Can the Resurrection of Jesus be Defended

[Tired of the Nonsense]

There are no (Christians present) in actual point of fact. None that will support the story of the death and resurrection of Jesus as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking." Unless there happens to be a Christian newbe present that I am unaware of who wishes to tackle the job. None of the Christian regulars here will defend the story of the resurrection beyond a "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it," defense.

Not so. None is all. I would defend it gladly. Logic and reason reveals what is most evident and what the Bible reveals is absolutely most evident. Start the thread up if you dare. Bring your best arguments.

[Mithrae]

But then of course the very first sentence of Ron Jones' article states: "The historical literary evidence shows that the Gospel of the Hebrews was a middle second century document written in Aramaic based on the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew and filled with additions, deletions, and changes to the text to reflect Jewish and Gnostic beliefs."

Yes, this is the author's thesis statement. He is attempting to prove this hypothesis in his article.

Which contradicts your earlier statement: "As I understand it, the majority scholarly opinion on the Gospel of the Hebrews is that it was likely an early or mid-second century work originally written in Greek. It was almost certainly not written by the apostle Matthew."

There is no contradiction here. My comment is merely an observation of the current state of scholarship. Jones himself notes further down in the article that his thesis runs counter to the majority view of scholars.

Though it seems that even Mr. Jones agreed with you that GHebrews was likely
> A 2nd century work
> Almost certainly not written by the apostle Matthew

If Papias was correct in saying that "Matthew composed the sayings in Hebrew style," I'm still partial to the possibility that the hypothetical Q source (or an original of which 'Q' was a Greek translation) would best fit the bill: Known to be an earlier and well-accepted work, mostly a collection of sayings, and its incorporation into Matthew and Luke could help explain how it was not independantly preserved despite its worthy origins. But it's merely speculation of course.


Another interesting tangent for the topic is whether Mark used an earlier written 'passion narrative' in composing his gospel, bringing the records a little closer to the date of the events (early 40s CE)?
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/passion.html

I think the idea has some merit, though of course we couldn't be sure whether the hypothetical source mentioned a resurrection or not.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Sorry about the tardiness of this reply. I have been away on a fishing trip for the last two days.

So you're arguing a point based on a passage you think is a lie?

Even if I concede that you're right (which you're not)... you're right, the passage somehow shows the resurrection was a hoax, but the passage is a lie, so your conclusion is about Matthew, not the resurrection.

IF we had agreed to exclude Gospel Matthew from the discussion based on the obvious tendencies of it's author to fabricate his claims, which you of course would never have agree to in the first place, then the remaining three Gospels are unanimous on a crucial point; the tomb was already open and empty at first light when the women went out to do honor to the body of Jesus. The obvious conclusion therefore is that someone living moved the body, and NOT that the body returned to life and left on it's own. With or without the Gospel of Matthew it is clear that the disciples of Jesus, the obvious suspects, had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body. They were, in fact, THE LAST ONE'S TO BE CLEARLY IN POSSESSION OF THE CORPSE. Even if you choose to accept Matthew's account of a guard being placed at the tomb, which you clearly do, it is still a classic case of locking the barn door after the horse is gone. The locked tomb proved to be empty. The obvious conclusion is that the tomb was empty prior to the tomb being secured, and the disciples are the clear and obvious suspects. Because the obvious answer to the question of a missing corpse is that it is overwhelmingly more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, then of actions taken by the corpse. Whether I personally consider The Gospel of Matthew to be a reliable account or a collection of bald-faced lies is IMMATERIAL. All four Gospels accounts contain claims which are simply not credible. I don't necessarily think that the authors of the other Gospels were liars, any more that I consider you to be a liar for what you believe. The author Gospel of Matthew I am afraid, is difficult to credit with any obvious recourse to honesty. And that IS my opinion.

As for the final disposition of the body in Galilee, I can only say that circumstantial evidence makes that a reasonably good bet. But of course the evidence for that conclusion, such as it is, is hardly conclusive.

You're making arguments like you used to be a Roman guard and you know exactly what the proper procedures would have been and how the guards would have reacted. You weren't. And you don't.

True. But there ARE historical accounts to guide me. Of the Roman system of military justice, Greek historian Polybius (Ca 200-118 B.C.) wrote:

"A court-martial composed of the tribunes immediately
sits to try him, and if he is found guilty, he is punished by
beating (fustuarium). This is carried out as follows. The tribune
takes a cudgel and lightly touches the condemned man with it,
whereupon all of the soldiers fall upon him with clubs and stones
and usually kill him in the camp itself. But even those who contrive
to escape are no better off. How indeed could they be? They are not
allowed to return to their homes, and none of their family would
dare to receive such a man into the house. Those who have fallen
into this misfortune are completely and finally ruined. The
optio and the decurio of the squadron are liable to the same
punishment if they fail to pass on the proper orders at the
proper moment to the patrols and the decurio of the next
squadron. The consequences of the extreme severity of this
penalty and the absolute impossibility of avoiding it is that
the night watches of the Roman army are faultlessly kept." (The
Rise of the Roman Empire, Polybius, Book VI, The Roman Military
System, sec. 37).

A Roman guard would have had no hope of being protected by a group of Jewish priests for the crime of sleeping on guard duty, and that is simply an obvious fact.

More importantly, the passage doesn't support your claim that the guards were Jewish temple police. It makes much more sense that the guards were Roman... or at least that Matthew intended on the reader understanding the guards to be Roman.

If you wish to continue to beat the Roman guard at the tomb dead horse with the same objections over and over ad nauseoum then allow me, through the magic of cut and paste, to reprise my entire argument against the myth of the Roman guards for you.

****

Matthew 27:
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch. [/]


Pilate tells the priests to "go on your way." "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure." Who sealed the stone? THE PRIESTS, sealed the stone. Not with Roman official seals, which they had no authority to set, but with their own official seals. Who set the guard? THE PRIESTS! Very specifically it tells us that the priests set the watch. The Jewish authorities had no authority to set ROMAN seals. They set the seals, and they set the guard. It's right there specifically, in the words of the text.

The priests asked Pilate to make the sepulchre "sure," and indeed Pilate grants their request. "YOU HAVE A WATCH," he tells them. "Go ahead and make it as sure as you can." It's almost as if Pilate is taunting the priests.

Although being in a graveyard was an unclean situation, it could rather quickly be rectified by a simple Mikvah, essentially an all over water immersion bath.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mikveh
"Mikveh is a bath used for the purpose of ritual immersion in Judaism. The word "mikveh", as used in the Hebrew Bible, literally means a "collection" " generally, a collection of water."

"Several biblical regulations specify that full immersion in water is required to regain ritual purity after ritually impure incidents have occurred. Most forms of impurity can be nullified through immersion in any natural collection of water. However, some impurities, such as a Zav, require "living water,"[4] such as springs or groundwater wells. Living water has the further advantage of being able to purify even while flowing, as opposed to rainwater which must be stationary in order to purify. The mikveh is designed to simplify this requirement, by providing a bathing facility that remains in ritual contact with a natural source of water."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikvah

Being exposed to a human corpse on the other hand was a very different kettle of fish. This required the priests to undergo extensive ritual cleansing, which involved finding a perfect red heifer, burning it, and then bathing with the ashes. This ritual could take days to perform.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ritual purification
"Tumat HaMet ("The impurity of death"), coming into contact with a human corpse, is considered the ultimate impurity, one which cannot be purified through the waters of the mikvah. Tumat HaMet required purification through sprinkling of the ashes of the Parah Adumah, the Red Heifer. However the law is inactive, since neither the Temple in Jerusalem nor the red heifer is currently in existence, though without the latter a Jew is forbidden to ascend to the site of the former. All are currently assumed to possess the impurity of death.[7] However, someone who is a Kohen, one of the priestly class, is not allowed to intentionally come into contact with a dead body, nor approach too closely to graves within a Jewish cemetery."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritual_purification

The priests SET THE WATCH. It means that they gave orders to the guards. Why would you conclude that this means a Roman guard? Let's look a little deeper into the question of the identity of the guards. Matthew 28:11 depicts the guards running to the Jewish priests for protection. This would be rather like a group of Nazi SS troopers running to a group of Rabbi's for protection from Hitler for being derelict in their duty. Why would such a pointless and utterly futile solution to their problem even occur to them? Matthew 28: depicts the guard taking money from the priests and a promise of protection from Pilate by the priests to OPENLY SPREAD THE STORY THAT THEY HAD BEEN ASLEEP WHILE ON GUARD DUTY. Sleeping while of guard duty was a major no-no in the Roman army, a capital crime punishable by being beaten to death, and the priests would have had no power to protect Roman soldiers from Roman military law. For a troop of Roman guards to have openly bragged of sleeping on guard duty, and not being held accountable for it is more than just unthinkable; it is utterly absurd. The penalty for being convicted of sleeping on guard duty was that the convicted man was forced to run the gauntlet, by which his fellow soldiers would make every effort to beat him to death. That's how serious a crime sleeping on guard duty was considered to be in the Roman army. It was a matter of the very discipline and morale of the Roman army that the Romans built their empire on. And in fact Pilate had no say in military discipline, which was the responsibility of his military commanders. Pilate himself had given the order that the tomb be made secure, but the priests had every reason to suppose that Pilate would be little concerned over the failure of a Jewish guard to protect the tomb. If the guard at the tomb were intended to be understood as being Roman however, Pilate's hands would have been tied.

More telling however, is if the guard were made up of Roman soldiers, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE PRIESTS CARE TO PROTECT THEM? The tomb was opened, their official seals were broken and the Roman guards are now giving them some cockamamie excuse as to how it happened. Clearly the guards had been bribed. The priests should have been outraged, and demanded that Pilate execute them for failure to do their duty. Certainly not seek to protect them. This story only make senses if the Matthew were referring to Jewish guards at the tomb. If the guards were made up of the priests OWN MEN; members of the temple police, then the rest of the story at least makes some sense. Clearly the author of Matthew never intended for the guard to be understood to be Romans. Which is exactly why NOWHERE, does he ever mention the tomb being guarded by Romans. This is purely a later Christian invention to heighten the drama of the story.

And you will notice, once again, as with every other instance in which the tomb guards are mentioned, the term "Roman" is no where used in conjunction with the guards. The guard reported to their superiors for instruction. Well of course they did! It was the obvious and in fact only course of action for Jewish guards to take. Roman guards would have had no reason to go to the Jewish priests at all, since Jewish priests had no power to, or hope of, protecting them. Nor would the Jewish priests have had any reason to protect them. The idea of Roman guards taking money to opening brag of sleeping on guard duty is pitiful in conception as it is laughable. Money has no value to a dead man. The author of Gospel Matthew never intended for the guard at the tomb to be understood to have been Roman. If he had, he certainly would have made it clear. A Roman guard protecting the grave of a convicted crucified criminal would have been hugely significant news at the time. Surely the author of Gospel Matthew would have made an effort to be very clear on that point, if that was the point he was trying to make. It does not really matter to the point I was trying to make however, which is that the obvious solution to the question of the empty tomb is that the body had already been removed when the guards, WHATEVER their identity, took possession of it. Your tenacious insistence on holding on to the idea of a Roman guard is an excellent example of the power and strength of both your lifetime of religious indoctrination and Christian mythology in action.

What did the priests ask Pilate to do? (Matt.27:64) "Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day." And Pilate gave that command as requested. He commanded them to go out and make the tomb as sure as they could. His command, his order, had therefore been violated, according to the account in Gospel Matthew. The guard had failed in their duty. But as you point out, Pilate was apathetic about the entire affair. The priests would have had every reason to suppose they could mollify him if those responsible for failing to protect the tomb were the priests own men. They would have had no hope at all of protecting Roman guards however. Pilate himself would have had no say in protecting Roman guards for the crime of dereliction of duty and openly boasting of sleeping while on guard duty.

If the guard were Roman, then the far better plan would have been to have had the guard charged with taking a bribe from the disciples and then have them all executed. "The Roman guards took money from the disciples in exchange for the body of Jesus, and the Roman guards were executed for their betrayal," makes a far better explanation to the Jewish nation for the empty tomb, then the story that the disciples had somehow managed to move the great stone and steal body while the guards were all asleep.

In the final analysis however the identity of the guard doesn't really matter much. No where does Matthew describe or assert that the guard or anyone else opened the tomb on that particular high holy day.

******

Now, I am sure you would love to keep the debate contained to this comparatively unimportant bit of popular Christian mythology, but your smoke screen does not change the fact that you have consistently and directly refused to answer the main issues put before you this entire time.

So here they are again!

The obvious answer to the question of a missing corpse is that it is overwhelmingly more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, then of actions taken by the corpse.
TRUE OR FALSE?

It is clear, even in the text of Gospel Matthew, that the disciples of Jesus had the means, motive and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus from the tomb to another location. In fact his disciples were the last one to be clearly in possession of the body.
TRUE OR FALSE?

As a matter of logic, reason and critical thought, the story of a corpse, dead portions of three days, which comes back to life and then flies away would under any normal circumstance be considered totally preposterous and without merit since it has no realistic chance of being true.
TRUE OR FALSE?

These are very serious questions, they are completely pertinent to the subject matter of this string, which you, as a Christian, are either willing and to defend as the core of your Christian beliefs, namely the death and resurrection of Jesus, as a point of "logic, reason and critical thinking," OR YOU ARE NOT!

If you WILL NOT answer the questions after repeated requests for you to do so, then it is only fair to assume that you CAN NOT answer the questions. In which case it is only fair to conclude that I have made my point.

[assisigirl]

TOTN asks of aglassdarkly:The obvious answer to the question of a missing corpse is that it is overwhelmingly more likely to have been the result of actions taken by the living, then of actions taken by the corpse.
TRUE OR FALSE?


assisigirl: This tete a tete is becoming boring.

I have some questions for you TOTN

(a)Would the Roman executioners have let the body go from the cross without being absolutely sure that Jesus was dead??? If you are unsure of this then you do not have a corpse but rather a comatozed person. What is the 'not breaking the bones' thing about.
(b) If Jesus recovered, he would have to be kept away from public gaze or he would have been immediately re-crucified. This might explain the clandestine nature of Jesus's appearances after his death and it would suggest that he died perhaps a month later from his exertions on the cross. Did the disciples with this rich Joseph guy , bribe the executioners to let the body off the cross before actual death. Is this the incident mentioned earlier by Josephus. Try reading the account I posted earlier re survivors of crucifixion. This scenario seems much more plausible than the one you are pursuing unsuccesfully with aglassdarkly ,ie that guards sent to guard a tomb would not check that what they were guarding was in fact there before starting their watch. Two questions for you TOTN

Crucifixion of three men and the survival of one.

The only person known in history to survive a Roman crucifixion is a friend whom Josephus saves after intervening with the Roman commander. Three are taken down but only one survives.

Josephus, Life, 75, p. 20 of Whistons Translation

... as I [Joseph Bar Mathias] came back, I saw many captives crucified; and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physicians hands, while the third recovered.

The gospels have a mysterious Joseph of Arimathea appear and go to the Roman commander and ask for Jesus to be taken down from among the three crucified. Jesus lives and the other two presumably die.

[neptune1bond]

Sorry that I came into this subject late and this may be somewhat out of the blue but I wanted to share some things on the subject.

This topic reminds me of this weird old video I saw. I'm sure that it's fake of course, but wouldn't it be crazy if it were true? Make sure you see the portion with the dog's head. (Warning: May be too upsetting for some.)



But, besides this little anecdote, has anyone already tried looking into whether there have been any real experiments in reviving an organism once it has died or temporarily ceased to function? I found this article, which was quite interesting. Be sure to read the conclusions at the bottom.

http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Abst ... th.35.aspx

I also read that they found a way to keep cells alive indefinitely even though removed from the body. You can read a little about it here.

http://gumc.georgetown.edu/news/stories/259901.html

If they can keep cells alive in a lab indefinitely and if scientists found a way to resuscitate an organism once it has died or ceased functioning, even with the methods they used, then it might not make as much sense to say that Jesus' resurrection is some impossible feat that could only exist in fairy tales.

It's all well and good to make comments about zombie-Jesus and try to relate it to some impossible fantasy story, but if scientists can do it to an extent, why should a person who believes in God be all that amazed that a divine entity might perform the same feat, but better? The more and more that science progresses, the less validity that I can place in the argument of,"the idea of God is just too amazing or far-fetched for me to believe." Or, put in a condescending and belittling way as some might prefer,"I don't believe in other children's stories like Santa Claus, so why should I believe in this fictitious God?"(Not that I personally believe in the divinity of Jesus or the infallibility of the bible, but I do believe in God, so why not?)

Btw, I can't check this often because of my schedule, so if you want to discuss this with me further, you'll have to be patient, because it could be days before I can reply.

[Nickman]

Sorry that I came into this subject late and this may be somewhat out of the blue but I wanted to share some things on the subject.

This topic reminds me of this weird old video I saw. I'm sure that it's fake of course, but wouldn't it be crazy if it were true? Make sure you see the portion with the dog's head. (Warning: May be too upsetting for some.)



But, besides this little anecdote, has anyone already tried looking into whether there have been any real experiments in reviving an organism once it has died or temporarily ceased to function? I found this article, which was quite interesting. Be sure to read the conclusions at the bottom.

http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Abst ... th.35.aspx

I also read that they found a way to keep cells alive indefinitely even though removed from the body. You can read a little about it here.

http://gumc.georgetown.edu/news/stories/259901.html

If they can keep cells alive in a lab indefinitely and if scientists found a way to resuscitate an organism once it has died or ceased functioning, even with the methods they used, then it might not make as much sense to say that Jesus' resurrection is some impossible feat that could only exist in fairy tales.

It's all well and good to make comments about zombie-Jesus and try to relate it to some impossible fantasy story, but if scientists can do it to an extent, why should a person who believes in God be all that amazed that a divine entity might perform the same feat, but better? The more and more that science progresses, the less validity that I can place in the argument of,"the idea of God is just too amazing or far-fetched for me to believe." Or, put in a condescending and belittling way as some might prefer,"I don't believe in other children's stories like Santa Claus, so why should I believe in this fictitious God?"(Not that I personally believe in the divinity of Jesus or the infallibility of the bible, but I do believe in God, so why not?)

Btw, I can't check this often because of my schedule, so if you want to discuss this with me further, you'll have to be patient, because it could be days before I can reply.

It is one thing to keep cells alive by purely natural means, and its another to keep them alive by unexplainable magic or supernatural abilities. Once a cell dies we cannot bring it back. So using the same logic, why would we assume a god can?

[Iam]

Sorry that I came into this subject late and this may be somewhat out of the blue but I wanted to share some things on the subject.

This topic reminds me of this weird old video I saw. I'm sure that it's fake of course, but wouldn't it be crazy if it were true? Make sure you see the portion with the dog's head. (Warning: May be too upsetting for some.)



But, besides this little anecdote, has anyone already tried looking into whether there have been any real experiments in reviving an organism once it has died or temporarily ceased to function? I found this article, which was quite interesting. Be sure to read the conclusions at the bottom.

http://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Abst ... th.35.aspx

I also read that they found a way to keep cells alive indefinitely even though removed from the body. You can read a little about it here.

http://gumc.georgetown.edu/news/stories/259901.html

If they can keep cells alive in a lab indefinitely and if scientists found a way to resuscitate an organism once it has died or ceased functioning, even with the methods they used, then it might not make as much sense to say that Jesus' resurrection is some impossible feat that could only exist in fairy tales.

It's all well and good to make comments about zombie-Jesus and try to relate it to some impossible fantasy story, but if scientists can do it to an extent, why should a person who believes in God be all that amazed that a divine entity might perform the same feat, but better? The more and more that science progresses, the less validity that I can place in the argument of,"the idea of God is just too amazing or far-fetched for me to believe." Or, put in a condescending and belittling way as some might prefer,"I don't believe in other children's stories like Santa Claus, so why should I believe in this fictitious God?"(Not that I personally believe in the divinity of Jesus or the infallibility of the bible, but I do believe in God, so why not?)

Btw, I can't check this often because of my schedule, so if you want to discuss this with me further, you'll have to be patient, because it could be days before I can reply.

Is the god concept too amazing or far-fetched for me to believe or is it to simple minded to believe. I mean the simple minds of the people who created gods. They had no knowledge of their surroundings (see world) let alone a universe. The simplest solution is the existence of a god nothing spectacular about that if you can place yourself in their shoes.
Edit I just realized they didn't have shoes, sorry.

[neptune1bond]

It is one thing to keep cells alive by purely natural means, and its another to keep them alive by unexplainable magic or supernatural abilities. Once a cell dies we cannot bring it back. So using the same logic, why would we assume a god can?

You said that God works through magic or supernatural abilities, not me, and it doesn't matter if you assume that God can or not, I'm simply talking about what might be possible and what might not.

The automatic assumption that people make when something is beyond their comprehension is to call it magic. I personally believe that God works through perfectly natural means, but he has the vast knowledge to perform feats far greater than what science is currently capable. So back to my original point, if science can perform it on some small level now, why shouldn't I believe that scientists might have the ability, far in the future, to perform much greater feats. And if I believe that science might be capable of performing those things in the future, then the point for me is, why should I assume that God couldn't just because atheists find it hard to believe?

[assisigirl]

neptune1bond asks:then the point for me is, why should I assume that God couldn't just because atheists find it hard to believe?


assisigirl: 1 simple question for you n1b

When it is a choice between the plausibly fantastic and the probably likely,why not just accept the probably likely? Are you so 'gun ho' on fantasy that you want to be religious? Is life that bad?

[Iam]

It is one thing to keep cells alive by purely natural means, and its another to keep them alive by unexplainable magic or supernatural abilities. Once a cell dies we cannot bring it back. So using the same logic, why would we assume a god can?

You said that God works through magic or supernatural abilities, not me, and it doesn't matter if you assume that God can or not, I'm simply talking about what might be possible and what might not.

The automatic assumption that people make when something is beyond their comprehension is to call it magic. I personally believe that God works through perfectly natural means, but he has the vast knowledge to perform feats far greater than what science is currently capable. So back to my original point, if science can perform it on some small level now, why shouldn't I believe that scientists might have the ability, far in the future, to perform much greater feats. And if I believe that science might be capable of performing those things in the future, then the point for me is, why should I assume that God couldn't just because atheists find it hard to believe?

I've copied what you said and altered it to reflect the storytellers you believe.

The automatic assumption that people make when something is beyond their comprehension is to call it GOD

This is the basis of all "belief in god" writings, isn't it?

[neptune1bond]

Is the god concept too amazing or far-fetched for me to believe or is it to simple minded to believe. I mean the simple minds of the people who created gods. They had no knowledge of their surroundings (see world) let alone a universe. The simplest solution is the existence of a god nothing spectacular about that if you can place yourself in their shoes.

So, let me make sure that I understand your point. Basically your argument is a really wordy version of,"yeah, well you're stupid and so is everyone like you!" Am I right?

Some of the greatest minds this world has ever known were religious. Here's a small list in the christian faith alone, just to name a few.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ch ... in_science

Not to mention the many scientists and well-educated professionals that are theists even today, much to the chagrin of most atheists. The truth is that there are many who believe in God and are very far from simple-minded.

Even thought Einstein did not believe in a personal God. I think that he spoke ever so intelligently (as he is known to do) on the "simplicity" of the divine:

"Your question [about God] is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."