Is Jesus really God? Did he actually claim to be God?

[McCulloch]

If Jesus claimed to be God, he either was, or wasn't. There is no third option. If he was who he claimed to be, then a lot of mystery is solved. I can't think of any issue that could be more pertinent to the discussion of origins.

Did the character of Jesus depicted in the Gospels actually claim to be God?
Is it possible that the words put into Jesus' mouth by the Gospel writers were not always the ones that he spoke?

[EduChris]

...can't be confirmed.

And once again we have the zealous pogroms of scientism, attempting to impose a narrow view of truth on everyone.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 99:

...can't be confirmed.

And once again we have the zealous pogroms of scientism, attempting to impose a narrow view of truth on everyone.

an organized massacre of helpless people; specifically : such a massacre of Jews

I am disgusted that someone would consider a challenge (or response) to their claims a "pogrom".

That one would enter a debate and equate challenges to their claims with the plight of the Jews is the most outlandish, boorish thing I've ever encountered in all my borne days.

[fredonly]

...It is impossible to know exactly what elements of the stories were historically factual. When the historical method is applied, the implausible elements (such as his divinity) fall out - there's just not sufficient credible support to consider the information reliable.

History tells us that an extraordinary man named Jesus lived and died, and that many people believed he appeared to them alive again after his execution. History cannot provide any plausible explanation for these (perceived) appearances, though of course various attempts have been made. At any rate, there is no good reason why people cannot examine the evidence and reach the conclusion that the appearances were real, and therefore divine agency was involved. ...

If what you were saying were true, then there would be near unanimity among historians regardless of their cultural and religious background. In reality, you have an insider perception of the historical record, interpreting it to support your preconceived beliefs.

The record shows one thing only: that there were people who believed Jesus had risen from the dead. The basis of this belief can only be speculated upon. Christians (the insiders) uncritically assume the only possible answer is that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead. However, this is the most implausible of the hypothetical possibilities when evaluated from any objective landscape of background knowledge. There is, for example, no objective reason to assume the God of the Jews (to whom Jesus prayed) is a real existing entity and that he interacts with our world in the form of "miracles." With no objective reason to assume a miracle can occur, there is then no reason to assume a dead man can return to life. Of course, Jesus contemporaries would never have questioned the active role of supernatural forces in the world, so miracles were easily accepted; consequently a report of a miracle would be looked at by many with awe, rather than with skepticism (as we would today).

Apply objective criteria to the historical evidence, and Christian interpretation will not stand up. For an outline of objective criteria, see this article on thehistorical method .

Obviously someone who is commited to a non-theistic worldview will not reach this conclusion, but there is nothing intrinsically unreasonable about the idea that the God who created the world can at times act within the world, provided that God has good reason to do so.

No, nothing unreasonable....if you begin with a series of assumptions. Shouldn't the objective starting point be those beliefs that we all hold in common? This would certainly be the starting point if I were to try and convince you that extra-terrestrial aliens had visited the earth, or that reincarnation occurs. In fact, this is the way the historical method works - a hypothesis which relies on assumptions outside commonly agreed truths is deemed implausible unless a case can be made to accept the proposed new truth.

The Christian's challenge is to start with commonly held assumptions about the world, then establish the liklihood that a creative deity existed, that it continues to exist, that it interacts with the world in the form of miracles, and that it has done so in a manner consistent with the Old Testament. After making these cases, you could then attempt to make the case that the reports in the Gospels can be taken at face value.

[micatala]

...can't be confirmed.

And once again we have the zealous pogroms of scientism, attempting to impose a narrow view of truth on everyone.

Moderator Final Warning


EduChris previously received a warning for use of "nazi" accusations.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 470#429470

Linking back to posts using that language could definitely be considered an attempt to continue to violate the rules.

This post goes on to use the word "pogrom" which is also arguably inflammatory, and in fact, is hard to take any other way.

Please avoid trying to push the boundaries of the rules. This site is meant to foster respectful civil debate. This post does not count as respectful, civil debate. You can certainly argue against scientism without using inflammatory language.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[EduChris]

...Christians (the insiders) uncritically assume the only possible answer is that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead...

Uncritical? There has been more critical examination of the data from first-century Christianity than any other matter of ancient record. To say that the average person on the street is "uncritical" is one thing; but to accuse scholarly studies as "uncritical" can only stem from bias or ignorance.

...this is the most implausible of the hypothetical possibilities when evaluated from any objective landscape of background knowledge...

You can only make this claim if you have already (uncritically?) adopted a non-theistic interpretive framework.

...There is, for example, no objective reason to assume the God of the Jews (to whom Jesus prayed) is a real existing entity and that he interacts with our world in the form of "miracles."

You seem to be supposing that the God of the Jews is a contingent entity which requires evidence. This view of God was abandoned centuries ago, and it never was part of the biblical portrayal of God; thus, it has no bearing on contemporary discussion.

...With no objective reason to assume a miracle can occur, there is then no reason to assume a dead man can return to life...

But if a dead man did return to life, then we have objective reason to assume a miracle can occur and did occur. You are simply assuming your own consequent.

...Of course, Jesus contemporaries would never have questioned the active role of supernatural forces in the world, so miracles were easily accepted; consequently a report of a miracle would be looked at by many with awe, rather than with skepticism (as we would today)...

Nonsense. What you have is a bad case of contemporary parochialism. People in ancient times knew that dead people stayed dead, and first-century Judaism has no expectation of one individual rising from the dead (their view of the resurrection entailed everyone being raised for judgement at the end of history).

...Apply objective criteria to the historical evidence, and Christian interpretation will not stand up...

I do not deny that "objective" critical history will only say that people believed Jesus to have risen from the dead. So what? If you want to stop there, fine--but there is nothing to prevent someone from looking deeper, and adopting a theistic interpretative framework at least to see where such a framework might lead.

...you begin with a series of assumptions. Shouldn't the objective starting point be those beliefs that we all hold in common?...

I agree that starting from a non-theistic interpretive framework will yield non-theistic results, no matter how implausible those results might be. Again, so what?

...The Christian's challenge is to start with commonly held assumptions about the world, then establish the liklihood that a creative deity existed, that it continues to exist, that it interacts with the world in the form of miracles, and that it has done so in a manner consistent with the Old Testament. After making these cases, you could then attempt to make the case that the reports in the Gospels can be taken at face value.

This can be done and has been done. Will the results and methods convince everyone? Of course not--but again, so what? It's not as if anyone can prove their own worldview, for we all start with unprovable axioms and work from there as best we can.

[EduChris]

...I am disgusted that someone would consider a challenge (or response) to their claims a "pogrom"...

My apologies. In hindsight I should have employed the language of AquinasD's Scientific Inquisition.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

...Christians (the insiders) uncritically assume the only possible answer is that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead...

Uncritical? There has been more critical examination of the data from first-century Christianity than any other matter of ancient record. To say that the average person on the street is "uncritical" is one thing; but to accuse scholarly studies as "uncritical" can only stem from bias or ignorance.

Which scholarly studies are we talking about? Historians have examined the evidence critically, and have not come to the conclusion that the claims of Christian theology are historically supported. I really have to wonder what you're referring to when you frequently mention how Christianity is best supported by a "convergence of scholarly disciplines" (I believe that is roughly your terminology). It seems like whenever you go to a scholarly discipline besides theology for support you are dismissing most of it in favour of fringe ideas that support your position.

...this is the most implausible of the hypothetical possibilities when evaluated from any objective landscape of background knowledge...

You can only make this claim if you have already (uncritically?) adopted a non-theistic interpretive framework.

Do you see a difference between the historical method and "non-theistic interpretive framework"? Or are these phrases synonymous for you?

You seem to be supposing that the God of the Jews is a contingent entity which requires evidence. This view of God was abandoned centuries ago, and it never was part of the biblical portrayal of God; thus, it has no bearing on contemporary discussion.

Even if this were true, and I'm pretty sure it's not (you still haven't provided evidence for this claim from a previous challenge), you aren't taking a reasonable position. If you claim that this god interacts with the world in specific instances, you need evidence. Being noncontingent doesn't mean we have to accept every claim about it uncritically.

I do not deny that "objective" critical history will only say that people believed Jesus to have risen from the dead. So what? If you want to stop there, fine--but there is nothing to prevent someone from looking deeper, and adopting a theistic interpretative framework at least to see where such a framework might lead.

How does this work? How does assuming god exists make the historical evidence any more convincing? I imagine there must be some other assumptions being thrown in here. "God exists" as an assumption shouldn't immediately make us more credulous to anonymous hearsay about a god. I feel like you have a more detailed argument in mind (maybe because I've seen you post it before, in which case you can go ahead and link it up).

[Goat]

...I am disgusted that someone would consider a challenge (or response) to their claims a "pogrom"...

My apologies. In hindsight I should have employed the language of AquinasD's Scientific Inquisition.

You seem to equate being able to back up claims with science. However, in this category, science and the scientific method is not the issue.. so discussing science, and the limits of science would not be appropriate.

however, that is different that being able to back up claims.

[EduChris]

...You seem to equate being able to back up claims with science. However, in this category, science and the scientific method is not the issue...

Apart the the strict confines of empiricism, which pertains to matters of pragmatic utility rather than truth, how does one "back up claims" that pertain to philosophical matters?

[fredonly]

...Christians (the insiders) uncritically assume the only possible answer is that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead...

Uncritical? There has been more critical examination of the data from first-century Christianity than any other matter of ancient record. To say that the average person on the street is "uncritical" is one thing; but to accuse scholarly studies as "uncritical" can only stem from bias or ignorance.

Perhaps "uncritical" was a bit harsh, although this certainly applies to lot of scholars and most non-scholars when it comes to evaluating the historical evidence for the resurrection. At minimum, a Christian scholar is going to carry a bias toward finding what he is looking for, and this makes using their verdict suspect. (I would be fine with examining their analysis, however).

...this is the most implausible of the hypothetical possibilities when evaluated from any objective landscape of background knowledge...

You can only make this claim if you have already (uncritically?) adopted a non-theistic interpretive framework.

Interesting choice of words. I certainly feel that I've looked into it with an open mind, but you seem to be implying one should instead have a "theistic interpretive framework" (which sounds like you think it appropriate to start with some theistic assumptions).

...There is, for example, no objective reason to assume the God of the Jews (to whom Jesus prayed) is a real existing entity and that he interacts with our world in the form of "miracles."

You seem to be supposing that the God of the Jews is a contingent entity which requires evidence. This view of God was abandoned centuries ago, and it never was part of the biblical portrayal of God; thus, it has no bearing on contemporary discussion.

I'm not discussing God as a contingent entity, I'm talking about the assumptions that are reasonable to make when evaluating historical evidence. Do you actually insist that the background facts that historians use in evaluating historical hypotheses, should include Yahweh's existence and his periodic intervention in the world?!

...With no objective reason to assume a miracle can occur, there is then no reason to assume a dead man can return to life...

But if a dead man did return to life, then we have objective reason to assume a miracle can occur and did occur. You are simply assuming your own consequent.

Let me explain the historical evaluation process. If we're evaluating two or more competing hypotheses, one should apply the criteria for argument to the best explanation. Among these criteria are the following:
4. The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other; and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly than any other.
5. The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs.
6. It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject; that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false.

The resurrection hypothesis depends on the ad hoc assumption that miracles occur, placing it at a distinct disadvantage to hypotheses that depend solely on commonly accepted truths. Further, even if miracles do occur " they are so rare that natural explanations will always provide a more probable explanation.

Compare this to historical hypotheses about the construction of the pyramids in Egypt. There have been some who have proposed that they were constructed by, or with the assistance of extra-terrestrials. What reason might we have for failing to give such a hypothesis due consideration? It is exactly the same reason why miracles may not be assumed a priori: it's an ad hoc explanation unless one can establish the likelihood that aliens have indeed visited the earth.

...Of course, Jesus contemporaries would never have questioned the active role of supernatural forces in the world, so miracles were easily accepted; consequently a report of a miracle would be looked at by many with awe, rather than with skepticism (as we would today)...

Nonsense. What you have is a bad case of contemporary parochialism. People in ancient times knew that dead people stayed dead, and first-century Judaism has no expectation of one individual rising from the dead (their view of the resurrection entailed everyone being raised for judgement at the end of history).

My point is that these ancient people were exceedingly more credulous than modern, educated people in terms of their willingness to accept incredible stories. Further, there is no evidence that the early Christians performed any critical evaluation of the stories they were told. If they believed the stories, they joined The Way; if they didn't believe the stories, they did not join. What has come down to us is the product of those who believed, and there's no way to escape that fact.

...Apply objective criteria to the historical evidence, and Christian interpretation will not stand up...

I do not deny that "objective" critical history will only say that people believed Jesus to have risen from the dead. So what? If you want to stop there, fine--but there is nothing to prevent someone from looking deeper, and adopting a theistic interpretative framework at least to see where such a framework might lead.

I agree " you needn't stop there, but then you are going beyond history. Are you willing to withdraw your statement below in bold?:

History tells us that an extraordinary man named Jesus lived and died, and that many people believed he appeared to them alive again after his execution. History cannot provide any plausible explanation for these (perceived) appearances,

Because a theistic framework entails non-historical, theological assumptions " and that ain't history. I'm fine with you making any assumptions you like and creating/finding deep meaning for your life based on this, but I'm not fine with suggesting that your view is supported by objective analysis.

...you begin with a series of assumptions. Shouldn't the objective starting point be those beliefs that we all hold in common?...

I agree that starting from a non-theistic interpretive framework will yield non-theistic results, no matter how implausible those results might be. Again, so what?

At question is how one can objectively evaluate hypotheses. If a theistic hypotheses could win the argument to best explanation, when evaluating objectively, then I would have no problem accepting it. You appear to insist that we treat your unsupported theistic assumptions the same as the apparent laws of nature that we all generally accept. To be consistent, you would then need to allow other unsupported assumptions to receive the same consideration (e.g. we should not rule out the alien-pyramid hypothesis; reincarnation must be taken seriously, and you'd best guard your thoughts " because the guy next door might be a telepath).

...The Christian's challenge is to start with commonly held assumptions about the world, then establish the liklihood that a creative deity existed, that it continues to exist, that it interacts with the world in the form of miracles, and that it has done so in a manner consistent with the Old Testament. After making these cases, you could then attempt to make the case that the reports in the Gospels can be taken at face value.

This can be done and has been done. Will the results and methods convince everyone? Of course not--but again, so what? It's not as if anyone can prove their own worldview, for we all start with unprovable axioms and work from there as best we can.

I suppose it has been done to your satisfaction, but I question how critically you evaluated the arguments " but that's off the track. The real issue in this discussion is that your stated position was that the historical record makes a strong case for the Resurrection. In actual fact, your case appears to depend on a series of theistic and (I presume) Jewish assumptions. You might as well say that you simply assume the Resurrection actually occurred and stay home the rest of the day since there's not much left to debate.

Regarding your statement that we start with "unprovable axioms" " I don't fully agree. We start with beliefs, and perhaps a handful of axioms (e.g. existence; identity, the law of non-contradiction, and the validity of logical inference). I think one should have justification for one's beliefs, although there's no objective arbiter of what constitutes a reasonable justification.