A History of God
In 1010 AD, God…
- Casts lightning bolts
- Creates earthquakes
- Makes water fall from the sky
- Sends floods
- Starts fire
- Throws hurricanes
- Makes the sun go around the earth
- Created every creature independently
- Spoke the universe into existence
In 1510 AD, God…
- Casts lightning bolts
- Creates earthquakes
- Makes water fall from the sky
- Sends floods
- Starts fire
- Throws hurricanes
- Makes the sun go around the earth
- Created every creature independently
- Spoke the universe into existence
In 2010 AD, God…
- Casts lightning bolts
- Creates earthquakes
- Makes water fall from the sky
- Sends floods
- Starts fire
- Throws hurricanes
- Makes the sun go around the earth
- Created every creature independently
- Spoke the universe into existence
And this, my friend, is what we mean by the “God of the Gaps”.
I do not have blind faith in blind gaps. I do not have confidence over that which we cannot yet know.
And the way I see it — it often seems — to explain the Unknown with another Unknown is to not explain at all.
I just saw a movie today called “The God who wasn’t there”. A real thriller lol.
It was a documentary of Jesus saying basically he was a myth. Citing the huge gap between the time he died and the completion of the gospels. interesting documentary. Has anyone else seen this?
http://www.thegodmovie.com/
Rick,
If you died when you were 33 and someone who had spent several years basically living with you wrote a book about your time together, even if it was 20 years later, would it mean they were full of crap since they didn’t write it right away?
There’s no firm evidence that it wasn’t all made up. Many of the previous Gods were born on Dec.25th of a virgin , were wise as children died at 33 after being beaten and tortured , were betrayed by their followers, healed the sick and raised the dead. Among many other of the same traits that Jesus had. We know none of the other Gods were real. Some of these Gods were made up 2500 years before Jesus so it seems very likely that Jesus was just the last version of the stories.
TwoEdgedSword
It’s generally accepted that the earliest book of the New Testament (First Thessalonians) was written around 50 CE. The gospels around 55 to 100.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any New Testament authors even met Jesus let alone lived with him. Paul, you will recall, “met” Jesus on the road to Damascus in spirit, not as man.
Rick,
So you are talking about Jesus as God, or the Son of God. That I think is wide open for debate. Something that can’t be proven. There are several prophecies that he fulfilled that makes one start to wonder, but fulfilled prophecies don’t necessitate any sort of deity. But Jesus as a historical person I think is pretty solid.
Juke,
True about Paul. And, he wrote a good chunk of the New Testament. But I think there is something legit in what happened to Paul. Whether one believes the Biblical account of his encounter on the road to Damascus or not is up to them. But one CAN NOT deny, at least I don’t think, that SOMETHING powerful happened to the then named Saul that rocked his world and changed his life forever.
Given that Paul is considered to be the founder of modern Christianity I agree that it can safely be said that he “rocked the world”. Though without Constantine and the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire it can reasonably be argued that Paul’s influence on the world would have been far less. The question of whether they were divinely inspired (and in the case of Constantine this is hardly credible) is contingent on whether the existence of gods can be established.
Many people were called Jesus (Yeshua, Yehoshua, whatever) and no doubt some of them were preachers. The “historical” Jesus may be a composite or a single man. Your statement that he fulfilled prophecies was and is not one supported by his people, the Jews. Judaism maintains that Jesus was most definitely not the Messiah.
Juke,
I agree with what you said about Paul and Constantine. But I also believe that God spoke through an ass in the Old Testament. And, if he can do that, then why not use Constantine?
I also understand that there were many people in the day of Jesus that were named Jesus. (Wow… that sounds weird). =) The prophecies that he fulfilled were ones laid out in the Old Testament. From my understanding, which is probably VERY limited compared to others, the Jews didn’t like the idea of Jesus as Messiah because their idea of who Messiah is/was was not at all what Jesus looked like. They wanted a warrior that was going to lead the Jews in the conquering of their oppressors. Not a Messiah that said “love your enemies” and was willing to talk with a Samaritan woman (likely a prostitute) at a well and tell her that there is no need to worship in the temple.
Why not indeed. If “god” can speak through an ass he can speak through anything. And there is certainly a great many people speaking through their ass on his behalf.
Some followers of Judaism do not believe in messianic prophecies since there’s no mention of them in the first five books of the Bible (their Torah). We can only speculate as to why the others did not accept Jesus, though you may be right. The point is that only in later religions – Christianity and Islam – which hijacked the parts of Judaism that suited their worldview (and rejected those that didn’t) is Jesus the Messiah.
Actually, the earliest passage of Scripture proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is dated to be written between 2 to 8 years after the death of Christ. This passage was written by Paul.
Here is an excerpt from an article of mine called “Jesus: How History Tells It”. If you wish to hear a full rebuttal from me, you can consider that article to be my full rebuttal.
“Once the Bible’s accuracy is understood, the most convincing evidence of Jesus’ existence is that of the eye-witness accounts. Some of the earliest Christian creeds, proclaiming the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, were written 3 to 10 years after His crucifixion—including Paul’s letters to the Corinthians, Romans, and Galatians (www.allaboutjesuschrist.org). The Gospel of Mark was written between A.D. 55 and A.D. 65. Mark is thought to be the first gospel since many of the verses from Mark also can be found in Matthew and Luke. (Muncaster, p. 101) John was believed to be the latest gospel, written around A.D. 80 (Ibid). These dates further prove that the Gospels are not stories made up by Christians long after Jesus’ death. They are real, eye-witness accounts, the earliest of which was written roughly 20 years after the death of Christ.”—Jesus: How History Tells It
There was no huge gap between the death of Jesus and the Gospels. The Gospels were completed LESS than a century after the death of Jesus. Looking at the latest Gospel, Luke, we can see that the completion of the last Gospel took place roughly 47 years after the death of Jesus. This not a huge gap of time at all.
lol @ Juke! You are right, unfortunately. Their are many people who talk out of their ass on behalf of Jesus. Another unfortunate truth is that they are the ones who usually talk the loudest and get the most attention.
Holyfire
“Actually, the earliest passage of Scripture proclaiming the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is dated to be written between 2 to 8 years after the death of Christ. This passage was written by Paul.”
I’m intrigued by this. What do you define as scripture and what is your source?
“They are real, eye-witness accounts, the earliest of which was written roughly 20 years after the death of Christ.”
3rd party witness accounts, (not written by the actual witnesses), yes?
Holyfire
No need to answer, I’ve been to your source – http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org – a part of All About GOD Ministries, Inc.
They also say that “life would have been impossible before 20,000 BC” and that “dinosaur extinction is a recent phenomenon…about 4400 years ago.”
I will leave to others to judge the quality of their (and your) scholarship.
@Juke
In response to your first question, the passage of Scripture is from 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. It reads like this:
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”—1 Corinthians 15:3-8
This is discussed in my article also. The two sources I used were allaboutjesuschrist.org, and a book called Who Made God: And Answers To Over 100 Other Questions of Faith. This book is a collaboration among many apologists like Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, and Norman Geisler. The Book was edited by Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler. Very good book in my opinion. Here is a quote straight from the book, concerning the above passage of Scripture:
“Scholars from a wide theological spectrum have dated this creed to within two to eight years of Jesus’ resurrection, when Paul received it in either Damascus or Jerusalem. Said resurrection expert Gary Habermas, ‘I would concur with scholars who believe Paul recieved this material three years after his conversion, when he took a trip to Jerusalem and…got it directly from the eyewitnesses Peter and James themselves’.” (Who Made God?, pg. 98-99)
Juke, in reponse to your second question, no, the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts. Also in the book Who Made God, Lee Strobel gives an account of an interview with Bible scholar, Dr. Craig Blomberg:
“Craig Blomberg,…conceded that, strictly speaking, the Gospels are anonymous. Nevertheless, he stressed that the uniform testimony of the early church was that Matthew, the tax collector and one of the twelve disciples, was the author of the first Gospel in the New Testament; John Mark, a companion of the disciple Peter, wrote the Gospel we call Mark; and Luke, known as Paul’s ‘beloved physician,’ wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles.
“While the name of the author of the fourth Gospel isn’t in doubt—it is certainly John—there was a question concerning whether it was John the apostle or a different John. Blomberg, though, said he is convinced that ‘a substantial majority of the material goes back to the apostle,’ although someone closely associated with John may have acted as an editor, ‘putting the last verses into shape and potentially creating the stylistic uniformity of the entire document.’ In any event, he emphasized, ‘the Gospel is obviously based on eyewitness material, as are the other three Gospels.’ “(Who Made God, pg. 76) Strobel includes the full interview in his book The Case For Christ.
Both Matthew and Mark were disciples themselves, so it is obvious that they witnessed Jesus. Luke wrote the latest Gospel, and he probably never knew Jesus personally. However, he was a companion of Paul, and like my first quotation above states, Paul had contact with some of the disciples like Peter and James who were eyewitnesses.
While the identity of John is slightly in question, the majority of the evidence leads back to the apostle John who, like Matthew and Mark, was sure to have witnessed Jesus. Although, even if it was a different John, the account fits so perfectly with the other three Gospels, that it can also be considered an eyewitness account because of its corraboration. Here is a link to my article: http://holyfire23.wordpress.com/2009/12/14/jesus-how-history-tells-it/
@Juke
I wrote that for nothing? xD It’s ok. Dinosaur extinction is completely different issue. And their opinion on Dinosaur extinction has nothing to do with Jesus.
twoedgedsword – I agree with you on the point that the Christians who talk out of their asses are the ones that get the most attention. There are some very level headed Christians, many in fact. The crazy ones get all the press. That must drive you nuts.
I think most atheists dont put you all in one catagory. It’s mostly the crazy ones I have an issue with, and I dont consider you in that catagory.
There are crazy atheists too. I have heard some say that Christians should be removed from the planet. That’s scary too.
Hellfire,
Not for nothing, I found it to be an interesting alternative viewpoint. But proof? Hardly. I will continue to give credence to the scholarship of less partisan and more credible researchers than Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig and Norman Geisler, all of whom ride the evangelical gravy train and believe that Intelligent Design is bona fide science.
You rightly point out that dinosaur extinction has nothing to do with Jesus.
But it’s a question of trust. How can anyone who believes that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as the building of Stonehenge and the Pyramids be considered intellectually sound?
I’m sorry, but if you wish to taken seriously you will need to present evidence from more intellectually neutral sources.
@ Rick: Thank you, Rick. And I couldn’t agree more!
Holyfire
My apologies for calling you Hellfire. It was an honest slip. I’m typing this on an iPod and can barely see the thing. No offence intended.
@Juke
No offense taken.
I consider William Lane Craig, Norman Geisler, and Lee Strobel very credible sources. To discount an argument because of its source is a fallacy. I’m not trying to get on to you here, I’m just saying that to discount a persons argument simply because they believe in God is illogical.
Lee Strobel’s book, The Case For Christ, is filled with interviews with many prominent scholars. I am reading it right now myself, and I can’t name every guy, but the interview I am on right now is with a guy who has a PhD from Princeton. These aren’t dumb guys. Most of them started out as atheists/agnostics and, through their research of Jesus, became Christians. So I only ask that when you read an argument from an apologist, don’t discount him because he is a Christian. If you wish to defeat his argument, argue against the actual argument, not the source.
“Lee Strobel’s book, The Case For Christ, is filled with interviews with many prominent scholars.”
I have been trying to tell you that the Case for Christ has been heavily critiqued for being one-sided. Of course, you barely ever listen to me.
But that’s okay. Just stick with your faith. One question though, why have a discussion if you’re not going to listen?
Lee Strobel did not try to find people who would tell him Jesus existed, he just went to the people who had studied Jesus—those who were experts on him. It just turned out that the people who actually studied Jesus found very solid evidence for the claims of Jesus.
Tim, if you disagree with the book simply because it argues for Christianity, I really see no reason to even give you my sources. You just deny them. Once again, you refuse to even examine the argument simply because it was written in defense of Christianity. This is a fallacy. If I told you that 2+2=4, could you deny that based on the fact I am a Christian? Of course not. So why is it that when I point you to a book that claims to have evidence for Jesus, you deny that the book holds any truth because it was written by a Christian? I don’t mean to be cold, but it looks like you are the one who does not wish to listen. I am fine if you think the book is bogus, but I don’t consider your opinion on the book logical. I hear what you’re saying, I just don’t agree. Simple as that.
Nicholas,
Holyfire
Craig, Geisler, and Strobel have reached their conclusion, the existence of “God” is a fact and Jesus as the son of “God” is a fact. They now cast around for evidence to support their conclusion. This in itself does not invalidate their research but it is a bit like expecting a politburo to provide an objective appraisal of communism.
From what I can see, no-one here is discounting their research out of hand. I, for my part, said that it was an “interesting alternative viewpoint” but that “I will continue to give credence to the scholarship of less partisan and more credible researchers”. You really must stop jumping to conclusions, if that’s at all possible.
I will go further, when most Biblical scholars accept your earlier dates for the New Testament or your contention that its authors knew Jesus, I will also. Why should I care? The central issue is not whether a preacher called Jesus existed but whether gods exist.
Guys, I’ll be busy for a day or two.
There’s a book called “America’s Real War” that is written by a Rabbi. He is a Jew, and does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah. But, he argues the case that a Judeo Christian worldview is essential for the survival of America. Very interesting read if anyone wants to check that out. His name is Rabbi Daniel Lapin.
I’ve read a summary of Lapin’s views. He is little different from any other far-right conservative – admirer of Pat Robertson and his like, opposed to abortion, homosexuality etc.
Unfortunately for Lapin the lesson of history is that everything changes and this will inevitably include America. The British Empire declined, the Roman Empire declined, all empires decline. I see no reason why America will be an exception. It’s simply the nature of things
Okay, Tim, I look forward to your next post.
I think the one thing that is different now from other points in history is that America is not an empire. I have thought of that same thing, but there is a difference. Some will STRONGLY disagree with the statement that America is not an empire, but here’s what I think is different. In those times, Rome, France, the Brits, etc., they were there ONLY global power. Right now if there was a global war there would be at LEAST two main powers, USA and China. Russia could come into play and possibly India. As far as economics, USA, China, and India are the power players (and Japan is making it’s mark as well). So there is no one controlling issue that America has to itself. Just my observations.
I think that America has (or rather had) a de facto empire but that aside I agree with your main point.
You forgot to mention the European Union which is in fact “the world’s richest region…with over $32,7 trillion compared to North America’s $27,1 trillion” (Wikipedia). It is often forgotten that the EU is a political union, not simply a common market, and that it is in the process of developing autonomous military capability and foreign policy.
I don’t think Russia or India as independent states will be major players. In the longer term I see America (or possibly the Americas), Europe (possibly with Russia as an EU member) and China (possibly as leader of a larger Asian alliance) as the dominant blocks.
Any major war between these blocks would be catastrophic so let’s hope that the need for global co-operation to tackle global problems will prevent this and advance humankind. ! won’t see the day but I would like to think the time will come when we are world citizens and our allegiances to individual states is a thing of the past. But then I believe that Star Trek is real.
PS. I should have used the word “bloc’ rather than “block”, I must learn to give the French some linguistic concessions.
I hadn’t thought of the EU and it’s financial muscle. That’s a good point. You said “the EU is a political union…” what do you mean by that? They are not all under one political umbrella, right?
Yes, they are (or I should say “we” since I’m an EU citizen). Among other things, it has its own legislature (though with limited scope) which passes laws which are binding on its member states, a judicial branch and a bill of rights, the “Charter of Fundamental Rights”. It can’t be considered a nation in the sense of the US, these are early days, but as a UK citizen I hold an EU passport and I am entitled to live, work and free passage in any of the other 26 member states. Think of it as a kind of United States in embryo.
Crazy… I didn’t know that! So is it on it’s way to having one president or leader? Own military? All that sort of stuff?
In fairness to Tim I think we should discontinue this strand because we are off-topic.
But to answer your question, it already has a president of sorts but with no real power. There is already a small EU military force but so far they have been confined to peace keeping roles. Greater military intergraton and closer political union is currently being discussed and is almost inevitable.
Amazing… Seems like a pretty cool thing! But, I agree with you. We shall discontinue this line. Thanks for the input!