theologians for the supernatural part. Why are you doing it the other way around?

Which is no surprise, since all the BGV theorem purports to prove (if successful), is that an inflationary universe extrapolated indefinitely into the past must have a finite boundary to the inflationary region. Put simply, for any inflationary universe, the inflationary period cannot have been past-eternal. The inflationary period, not the universe. Which is why the BGV doesn't help Craig with his premise that the universe began to exist, and doesn't corroborate Christian creation mythology.

That is all I used it for.

Also, it should be noted one last time that the BGV, along with other competing pre-Big Bang cosmological models, are highly speculative- and even Vilenkin admits as much. The BGV operates within a classical framework- and we know classisical physics breaks down pre-Big Bang, so it could well be the a fully integrated quantum theory of gravity completely invalidates it- so far as it goes. Confidence one way or the other, particularly on the part of laymen not qualified to take sides in a heated dispute between top experts in the field, is simply dishonest or delusional. But this is moot since, as we've noted repeatedly, the BGV does not prove the universe began to exist.

So we should be very careful about the most accepted science but we should endlessly discuss and consider valid the theories that come from the most unreliable part of theoretical science known. Again the double standards are hard at it. The BGV as stated does point to a universe that began to exist. I never claimed it proved it. Confusing my arguments and what they claimed again. No one knows what occurred before the big bang, but there is every reason to think it was not infinite nor eternal. The universe looks very very young in every way it can be measured.

And just to make things nice and crystal clear, here is the conclusion from the actual peer-reviewed paper-

Ok, so this was your attempt to be clear and concise.

IV. Discussion. Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work [8] in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper time (finite affine length, in the null case).

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20].

This is mine:

Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

No which one would a person want who looks for ambiguity y in language to get what they desire to get from a statement or series of statements? Which one would a person want who desires a clear, concise, emphatic, non-ambiguous statement?

I will offer this link one last time. Apparently Vilenkin got tired of two things. 1. People claiming his theorem allowed for an eternal universe. 2. People who claimed his theorem proves God exists. I have not done the latter nor do I remember Craig doing so.

For the former he went through the classic theories about an eternal universe one by one and said they were impossible. Here is the link for the third and final time.
Vilenkin’s verdict: “All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.” | Uncommon Descent

I would sum up his position this way. All the evidence we have makes a finite universe all but a certainty. He being humble and not omniscient did allow for the fact he does not know for a fact that all eternal models are false. He believes they are, proves some are, and has no reason to believe they will turn out to be true, but he allows for the possibility. The same as most of us would about Bigfoot or aliens.

 

[1robin]

The disagreement between the Church of Jerusalem and the Gentile Churches seems to revolve around leaving behind their Jewish Roots. Among it as well if one looks at the writing of James and Paul's reaction to the church in Galatians between that of salvation of grace versus salvation of works with grace already given.

This particular one has specific issues that explain it. The Jews did not accept NT authorship. It is not very meaningful to point out that the Bears disagreed with the penalty they were charged for and that their opponents would. They killed Christ. I doubt if the period Jewish church would have validated anything said about him for guilt reasons alone. It is like saying an atheist disagrees about divine inspiration. Of course he does, but that does not mean the evidence for it is any less sufficient.

Something that occurs 10 years after the death of Jesus.

The mind set existed when Jesus was born. The Jews had for centuries betrayed God and revelation. They had suffered dearly for it over and over. As usually happens the pendulum had swung too far the other way in Jesus day. They ruthlessly persecuted and views other than orthodox scripture. This was not done on the basis of being right or wrong but on the basis of being not what they already had. They did not read the scriptures and find fault in them. They found fault with them and so did not read them. In fact they would not have been available to most for hundreds of years. On an even lower level Christ was a threat to their power. He was leading people away from them and they were insanely jealous of their power. They would have rejected anything associated with him on that basis alone. This is proven by the fact they had no actual charges that stuck. They had to lie in order to have anything to convict him of, yet they did so.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

This particular one has specific issues that explain it. The Jews did not accept NT authorship. It is not very meaningful to point out that the Bears disagreed with the penalty they were charged for and that their opponents would. They killed Christ. I doubt if the period Jewish church would have validated anything said about him for guilt reasons alone. It is like saying an atheist disagrees about divine inspiration. Of course he does, but that does not mean the evidence for it is any less sufficient.

The mind set existed when Jesus was born. The Jews had for centuries betrayed God and revelation. They had suffered dearly for it over and over. As usually happens the pendulum had swung too far the other way in Jesus day. They ruthlessly persecuted and views other than orthodox scripture. This was not done on the basis of being right or wrong but on the basis of being not what they already had. They did not read the scriptures and find fault in them. They found fault with them and so did not read them. In fact they would not have been available to most for hundreds of years. On an even lower level Christ was a threat to their power. He was leading people away from them and they were insanely jealous of their power. They would have rejected anything associated with him on that basis alone. This is proven by the fact they had no actual charges that stuck. They had to lie in order to have anything to convict him of, yet they did so.

According to Josephus, the Jews were angry about the death of James (despite James being the leader of the Jewish Christian assembly)

I've read up on ancient Judaism, prior and after the second temple restoration, and I'm not sure that what you stated actual fits with the mold of history. But I have more readings to do so I would rather finish reading up before I make a counter argument.

 

[metis]

According to Josephus, the Jews were angry about the death of James (despite James being the leader of the Jewish Christian assembly)

I've read up on ancient Judaism, prior and after the second temple restoration, and I'm not sure that what you stated actual fits with the mold of history. But I have more readings to do so I would rather finish reading up before I make a counter argument.

You're right-- it doesn't fit at all. Crucifixion was a Roman way of execution, and the Romans did not enforce Jewish Law but only their own. Pilate was very brutal, and Roman historians tell us he had to go to Rome to explain why he executed so many.

So, what did Jesus do that got the ire of the Romans? Probably the overturning of tables at the Temple since that was a source of taxes for the Romans, plus Jesus talking about this other "kingdom" undoubtedly must have sent up red flags.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I am not going to discuss physics with you anymore since I do not know very much about it. Even if a God exists, he is not the God of the Bible for a multitude of reasons.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

You're right-- it doesn't fit at all. Crucifixion was a Roman way of execution, and the Romans did not enforce Jewish Law but only their own. Pilate was very brutal, and Roman historians tell us he had to go to Rome to explain why he executed so many.

So, what did Jesus do that got the ire of the Romans? Probably the overturning of tables at the Temple since that was a source of taxes for the Romans, plus Jesus talking about this other "kingdom" undoubtedly must have sent up red flags.

Well I'm curious more about the relationship between the Jews and the Early Christian Sect.

Act gives one story of the relationship between Paul and the Church, but Paul's letters gives another view.

Even the circumstances of Paul recounting the story of Jesus's resurrection does not match up with what we are told in the Gospels. Importantly three out of 4 of the Gospels (If we accept that the end of Mark after chapter 16 is interpolation), the first to meet Jesus was Mary Magdalene. After that all the Disciples (which would include James), The gospel of John goes further to say Thomas was not there), there were also two men who Jesus walked with and then disappeared? Was one of those men Paul?

I mention the part about James, because why would the Jews consider the act done by the Priest of the Temple (Likely a Sadducee), against someone who would have been a heretic, something to get a person removed from their position for?

 

[1robin]

Well I'm curious more about the relationship between the Jews and the Early Christian Sect.

I am not an expert on early Christian history outside the theological implications. I can only speak in general terms.

Act gives one story of the relationship between Paul and the Church, but Paul's letters gives another view.

Paul was once a fully committed Jew. Very well educated, respected, and placed. He was persecuting Christians and thought he was doing God a favor. However Christ got ahold of him and he did a 180. He became as zealous of grace as he formerly was of the law.

Even the circumstances of Paul recounting the story of Jesus's resurrection does not match up with what we are told in the Gospels. Importantly three out of 4 of the Gospels (If we accept that the end of Mark after chapter 16 is interpolation), the first to meet Jesus was Mary Magdalene. After that all the Disciples (which would include James), The gospel of John goes further to say Thomas was not there), there were also two men who Jesus walked with and then disappeared? Was one of those men Paul?

Pick any one of these and we can resolve it. All these "inconsistencies" are resolvable that I have ever attempted. They do at times take a while. So I can do no more than one at a time.

I mention the part about James, because why would the Jews consider the act done by the Priest of the Temple (Likely a Sadducee), against someone who would have been a heretic, something to get a person removed from their position for?

I did not follow this. What story about James are you referring to?

 

[metis]

Well I'm curious more about the relationship between the Jews and the Early Christian Sect.

Act gives one story of the relationship between Paul and the Church, but Paul's letters gives another view.

Even the circumstances of Paul recounting the story of Jesus's resurrection does not match up with what we are told in the Gospels. Importantly three out of 4 of the Gospels (If we accept that the end of Mark after chapter 16 is interpolation), the first to meet Jesus was Mary Magdalene. After that all the Disciples (which would include James), The gospel of John goes further to say Thomas was not there), there were also two men who Jesus walked with and then disappeared? Was one of those men Paul?

There's really quite a bit that doesn't match up, and checking the four gospels accounts at the women at Jesus' tomb shows this as no two gospels agree.

Now, this is not to say that certain events were not believed to have happened, but that we're left in a bit of a objective limbo since we can't completely tell what the real details may have been. As far as who was walking with Jesus, I'm not certain but it was not Paul, who came into the fold later.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

There's really quite a bit that doesn't match up, and checking the four gospels accounts at the women at Jesus' tomb shows this as no two gospels agree.

Now, this is not to say that certain events were not believed to have happened, but that we're left in a bit of a objective limbo since we can't completely tell what the real details may have been. As far as who was walking with Jesus, I'm not certain but it was not Paul, who came into the fold later.

Yes, but I have to go by the assumption that Paul actually met Jesus and it was not a hallucination, as such it would seem that he was not familiar with the stories of the Gospels or whoever wrote the Gospels were not familiar with Jesus's Resurrection

 

[metis]

Yes, but I have to go by the assumption that Paul actually met Jesus and it was not a hallucination, as such it would seem that he was not familiar with the stories of the Gospels or whoever wrote the Gospels were not familiar with Jesus's Resurrection

People believed in "visions" back then, and these could be in the form of dreams or daydreams, and it's often difficult to tell at times what was a real experience versus what was one of these visions.

Reminds me of the Buddhist koan: last night I had a dream I was a butterfly-- but wait, maybe I'm a butterfly now having a dream I'm a human.