Here we go again. Another relic pops up of questionable authenticity that one or two experts is saying casts doubts on the unique claims of Christian orthodoxy. So of course Time.com put the story of the so-called "Gabriel's Revelation" tablet in its July 7 top stories lineup (see screencap at right), with the teaser headline, "Was Jesus' Resurrection a Sequel?"
The story by David Van Biema and Tim McGirk breathlessly began by noting how this "revelation" could set some orthodox Christians on edge:
A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet - at least according to one Israeli scholar - it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day - and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.
But then Van Biema and McGirk dialed it down a bit (emphasis mine):
However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.
Indeed, as Christian blogger Michele McGinty of Reformed Chicks Blabbing noted, one has to
[make] a leap there from the text (an excerpt of Knohl's article can be found here) to suffering, death and resurrection which isn't evident in the text he quotes which is "by three days live, I Gabriel, command you, prince of princes." And that quote is based on his assessment of partial words. Not enough there to suggest that the disciples of Jesus based their account on messianic stories that may have circulated at the time. Too many leaps to be believable. So much for shaking our view of Christianity.
What's more, it's laughable on its face that one obscure, questionably-interpreted transcript of an alleged angelic annunciation has anything on the public witness of the early church, which based its arguments for the resurrection of Christ from first-hand eyewitness accounts of some 500 people of the risen Jesus and Hebrew scriptures on the person and work of the Messiah (I Cor. 15:1-11; Acts 2:14-36; Heb. 1:1-4).
Indeed, the New Testament is full of historical-theological exposition, particularly in the books of Acts and Hebrews as well as the gospel accounts, about how Jesus Christ fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies related to the Messiah. Simply put, whether you believe Christian claims or not, the apostolic preaching of the early Church was not based on folklore or myth but a systematic understanding of Hebrew Scripture as testifying to the person and redemptive work of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Messiah.
For the media to fail to take this into account when reporting on Palestinian archaeology betrays the ignorance which the mainstream media have when it comes to reporting on faith and theology.
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Comments Policy
The Gospels are eyewitness testimony
July 7, 2008 - 18:50 ET by Mike BrattonNot guesswork, not smudges, not "Gee, we'd really like to go down the Obama road of 'many paths to the same Heaven.'"
But, of course, it's front-page news when anyone thinks they have the key to gutting Christianity. Hey, is it all right to draw cartoons of Mohammed yet?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Mohammad
July 7, 2008 - 18:57 ET by BarrackCan you imagine if a tablet that "supposedly" indicated Muhammad was NOT the prophet was discovered?
Every employee at Time would be hiding under their desks..
And rage boy's head would finally explode.
www.benbarrack.com
whattya know they're
July 8, 2008 - 13:45 ET by TruthMongerwhattya know
they're crucifying Jesus - yet again
so just how often is my Christian faith going to keep being confirmed by the MSM like this...?
Dan Brown reportedly is
July 7, 2008 - 18:56 ET by BuffNBoneDan Brown reportedly is very interested in this latest finding.
If a lie is made up of whole cloth, is it fabricated?
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
we all know time is
July 7, 2008 - 18:56 ET by red_dragon311we all know time is awful
but how awful ...well read this
the headline "What candidates' favorite game says about him"
the byline (is that the right term?????) says
"TIME - John McCain enjoys casino craps while Barack Obama favors poker — find out what that reveals about their leadership styles."
with out even reading the story, I guess that McCain likeing craps means he likes to take risks, and BHO likes poker so he is a thinker who bides his time waiting for the perfect time to make a big move....showing that BHO would be a better leader.....
this is the first sentance of the explanition of what the games mean
"McCain's passion for gambling and taking other risks has never been a secret"
and here is what is said about BHO
"...The stakes were low enough - $1 ante and $3 top raise - to afford a long shot. Not Obama. He studied the cards as closely as he would an eleventh-hour amendment to a bill. The odds were religion to him. Only rarely did he bluff. "He had a pretty good idea about what his chances were," says Denny Jacobs, a former state senator from East Moline. "
and who says there's no media bias
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
The Obama Surprise...
July 7, 2008 - 19:23 ET by BarrackSpeaking of poker, the MSM is "all in" on Obama and if anything DOES come out on him from the blogosphere (aka Rathergate), it may just be the death knell for them...
By the way, if this Birth Certificate thing turns into anything, it should be called, "Baby Gate"..
www.benbarrack.com
It's hard to bluff (Lie) in
July 7, 2008 - 19:34 ET by SemperrightIt's hard to bluff (Lie) in craps. I just hope no ones life is on the line when BO get's his bluff called.
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference.
The MARINES don't have that problem."
President Ronald Reagan - 1985
"Is Time magazine a two-bit Gossip Rag?"
July 7, 2008 - 19:31 ET by lotr..the public witness of the early church, which based its arguments for the resurrection of Christ from first-hand eyewitness accounts of some 500 people of the risen Jesus and Hebrew scriptures on the person and work of the Messiah...
Not to mention that pesky little piece of physical evidence -- the empty tomb and missing body. Oh, and of course there was also the brutal torture and martyrdom, torture of the sort we aren't even able to fathom today, suffered by these so-called "followers" for their "pipe-dream."
Sure, I'll be picky: how can
July 7, 2008 - 19:43 ET by balboaSure, I'll be picky: how can lack of a body be evidence?
Thank you for your question
July 7, 2008 - 19:54 ET by Mike BrattonThe issue is not merely with the absence of Jesus' body from the tomb in which He was buried. His tomb was sealed with a Roman seal, guarded by soldiers, and yet all that was found that Sunday morning were the wrappings in which His body was buried--neatly folded where His head had rested.
People with a vested interest took great pains to make sure Jesus' body wouldn't leave that tomb, yet He left it. Good thing it was a borrowed tomb, wouldn't you agree?
--Mike
www.thebrattonreport.com
Well Said, Bratton...
July 7, 2008 - 20:10 ET by BarrackLet us not forget the Shroud of Turin either..
www.benbarrack.com
Correct -- thanks for
July 7, 2008 - 21:41 ET by lotrCorrect -- thanks for elbaborating Mike. The empty tomb is difficult to explain, and to this day no satisfactory explanation (i.e., one that is consistent with all the circumstances) has been provided (at least one that satisfies me, anyway), aside from that given by the eyewitnesses. It is only when we assume a priori that there is no God that we find ourselves grasping at naturalistic explanations.
Good thing it was a
July 8, 2008 - 13:31 ET by misterbee241Well, it was only going to be borrowed for the weekend anyway.
You make some very good points. As I understand Roman law, it was a death sentence for a guard to sleep on duty, as the priests tried to bribe the guards to say.
And the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus worte about the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Question for you: was it necessary for the stone to be rolled away for Jesus to come out?
"There is none so blind as they that won’t see."
Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
I agree, Time is really a
July 8, 2008 - 14:41 ET by mjgI agree, Time is really a peice of tabloid rag magazine.
Resurrection Stories
July 7, 2008 - 20:00 ET by geoff.galeIf Time is so shallow and/or misinformed to imagine that Christianity is the only belief system with a resurrection or rebirth story, they should be shut down immediately as a danger to the world. I suppose it's no surprise that Time doesn't get that the important element of Christianity, just as it is with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and any other -ism to which you might point, is the aspect of faith, not merely the particulars of their stories.
BTW, it's interesting to note that this story is co-authored by the same Tim McGirk who started the whole Haditha fiasco. I would have thought that Time would be embarassed to still have such a discredited slimeball still on their staff.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)
www.conservativeboot...
Time, Embarassed!
July 8, 2008 - 10:40 ET by bradbenj5952That's funny! Time embarassed about having slimeball reporters on their staff! Surely, you jest. And I'm sure you do.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
It's not folklore because it's based on... folklore?
July 7, 2008 - 19:56 ET by Remixer96"...the apostolic preaching of the early Church was not based on folklore or myth but a systematic understanding of Hebrew Scripture..."
My problem with this statement is that the books of the Old Testament were passed down orally long before they were ever written, and when they were the primary translation early Christians were working from was the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Hebrew that has several known linguistic errors. A "systematic understanding" under these conditions in any scientific since was not possible, particularly if we judge by today's standards of historical accuracy, which did not exist at that time. Regardless of its benefit to humankind, it is impossible to say the Old Testament at that time was an empirical document of the same standards of truth we would expect from similar documents today. For better or worse, I believe the apostolic preaching of the early church was based on folklore.
Folklore eh....Guess if
July 7, 2008 - 20:05 ET by bigtimerFolklore eh....
Guess if you have the time before you go to meet your folklore...when you ask God to let you in...you will remember that...eh Remix...because you will...
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Remixer, where on earth did
July 7, 2008 - 20:10 ET by motherbeltRemixer, where on earth did you get the idea that the Old Testament was supposed to be an "empirical document" ???
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
The article
July 7, 2008 - 20:56 ET by Remixer96I was contending the statment in the article that claimed that the Old Testament was "not folklore or myth." If he wasn't implying that the Testament should be accurate accoridng to today's historical standards then what was he implying?
From Merriam-Webster
July 8, 2008 - 09:57 ET by motherbeltFrom Merriam-Webster Online:
Empirical:
1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>
I don't believe the OT falls into any of those categories. And you have to consider the element no one is talking about: Divine Inspiration.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Divine Inspiration
July 8, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Remixer96I was assuming that the counter-argument of Divine Inspiration would essentially equate the OT to a level of observation we would consider empirical today.
Is that the wrong assumption?
*Ahem
July 7, 2008 - 21:24 ET by ChesterBogusUm, well, you have to give him the benefit of the doubt.
We live in a world where Christians want "Creation Science" to be taught in the public schools. I think it's fair to assume that Christians believe the Old Testament to be an empirical document because...you know...they do.
Or, at least, they say, "The Old Testament is better than science because it has all the answers." I have heard people say that, Christians actually believe this. So "empirical document" might not be his best choice of words, but many Christians say it has "all the answers," that Genesis is a MORE accurate science textbook than an actual science textbook - and science is empirical...
Anyway, if the Bible is "literal truth," which a LOT of Christians say it is, then it stands to reason that "literal truth" would be "empirical,"unless the authors were writing things that they had heard. If the Bible is a primary source, then that means its authors witnessed the things that happened - it's empirical. If it's not a primary source, then it is based on hearsay, rumor, legend - but it would still be empirical if those rumors are accompanied by empirical evidence. So even if the Bible is a non-primary source full of rumor and hearsay, it would still be empirical to some degree. For the Bible to just plain not be empirical would mean it's completely unfounded in reality - thus, not "literal truth."
In other words, it sounds like you're saying that the Bible isn't true. Or, at least, it sounds like you're saying that the authors of the Bible didn't actually witness what they're writing about. If it's not empirical, then it isn't based in reality, therefore it is myth, not truth.
So, you know. I mean...what is your point with the Old Testament not being empirical? It's either true - based on reality - empirical - or it's not.
Chester
July 7, 2008 - 21:50 ET by lotrUm, no.
Empirical (adjective): Derived from experiment and observation rather than theory "an empirical basis for an ethical theory"; "empirical laws"; "empirical data"; "an empirical treatment of a disease about which little is known"
Ancient history is not an empirical science. Nor theoretical, nor exact. Does this mean that we can know nothing of ancient history? Shall we include in your canon of "folklore" other ancient figures like Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, Confucius, Homer, Mohammed, etc.?
Empirical
July 7, 2008 - 22:30 ET by Remixer96Precisely. Perhaps it was presumptuous of me, but I thought Mr. Shepard was assuming that the Bible had value beyond folklore due to observation. Thus, my point was to say that such a statement couldn't be true. I have heard many arguments to this effect, and if I misread Mr. Shepard's comments then I stand corrected.
But to rebut your second paragraph, I agree history is not an emprical science, hence my earlier comment. However, with regard to the philosophers you mentioned, we don't contend to know the color of Plato's robe as he addressed the crowds, how many people gathered to listen, or whether someone in the crowd raised their left or right hand at a particular time. However, the value in the works we still retain today are not based on the necessity of historical accuracy. The logic from their time is still pertinent today, independant of many of the details surrounding the philosopher's lives themselves. When we begin trying to find the value in religious scripture through details that require historical accuracy, we run into trouble.
I believe religious writings should play a role in spirituality, but not as a perfect source of facts and history. They were never meant to pass modern standards of accuracy.
Remix
July 8, 2008 - 09:03 ET by lotrHowever, the value in the works we still retain today are not based on the necessity of historical accuracy.
I'm not sure I buy that. Plato is widely held to have been a real man who existed, and the Platonic philosophy is attributed to him. Somebody had to come up with it, after all, and as you allude, the philosophy itself most certainly is not folkore, yet we know of it through historical documentation that attributes it to a real man by the name of Plato.
When we begin trying to find the value in religious scripture through details that require historical accuracy, we run into trouble.
That all depends on what "historical details" you are talking about. Orthodox Christianity is founded upon belief in the deity of Christ. The first Apostles spoke of his death, resurrection and ascension into Heaven, and they suffered brutal torture and martyrdom for it (strongly testifying to the truth behind the claims). Christianity becomes meaningless if one rejects these fundamental "historical details." And therein lies the agenda behind media nonsense such as that reported here.
I believe religious writings should play a role in spirituality, but not as a perfect source of facts and history. They were never meant to pass modern standards of accuracy.
The New Testament documents are first and foremost historical documents, written within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses and principal characters. Luke in particular is known for his careful attention to detail, cross-linking key events with those happening in the Roman world. They were meant to convey important facts surrounding Jesus, including his teachings and authority, with the best possible accuracy available at the time. No, his sermons weren't tape recorded before a live studio audience, so his teachings had to be transmitted by memory until they were finally written down. But so it is with all ancient historical documents.
you know lotr
July 8, 2008 - 09:25 ET by candanceIt amazes me that lefties believe everything they're taught in schools about prehistoric times. The ancient Egyptian empire, the rise of Rome, all the details and points are assumed to be spot on.
But let there be several eyewitness accounts of Jesus and suddenly those ancient times cannot be trusted for accuracy.
Response
July 8, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Remixer96Candace, I would argue that for non-religious study of history, the only things considered "known" are the large ideas, the gist of things. We can verify the existence of cities by their ruins and of kings by their tombs. However, beyond this, there there is a general assumption of "this is to the best of our knowledge. We may be wrong, but this is how we think it was." Indeed, there have been many jokes cracked at what future researchers might think of us when they discover artifacts our society leaves.
However, the OT is a single source that portrays specific situations, geneologies, and other details likely to change through time due to error. Given that the book has been translated and edited through several languages and additions, I would argue again that it does not measure up to today's standards of accuracy.
thanks remixer
July 8, 2008 - 17:07 ET by candanceThanks for taking the time to spell my name correctly - it really means a lot. ;)
We only know the gist of history? That's a new one on me and I've studied history for a while now.
To Reinforce With Scripture
July 8, 2008 - 10:49 ET by bradbenj59522 Peter 1:19-21 "We have also a
more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as
unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the
day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."
Psalms 12:6,7 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
@lotr
July 8, 2008 - 11:48 ET by Remixer96<i>Plato is widely held to have been a real man who existed, and the Platonic philosophy is attributed to him.</i>
That Plato was a real man is not an issue concerning the historical accuracy of his writings. One of the few nearly universal agreements on the new testament is that Jessus in all likelihood existed. This does not mean there were a given number of people at any location at any particular time.
<i>That all depends on what "historical details" you are talking about.</i>
First, that the Apostles suffered torture does not testify to the veracity of their beliefs, but only to the strength in which they believed in them. I have read many accounts of people throwing themselves on the sword for unsound reasons. Thus, it does not proove their beliefs that they simply died for them.
Second, I suppose at a basic level, there are a few historical details that are vital to Christianity. If there had been no resurrection, there might have been no church. I would argue the only details necessary are large ideas... being crucified by the Romans, resurrecting, and the like. However, other smaller details (such as how many eyewitnesses were at a given place, which groups of Jewish leaders were in pwoer, what exact dialogue was spoken, etc.) are nearly certain to have changed over time, and to cite them as if they were fact is not valid.
<i>They were meant to convey important facts surrounding Jesus, including his teachings and authority, with the best possible accuracy available at the time.</i>
I think this assumption is invalid. When writing letters to various churches, as Paul was, I would imagine his goal was not to be as accurate as possible, but to be persuasive in convincing them of how to live. It is impossible to prove or disprove the intent of the writers of the NT except where explicitly stated, but what is certain if nothing else, is that the books weren't even written down until 60+ years after Jesus' death, almost guarenteeing alterations around details of the stories. I don't mean to deny their historical value in that they do coem from an older time, place, and culture. I only deny their usefulness as providers of rock solid facts in the context of argument.
@lotr
July 8, 2008 - 11:48 ET by Remixer96<i>Plato is widely held to have been a real man who existed, and the Platonic philosophy is attributed to him.</i>
That Plato was a real man is not an issue concerning the historical accuracy of his writings. One of the few nearly universal agreements on the new testament is that Jessus in all likelihood existed. This does not mean there were a given number of people at any location at any particular time.
<i>That all depends on what "historical details" you are talking about.</i>
First, that the Apostles suffered torture does not testify to the veracity of their beliefs, but only to the strength in which they believed in them. I have read many accounts of people throwing themselves on the sword for unsound reasons. Thus, it does not proove their beliefs that they simply died for them.
Second, I suppose at a basic level, there are a few historical details that are vital to Christianity. If there had been no resurrection, there might have been no church. I would argue the only details necessary are large ideas... being crucified by the Romans, resurrecting, and the like. However, other smaller details (such as how many eyewitnesses were at a given place, which groups of Jewish leaders were in pwoer, what exact dialogue was spoken, etc.) are nearly certain to have changed over time, and to cite them as if they were fact is not valid.
<i>They were meant to convey important facts surrounding Jesus, including his teachings and authority, with the best possible accuracy available at the time.</i>
I think this assumption is invalid. When writing letters to various churches, as Paul was, I would imagine his goal was not to be as accurate as possible, but to be persuasive in convincing them of how to live. It is impossible to prove or disprove the intent of the writers of the NT except where explicitly stated, but what is certain if nothing else, is that the books weren't even written down until 60+ years after Jesus' death, almost guarenteeing alterations around details of the stories. I don't mean to deny their historical value in that they do coem from an older time, place, and culture. I only deny their usefulness as providers of rock solid facts in the context of argument.
Remix
July 8, 2008 - 12:50 ET by lotrOne of the few nearly universal agreements on the new testament is that Jessus in all likelihood existed. This does not mean there were a given number of people at any location at any particular time.
Agreed.
Second, I suppose at a basic level, there are a few historical details that are vital to Christianity. If there had been no resurrection, there might have been no church. I would argue the only details necessary are large ideas... being crucified by the Romans, resurrecting, and the like. However, other smaller details (such as how many eyewitnesses were at a given place, which groups of Jewish leaders were in pwoer, what exact dialogue was spoken, etc.) are nearly certain to have changed over time, and to cite them as if they were fact is not valid.
Again, agreed.
When writing letters to various churches, as Paul was, I would imagine his goal was not to be as accurate as possible, but to be persuasive in convincing them of how to live.
I'll buy that -- they were letters, after all. However, from my understanding Luke was trying to give an accurate account. He claims this in the opening words of his Gospel, and he also provides the history of the early church after the Ascension of Christ. So far, so good, except....
...but what is certain if nothing else, is that the books weren't even written down until 60+ years after Jesus' death, ...
This is not correct. The Epistles of Paul were most likely penned spanning the years of AD 48 through 60. The Gospels, more or less, were written as follows: Mark, c. 65; Luke, c. 80-85; Matt., c. 85-90; John, c. 90-100. So it is more fair to say that much, if not most, of the entire New Testament was written down within 60 years after Jesus' death.
I don't mean to deny their historical value in that they do coem from an older time, place, and culture. I only deny their usefulness as providers of rock solid facts in the context of argument.
Fair enough.
Modern standards of
July 8, 2008 - 13:38 ET by misterbee241Modern standards of accuracy. You mean like the ones Time, CNN, CBS, NY Times, LA Times, etc use.
"There is none so blind as they that won’t see."
Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
Folklore
July 7, 2008 - 20:14 ET by BarrackIf you're right, you and I share eternity in nothingness, completely unaware that we ever existed..
If Christians are right, you and they will not share a more different fate.
How's that for "folklore"?
www.benbarrack.com
Problem
July 7, 2008 - 21:00 ET by Remixer96I have an issue with your objection.
Namely, that that exact argument could be used for any God ever conceived. Ra would punish those in the afterlife who did not follow him, so in lieu of punishment would it not be better to believe in Ra?
The logic you employ does not give any specific reasoning for one God over another, unles you'd like to amend it?
This counter-argument would
July 7, 2008 - 21:59 ET by lotrThis counter-argument would hold water if it were equally reasonable to believe in "Ra" over the Judeo-Christian God, the unmoved mover, the Creator of the physical universe and all its "laws" as well as the spiritual universe with its moral laws. Believability in "Ra" is demonstrated by the reality of zero believers.
Pascal was no dope, and his Wager is a brilliant argument as to why the reasonable choice is to believe in God. I recommend anyone to read it for themselves (and not just a summary written by a contemporary author -- I recommend reading his own words).
Counter-Counter-Argument
July 7, 2008 - 22:19 ET by Remixer96I'm afraid the only evidence you've provided for your proof is cyclical. Belief in God is valid because others believe God is valid. Unless you can provide other reasons for belief in God, then your logic is circular and thus fallacious.
No, you've got the argument
July 8, 2008 - 09:57 ET by lotrNo, you've got the argument wrong. The argument is not meant to be some sort of mathematical proof for the existence of God as you have construed it. Assuming a certain percentage of individuals are reasonable, then the numbers of believers of a certain ideology is, in fact, an indicator of its believability. Isn't that the purpose of a jury? A null set of people believe in "Ra" -- that tells me immediately that's its unbelievable. Given that I'm a person possessing the same faculties of reason of the population, upon my own careful consideration (e.g., reading up on him on the Internet) I too find myself not believing in Ra. Because a large number of people believe in God, God must be believable. Because zero people believe in 'Ra', Ra must be unbelievable.
But I will take it a step further. The god "Ra" is not the counter-equal of materialistic atheism, which provides an explanation for our origins, the origin of the entire Universe, the reason things are as they are, and what our final ends are. One cannot say that "it is either Ra or it is materialism." "Ra" would fall under each belief system. Under materialism, he may originated through natural selection (although we should find his fossilized remains, or he should still make himself manifest before us in one of his many physical forms). Under monotheism, perhaps he is one of the demons (or angels), or he was an ancient creature. No, as Pascal correctly (and logically) pointed out, the choice is either in the "Personal uncaused-cause, the Universal Other," or the impersonal uncaused-cause.
Rebuttal
July 8, 2008 - 12:28 ET by Remixer96First, believability was not the issue with Pascal's wager. Pascal wasn't thinking about whether or not God was a believable idea. If it was, I would agree with your reasoning given a percentage of reasonable people and so on.
However, there are three assumptions which are not necessarily true in your analysis of the wager.
First, you presume that you worship the right god. Perhaps my choice of Ra was not the most appropriate, but what about Vishnu, YHVH, or Allah? All of these entities have explanations for our origins and have a sizeable number of believers. How do you know you've worshipped the right oen even in Pascal's case?
Second, you presume that the god you do worship rewards you for doing so. This is not necessarily the case. Many gods have been said to be unpredictable or simply maligned. How do you know in this context that this god isn't?
Third, you presume monotheistic conditions. Put simply, there is no reason for you to do so. If a collection of opposing gods existed, it would render the wager to be far more complex.
I'd also like to point out, Pascal didn't make this wager with religion at the forefront of his mind, but rather it was the conclusion to Pascal's arguments against certainty. It was never meant to be a proof for any god so much as an exercise in probability.
First, you presume that
July 8, 2008 - 13:28 ET by lotrFirst, you presume that you worship the right god. Perhaps my choice of Ra was not the most appropriate, but what about Vishnu, YHVH, or Allah? All of these entities have explanations for our origins and have a sizeable number of believers. How do you know you've worshipped the right oen even in Pascal's case?
This is a valid point, but it is one that I have not anywhere stated otherwise. It's been a while, but to my recollection Pascal didn't speak of Christ (and most certainly not the Christian Trinity) specifically. He spoke only of a transcendent God, the Creator of all things, including morality.
Second, you presume that the god you do worship rewards you for doing so. This is not necessarily the case.
Perhaps, but it is the case for all three major monotheistic belief sytems. As with all ideological belief systems, there are only a limited number of possiblities in terms of distinction. All three believe in a transcendent, personal uncaused-cause who requires our recognition (being cognitive creatures) of Him (note the usage of a personal pronoun) as our Creator.
Third, you presume monotheistic conditions. Put simply, there is no reason for you to do so. If a collection of opposing gods existed, it would render the wager to be far more complex.
Again, we are talking about the "uncaused-cause," or "the truth," a singular item, not a dichotomy or multiplicity. In materialism (physics), for example, we have always sought the unified theory.
I'd also like to point out, Pascal didn't make this wager with religion at the forefront of his mind, but rather it was the conclusion to Pascal's arguments against certainty. It was never meant to be a proof for any god so much as an exercise in probability.
And again, you will note that I have said nothing to the contrary. That is why his argument, to me, is the most brilliant of all rational arguments. It is most notably not a proof for the existence of God. It is simply the argument that, given the fact that we can neither prove, nor disprove, the existence of God, we end up with a wager, as in the game of poker. A good poker player (i.e., one who makes money by winning more money than he loses) knows to call when the wager is small compared to the pot, even if the odds are his hand will lose. Pascal's conclusion is that the more rational wager is the belief in God.
Clearly Seen
July 8, 2008 - 10:54 ET by bradbenj5952Romans 1:20-23 "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that,
when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were
thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the
glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Ra was judged and defeated
July 8, 2008 - 13:44 ET by misterbee241Ra was judged and defeated when YAHWEH caused the plague of darkness to come over Egypt.
You can follow any god you want, including none of the above. But what if you are wrong about no God? If I'm wrong about there being a sovereign Creator God and it turns out there isnt one, then I've lost nothing. If you're wrong about there NOT being a God and there is one, then you've lost everything for eternity.
This is what others are talking about concerning the empty tomb. Jesus paid the sin debt, the payment/sacrifice was accepted which was proved by His resurrecton on the third day.
"There is none so blind as they that won’t see."
Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
what??
July 7, 2008 - 20:31 ET by candanceRegardless of its benefit to humankind, it is impossible to say the Old Testament at that time was an empirical document of the same standards of truth we would expect from similar documents today.
So basically all you're saying is, "I think the Bible is stupid so I resent someone saying it's more than folklore."
It'll be interesting some 100 years from now when people sit around saying "oh those people in 2008 didn't know how to verify anything, so we can't expect their documents to be accurate."
Accurate Differently
July 7, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Remixer96I never stated that the Bible was stupid, and even mentioned it has done good for the world in many ways. I only contended that it was not produced to or for the standards of historical accuracy we view as routine today.
I agree, if I should live that long, it will be interesting to see what is said about our standards of truth today. However, that does not in any way lend greater credibility to the Old Testament's historical accuracy.
If we as a society are
July 7, 2008 - 21:11 ET by Clear thinkerIf we as a society are judged concerning our standards of truth, we are screwed!
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
"the books of the Old
July 8, 2008 - 14:08 ET by mattm"the books of the Old Testament were passed down orally long before they were ever written" How could you know this? It's impossible to legitimately state that as a fact. If you want to believe that, fine. But it can't possibly be a verifiable fact (unless verifiable facts can be handed down orally - in which case, even if it were true, it wouldn't harm the validity of scripture).
But this is a standard lie the God-Haters use - What they conveniently ignore is that the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the Hebrews and their ancestors were meticulous in their handling of the words they considered sacred.
You also mentioned "today's standards of historical accuracy" - I contend that today's standards are crap compared to earlier times. Just look at the MSM, or a high-school history book - where Marilyn Monroe is given more coverage than Abraham Lincoln!
The hypocrites who use some unverifiable artifact to dismiss Christianity, will scoff at anything that supports it. Like the scriptures themselves. (Of which there is far more historical verification than there is of any other ancient writing.)
Tell yourself what you want, but you can't change the truth.
2 Peter 3:3-7 "Knowing this
July 8, 2008 - 14:55 ET by bradbenj59522 Peter 3:3-7 "Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying,
Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep,
all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they
willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of
old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens
and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly
men."
It would never occur to many unbelievers that God had them pegged almost 2000 years ago...but of course, He knows everything past, present and future.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
Remix, geneoalogy of the
July 8, 2008 - 11:26 ET by bassndudeRemix, geneoalogy of the family lines was kept on the staff they carried. These were handed down from father to eldest son, for generations. That is not word of mouth or folklore. As far as the rest of the books of the old testament, they were written much as they happned. Genesis would be the only book you could question, and there is more than one written account of creation. And not just the Hebrew account. Some were written earlier than in Genesis, and in lands far from Israel or Egypt. The tablet found in Iraq, and other older writings in Turkey tend to lend credibility to Genesis. So you are catagorically and factually wrong on mulitple levels here. Evidently your not very well versed in history, triditions of old or the Bible.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Remixer 96 you're obviously confused
July 9, 2008 - 10:35 ET by The Wicked ConservativeA little late but not without need of rebuttal.
My problem with this statement is that the books of the Old Testament
were passed down orally long before they were ever written,
Wrong! The Hebrew people were meticulous historians. Why were the dead see scrolls written? Because they were continuing to write their history so it wouldn't be forgotten. In the Bible, in the books of 1rst & 2nd Kings we see the decline of Israel. One of the things that brought about revival was King Josiahs discovery of The Book of Law in the temple. generations of Jews had moved from God and forgoten their way. When the Book of Law was found King Josiah recommitted Israel to the Lord. It's tough to stumble across oral tradition after generations have forgotten the way.
Point is, an actual book was found. It was written history. Please try to stick to topics you're familiar with.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill
If true, this could mean
July 7, 2008 - 20:31 ET by motherbeltIf true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a
well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on
the third day - and it might even hint that they they could have
applied it in their grief after their master was crucified.
Uh...they didn't "decree" it.....in fact they didn't even believe it at first. Or are they claiming that all the gospel accounts of Jesus appearing to His disciples after His rising are all fabricated?
Oh, and if you believe that, then all the Old Testament prophets, most especially Isaiah, "knew" that this "rising" thing was going to happen before Jesus was even born, and fashioned their prophecies in accord with it. (GMTA, Ken...I have to admit I wrote this before I even got that far in the article...I was so mad!)
Compare the ease with which people are willing to grant credence to an item that "might" discredit a claim of Christianity with how much time and money have been spent trying to prove the Shroud of Turin is a fake.
Why is it that some in the media think it is their sworn duty to make every effort to discredit Christianity? Why do they not even consider the possibility that the tablet is a prophecy of the Resurrection of Christ?
They start with one tiny thing, figure out the most outrageous conclusion, and then try to make it fit.
Well, hey, I guess we should be grateful that at least this one doesn't involve Mary Magdalene.
Shoot 'em all; let God sort 'em out! - Marge Simpson
Myths are dreams
July 8, 2008 - 01:39 ET by KC MulvilleLike you, mb, this "discovery" doesn't seem to be a big deal to me. Many of the events of Jesus' life were described in the New Testament as specifically fulfilling one or more prophecies from the Old Testament. What's the big deal in saying that the events of Jesus' life follow the prophecies which were common at the time?
Not to be facetious, but put yourself in God's shoes. You intend to send a savior, but how will your people recognize the savior to follow him? The obvious method, especially among an oral culture that lacks the advantages of modern technology, is to have the savior fulfill a number of ancient prophecies. By that, they shall know him.
This offers no dent in my faith whatsoever. Actually, I'm a passionate student of myth and mysticism, and as it turns out, many of the Christian prophecies and practices are similar to other cultures throughout the world and throughout history. Anyone who's read Joseph Campbell (although he's a popularizer; I prefer others) will see that cultural anthropology has revealed dozens of common themes and myths.
To me, this adds to my faith, and only a pure secularist dedicated to undermining religion would misunderstand it so badly -- like, for instance, the breathless reporter of the story. What a lunkhead!
Well said. I'm a devote
July 8, 2008 - 07:32 ET by KillgraveWell said.
I'm a devote agnostic, and have the lowest opinion towards atheists. Religion is about knowing the unknowable (faith). Atheists pretend to be non-religious, but they are probably the most religious. They are CERTAIN that there is NOTHING beyond their knowing. As far as religions go, this is about as dark as it gets. No wonder atheists, for the most part, are very angry and bitter, and are heavily represented on the left.
"Why is it that some in the
July 8, 2008 - 11:19 ET by mattm"Why is it that some in the media think it is their sworn duty to make every effort to discredit Christianity?"
Because if they can't discredit it, that means they are guilty before God, and they would either have to humble themselves before him, which they are too proud to do, or face eternal damnation, which they refuse to believe in.
Their only choice is to deny the truth. This is actually evidence of the validity of Christianity. Jesus told us that we (Christians) "would be hated of all nations for my (his) name's sake."
This kind of stuff is infuriating, but it is also faith-building because it verifies the truths Christ spoke: i.e. "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you." - John 15: 18,19.
" Uh...they didn't "decree"
July 8, 2008 - 13:56 ET by misterbee241"
Uh...they didn't "decree" it.....in fact they didn't even believe
it at first. Or are they claiming that all the gospel accounts of Jesus
appearing to His disciples after His rising are all fabricated?"
Even when they met Him on the mountain and He gave them the Great Commission, some still did not believe.
"There is none so blind as they that won’t see."
Jonathan Swift 1667-1745
These "controversial relics"
July 7, 2008 - 20:26 ET by zhombreThese "controversial relics" casting doubt on Christian orthodoxy seem to pop up on a semiannual basis, often near Easter. The "gospel of Judas" was recently discovered. And did not movie mogul James Cameron locate Jesus' tomb? I expect Cameron will next claim to have found the femur of Jesus. Or mayb Judas' day planner ("Friday -- Gethsemane -- 9 PM -- betray Jesus")
Judas' Day Planner
July 7, 2008 - 20:34 ET by CarlosS"OK, now, that's funny" to quote Larry the Cable Guy..., even to a crazed, right-wing, religious zealot, devout Roman Catholic like me
Every single time a lefty
July 7, 2008 - 21:07 ET by Clear thinkerEvery single time a lefty makes claims against Christianity, I spend time reminding those people... "If you live like there is no Hell, you had better be right".
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
no archeological discovery
July 7, 2008 - 22:50 ET by cocodrieno archeological discovery has ever contradicted the scriptures, old and new testaments. the dead sea scrolls that lay buried for a couple of thousand years read word for word with all the known manuscripts. maybe the NYT could hire some of the old scribes to improve its accuracy.
Time the Rag
July 8, 2008 - 00:02 ET by jaywlThere is a lot of interesting back and forth on this topic. However, there is an interest in the media also. I wonder if Time the Rag would print a like story about one of the central tenets of Islam. Maybe if a contemporary source claimed the big cheese was really just into kiddie sex and used the revelations as a permission slip, as it were. Or if they found a description of Muhammad dining on dog. I don't think Time published the Danish cartoons that so upset the Muslim world. Why not? Scott MacLeod, Time's resident agent in Cairo (sounds like CIA), said this of re-publishing the cartoons in February 2008 "A more creative way of tackling Muslim intimidation would be for Danes
to promote cross-cultural dialogue where issues are discussed and
consensuses are achieved". When an issue like this ( a Christian issue) is discussed here, that is possible. But MacLeod should know no consensus will be achieved with an issue like the cartoons. They would prefer to chop your head off or bomb your offices. That is the reason time wouldn't publish blasphemous Islamic material and just loves tripe such as today's article or descriptions of the artistry depicting Christ and bodily fluids (over the years!).
I echo other peoples' point
July 8, 2008 - 07:22 ET by KillgraveI e