Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #1

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

I think most would agree that the universe is a rationally intelligible system. We can discover structures, patterns, laws and symmetries within the system. Things that happen within the system seem to be related to those laws too. So given all this is it not at least reasonable to form the view that it is the work of an intelligent source? Isn't it at least as reasonable or arguably more reasonable to assume that as it is to assume it just so happens to exist with all these laws, patterns just there, with all that takes place in the universe just being fluke?

If we take some of the laws of physics too, we can write these down very succinctly using mathematics, indeed mathematics seems to be a language that is superb for describing things in the universe, a fine example being Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic field. Theoretical physicists often say they feel that they are discovering these laws too:

Image

So if the universe can be described in a language like mathematics doesn't that too strongly suggest an intelligent source? much as we'd infer if we stumbled upon clay tablets with writing on them or symbols carved into stone? Doesn't discovery of something written in a language, more or less prove an intelligent source?

Image

So isn't this all reasonable? is there anything unreasonable about this position?

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #361

Post by Clownboat »

TCG wrote:Even those who claim to be god die just like any other humans. Claims, whatever they may be, do nothing to change this fact.
EarthScienceguy wrote:Except when they are based in fact.

12 facts of the resurrection
Fact 1: 3 day old dead bodies have begun to decompose and liquify, not reanimate to again walk the earth.

Alternative fact 1: Horses don't have wings and you cannot fly on them.

Which of these two facts do you take issue with and why? Both claims come from holy books, yet you only defend one. If you lived in Iraq, do you think your beliefs in these claims would be reversed? I do.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #362

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Clownboat wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 12:35 pm
TCG wrote:Even those who claim to be god die just like any other humans. Claims, whatever they may be, do nothing to change this fact.
EarthScienceguy wrote:Except when they are based in fact.

12 facts of the resurrection
Fact 1: 3 day old dead bodies have begun to decompose and liquify, not reanimate to again walk the earth.

Alternative fact 1: Horses don't have wings and you cannot fly on them.

Which of these two facts do you take issue with and why? Both claims come from holy books, yet you only defend one. If you lived in Iraq, do you think your beliefs in these claims would be reversed? I do.
Ain't it funny how one religion's preposterous claims're considered fact, while all other religions' preposterous claims're considered goofier'n all get out?

It's funny til ya realize these folks vote.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9342
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 883 times
Been thanked: 1240 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #363

Post by Clownboat »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 1:17 pm
Clownboat wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 12:35 pm
TCG wrote:Even those who claim to be god die just like any other humans. Claims, whatever they may be, do nothing to change this fact.
EarthScienceguy wrote:Except when they are based in fact.

12 facts of the resurrection
Fact 1: 3 day old dead bodies have begun to decompose and liquify, not reanimate to again walk the earth.

Alternative fact 1: Horses don't have wings and you cannot fly on them.

Which of these two facts do you take issue with and why? Both claims come from holy books, yet you only defend one. If you lived in Iraq, do you think your beliefs in these claims would be reversed? I do.
Ain't it funny how one religion's preposterous claims're considered fact, while all other religions' preposterous claims're considered goofier'n all get out?

It's funny til ya realize these folks vote.
What's goofiest to me is the notion:
"You can't trust religious holy books!"
Well, except for mine. Heck, I'll even go one futher and claim that my Satan created your holy book just to deceive. :shock:

Some are even ok with the idea that these people deserve to burn in hell for eternity for being deceived by the very same being that deceived the first two perfect humans created by the said god concept.
I'm left asking myself: If there were a god being out there that cared for our musings, would it approve of such behavior or abhor it? I personally think it would abhor such behavior and would look favorably on those that are good for goodness sake, not for some unknowable awared received after death or to avoid some hell sort of punishment.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #364

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #358]
I'm really trying to figure out what your argument is here. Your claim is that Luke cannot have been writing an allegory, in part because early belief in a physical resurrection means that the physical resurrection in Luke was real. Your further claim is that Paul's spiritual body was actually a physical body because he used the Greek word for "body." So, Luke's Jesus must have been speaking literally when he spoke of "flesh and bone," but Paul must have been speaking figuratively when using the word "spiritual?" This just sounds like taking particular theological interpretations and claiming that they are necessarily obvious and correct without providing any sort of logical connection. That's a perfect example of ad hoc reasoning.
This is nothing more than an ignoratio elenchi, because you have failed to address the many issues that occur when you try to interpret this early Christian creed as a spiritual resurrection.

1. Paul's use of spiritual food and drink in 1 Cor. 10

2. Belief in the bodily resurrection of Jesus is the origin of Christianity.

"Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity." Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 231.

"Fuller elsewhere refers to the disciples’ belief in the resurrection as “one of the indisputable facts of history.” What caused this belief? That the disciples’ had actual experiences, characterized as appearances or visions of the risen Jesus, no matter how they are explained, is “a fact upon which both believer and unbeliever may agree.”" Fuller, The Foundations of New Testament Christology, 142.

"Wright asks how the disciples could have recovered from the shattering experience of Jesus’ death and regrouped afterwards, testifying that they had seen the risen Jesus, while being quite willing to face persecution because of this belief. What was the nature of the experience that dictated these developments?" N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 109-111.

3. This is not the only place where Paul mentions the bodily resurrection of Christ and in those passages, he does describe Jesus rising in the flesh.

Romans 8:11 "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you"

The belief that our bodies will be raised like Christ was raised is another one of the early beliefs of Christianity. It was the belief that they would be raised like Christ that transformed the disciples into bold preachers. Your theory offers no reason why the disciples would be transformed.

4. You have not defined what type of spiritual vision it was.

What do you mean by a spiritual resurrection? Are you saying that now you believe in souls? If it was a vision that Paul had, there has yet to be an adequate answer from anyone on how others could have seen the same vision.

I have had people very close to me die before, but I have never had a vision of them coming back to life. There is no way that 500 people were that close to Jesus.

5. You have attempted to make the argument that Luke was writing about something other than the resurrection. You have attempted to make the argument that Mark knew nothing of the resurrection. When the fact of the matter is there is no Christianity without the resurrection.

6. There were more than just Jesus raised from the dead in Scripture and they all were bodily resurrections.

Jesus raised Jairus' Daughter and Lazarus.
Others were raised from the dead
Peter raised Tabitha or Dorcas
And Paul himself raised Eutychus from the dead.

All of these were said to be raised from the dead and they all had actual bodies, not spiritual bodies. Again what type of body is a spiritual body? How would you be defining that body?

7. The Pharisees had a resurrection theology.

The Jewish people believed that God created the world. Our physical world is God's creation, and it is good. The Pharisees, in contrast to the Greco-Roman religious beliefs, vigorously affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. Their worldview embraced a future restoration of God's original design for his world. The Pharisees envisioned a time of redemption in which God would realign the physical creation with the ethereal realm. -Brad H. Young, Paul, The Jewish Theologian, at 123.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
This is simply another example of you putting your philosophical preference ahead of actual historical research. You keep trying to use Bultmann's theories of form criticism to interpret the Scripture but his theories have been discredited for the following reasons.
Bultmann? Form criticism? Is this the start of another Gish gallop? "Bultmann's theories" revolved around the attempt to isolate a historical Jesus, interpret his presumably genuine sayings in the light ("Sitz im Leben") of his Palestinian Judaism, then examine how those sayings were reinterpreted by the Hellenistic communities that later wrote the Gospels. I'm really curious what Google search led you to connect that to my arguments.
Bultmann did not support his research with historical data because he believed that he could rule out the idea of miracles as a priori just like you and the allegorical theory that you are proposing. Bultmann also held that the Gospels were essentially a later interpretation of Jesus' person and teaching in mostly mythical terms. According to Boltzmann's theory, the Gospel writers used imagery to express spiritual concepts in mundane forms.
If I am understanding your theory correctly I believe that is pretty close to what you are trying to say.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
Because your allegorical theory is a form of [Bultmann's] "form criticism" because it starts with the premise that miracles do not exist just like Bultmann the theory must be discarded.

That's not what defines form criticism.
That is the premise Bultmann started from same as you.

That means that it's figuratively Jesus. Paul's point is that the literal food and drink provided by God through Moses in the desert are metaphors for the spiritual sustenance provided by God through Jesus. God's delivery of the Israelites from the harsh wilderness through Moses mirrors His delivery of Christians from the wilderness of sinful nature.
10 For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, 2 and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 and all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and fall drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ. 5 Nevertheless, with most of them God was not pleased, for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things took place as examples for us, that we might not desire evil as they did. 7 Do is not idolaters as some of them were; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.” 8 we must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day. 9 We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did and were destroyed by serpents, 10 nor grumble, as some of them did and were destroyed by the Destroyer.

Paul was reminding these about how God took care of them in the wilderness. But God was not pleased with most of them. Paul was using this as an example and warning not to sin.

Do you have any study Bibles? Any of them with even the slightest theological bent should have a comment at that verse telling you the same thing that the NIV Study Bible does:
that rock was Christ. The rock, from which the water came, and the manna are here viewed by Paul as symbolic of the spiritual sustenance God’s people experienced already in the desert through Christ, the bread of life and the water of life.
This is why most people do not rely on Study Bibles. Because they try to express things in concise ways but much of the meaning can get lost.
Barnes Notes on the Bible
And did all drink the same spiritual drink - The idea here is essentially the same as in the previous verse, that they had been highly favored of God, and enjoyed tokens of the divine care and guardianship. That was manifested in the miraculous supply of water in the desert, thus showing that they were under the divine protection, and were objects of the divine favor. There can be no doubt that by "spiritual drink" here, the apostle refers to the water that was made to gush from the rock that was smitten by Moses. Exodus 17:6; Numbers 20:11. Why this is called "spiritual" has been a subject on which there has been much difference of opinion. It cannot be because there was anything special in the nature of the water, for it was evidently real water, suited to allay their thirst. There is no evidence, as many have supposed, that there was a reference in this to the drink used in the Lord's Supper. But it must mean that it was bestowed in a miraculous and supernatural manner; and the word "spiritual" must be used in the sense of supernatural, or that which is immediately given by God. Spiritual blessings thus stand opposed to natural and temporal blessings, and the former denote those which are immediately given by God as an evidence of the divine favor. That the Jews used the word "spiritual" in this manner is evident from the writings of the Rabbis. Thus, they called the manna "spiritual food" (Yade Mose in Shemor Rabba, fol. 109. 3); and their sacrifices they called "spiritual bread" (Tzeror Hammer, fol. 93. 2). - Gill. The drink, therefore, here referred to was that bestowed in a supernatural manner and as a proof of the divine favor.
Dr. John MacAuthur https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/80-212

Then they were given divine provision. They all ate the same spiritual food, the same manna, the same birds that God provided. God provided, you remember, their food. They wanted meat. He gave them bird flesh to eat. They were otherwise given manna, which God provided for them on a regular, routine basis. So they all experienced not only divine direction; divine care in delivering them from Egypt, divine rescue; a divine leader, solidarity with that leader, namely Moses; but divine provision of food and water. They all drank the same spiritual drink. And the spiritual drink was the drink provided by the spiritual source who is God. And I’ve been in that desert out there a number of times, and you could go a long time without finding water out there. But God made sure that two million people wandering for 40 years always had water. And sometimes it even came out of a rock.

We could say it this way: They had been given divine care and guidance out of Egypt. They had been given divine deliverance, miraculous deliverance through the Red Sea. They had been given divine provision of food and water. And they had been given a divine Savior, whose presence was with them at all times. They were always under the special care of the rock who is Christ who followed them, who was really the source of all the miracles that met their needs. It’s a very different way to view Christ than the incarnate way. We look at Him in His incarnation, and we see a Man. We look at Him in His pre-incarnation ministry to Israel, and we see Him as God.
Only if 'soma' is not interpreted as a physical body. And say that Christ did not raise in bodily form from the grave.
You're just saying that if you reject any readings that don't match the one you prefer, then it's no longer ambiguous. That certainly describes a lot of what passes for Christian exegesis, but it's not a valid argument.
I am saying that because that is what "soma" means.

I did list them: the Gospel of Mark and the Pauline epistles, 1 Corinthians in particular. I'm using the accepted date of Galatians as representative of the entire corpus. There are no earlier sources for Christ's resurrection.
Ok that is 20 years after the resurrection.

1. You already have a problem because that is writing that is closer to anyother event in ancient history.
2. Paul had to persecute the Church, he had to become a Chrisitan and he had to go on a missionary journey before he wrote Galatians. So what was the date that he was given the Creed in 1 Corinthians 15:3? 10, 15, 20 years ealier. 20 years is already extremely close to the resurrection so this information he recieved in the creed had to be within 3-5 years of the resurrection, but it also had to be formulated. Your theory still does have to explain the facts.
Mark's original ending through 16:8 describes the resurrection only in terms of an empty tomb.
No, the passage still says that Jesus has risen.
5 And entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. 6 And he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.” 8 And they went out and fled from the tomb, for trembling and astonishment had seized them, and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.

Mark 5 also talks about Jesus raising a young girl from the dead and this was not a spiritual resurrection whatever that is.
After he put them all out, he took the child’s father and mother and the disciples who were with him, and went in where the child was. 41 He took her by the hand and said to her, “Talitha koum!” (which means “Little girl, I say to you, get up!”). 42 Immediately the girl stood up and began to walk around (she was twelve years old). At this they were completely astonished. 43 He gave strict orders not to let anyone know about this, and told them to give her something to eat.
The Pharasees beleived in the resurrection of the dead and they beleived that it was a bodily resurrection and they believed in the bodily resurrection. Mark 12
18 Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 “Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that if a man’s brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and raise up offspring for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection[c] whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?”

24 Jesus replied, “Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 26 Now about the dead rising—have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the account of the burning bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’[d]? 27 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!”




Paul says that a spiritual body is different than a living body and that the living body must die before one might be raised into a spiritual body.






EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
The earliest unambiguous references to Sunday as the day of Christian worship come from the second century.
Again this statement uses no historical evidence in support of your assertion.
Then find an earlier, unambiguous statement.

This isn't unambiguous as it would also be compatible with Jewish Christians observing the Sabbath on Saturday, then engaging in some sort of Christian fellowship on Sunday. Your argument hinges on the claim that Jewish Christians moved the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
Paul was a pharasee a Jew.

In Luke, which also denies that Jesus is a pneuma. Paul describes the body as pneumatikon and includes no such touching.
Paul was a pharasee. The Pharasee's had a resurrection theology.
The Jewish people believed that God created the world. Our physical world is God's creation, and it is good. The Pharisees, in contrast to the Greco-Roman religious beliefs, vigorously affirmed the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees stressed a literal resurrection of the physical body, which would be reunited with the spirit of an individual. Their worldview embraced a future restoration of God's original design for his world. The Pharisees envisioned a time of redemption in which God would realign the physical creation with the ethereal realm. -Brad H. Young, Paul, The Jewish Theologian, at 123.
The resurrection of the dead is a core doctrine of traditional Jewish theology. Traditional Jews believe that during the Messianic Age, the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, the Jewish people ingathered from the far corners of the earth and the bodies of the dead will be brought back to life and reunited with their souls. It is not entirely clear whether only Jews, or all people, are expected to be resurrected at this time.

This belief — distinct from, though connected to, the belief in the immortality of the soul — is mentioned explicitly only twice in the Hebrew Bible, in the books of Isaiah and Daniel, though hints of it are extrapolated from other biblical sources. The medieval philosopher Maimonides includes it as one of his 13 principles of the Jewish faith, and the Mishnah states that those who don’t believe in resurrection “have no share in the world to come.” (Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1) The Amidah prayer recited thrice daily by traditional Jews includes a blessing praising God as the resurrector of the dead. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/articl ... -the-dead/
There is no way Paul a pharasee would ever think that the resurrection of the dead would every be anything other than a bodily resurrection.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
So why are you claiming this is allegorical? You have yet to show how the historical data leads to the conclusion that Luke was writing allegorical, without relying on your own philosophical belief.
At this point, you're still defending your claim that it can't, so I only have to support that it can (and I'll even accept having to defend that it's reasonable), not that it does in fact.
No that is not the way that science or history hypotheses are arrived at. They at least have to account for the known facts. Miracles not ocurring is not a known fact at least not in modern historical scholarship. Miracles are considered a possibility if the facts suggest it is possible.
If the Christian resurrection was still viewed as spiritual when the Gospel of Luke was written, then Luke was telling representative stories about the visionary appearances by recasting them as physical appearances to make the story more visceral and real.
The FACT that the Pharisees had a resurrection theology that included a bodily resurrection really dispels your spiritual resurrection claim whatever that meant.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
You may not like the idea of miracles but [Bultmann's] "form criticism" has been rejected.
You may not like the idea of non sequiturs, but kumquats are delicious.
You are basing your theory on the idea that miracles cannot happen. That is a fact unless you are going to change that. Are you changing that?

Theologians disagree with you.
No not really reference above.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Fri May 06, 2022 12:47 pm
Paul also explains himself in Romans 8:11 "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you." We will be raised like Jesus our mortal bodies will be raised to life Just like Jesus's body was raised.
Yes. Just like Jesus' living, the perishable body was raised into a spiritual, imperishable body.
Again Paul was a Pharisee and believed the resurrection of the dead in a physical body.

"he that says there is no resurrection of the dead prescribed in the Law.. has no share in the world to come" -Sanhedrin 10:1
According to Josephus, who himself was a Pharisee, the Pharisees held that only the soul was immortal and the souls of good people would be resurrected or reincarnated and "pass into other bodies," while "the souls of the wicked will suffer eternal punishment." Paul the Apostle declared himself to be a Pharisee even after his belief in Jesus Christ.

Even Wikipedia says the same thing.

John Hick (Death & Eternal Life, 1994, p. 395) interprets Josephus to be most likely talking about resurrection, while Jason von Ehrenkrook ("The Afterlife in Philo and Josephus", in Heaven, Hell, and the Afterlife: Eternity in Judaism, ed. J. Harold Ellens; vol. 1, pp. 97–118) understands the passage to refer to reincarnation
Josephus Jewish War 2.8.14; cf. Antiquities 8.14–15.
Acta 23.6, 26.5.
Udo Schnelle (2013). Apostle Paul: His Life and Theology. Baker Publishing Group. pp. 51–. ISBN 978-1-4412-4200-6.
I assume you're referring to early sources of Christ's resurrection and not the dating of Galatians. I also think that you didn't understand the scholarship. Unless I'm mistaken and you can provide a different one, the earliest written reference to Christ's resurrection is the earliest of Paul's epistles, Galatians. If we assume that Paul's statement about the resurrection in Galatians is based on his knowledge of the creed in 1 Corinthians 15 and the creed isn't Paul's own composition, then it must necessarily predate 1 Corinthians. By how much it does so is speculation.

Even if we accept the creed as formative to all forms of Christianity, then it still only supports that early Christians believed in some form of resurrection. Paul himself describes the resurrection as "spiritual," so apparently however he understood the creed is compatible with a ghostly (the same word in Greek) body. The only argument against this that you've provided is your insistence that soma must refer to a physical body, Paul's description notwithstanding.
First, the part is answered above.

What other form of resurrection would there be? Especially when the Pharisees had a resurrection theology and it was as bodily resurrection. There would be no type of resurrection in the Jewish mind of the day.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #365

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Wed May 25, 2022 2:48 pmYou seem to have not known or did not take into account the fact that Paul was a pharisee and the implication of that fact.
Let's assume that I either didn't know about or didn't take Philippians 3:3-6 into account. How does that help your argument or hurt mine?
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14002
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #366

Post by William »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #365]
The Pharisees (/ˈfærəsiːz/; Hebrew: פְּרוּשִׁים, romanized: Pərūšīm) were a Jewish social movement and a school of thought in the Levant during the time of Second Temple Judaism. After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Pharisaic beliefs became the foundational, liturgical, and ritualistic basis for Rabbinic Judaism.

Conflicts between Pharisees and Sadducees took place in the context of much broader and longstanding social and religious conflicts among Jews, made worse by the Roman conquest.[2] Another conflict was cultural, between those who favored Hellenization (the Sadducees) and those who resisted it (the Pharisees). A third was juridical-religious, between those who emphasized the importance of the Second Temple with its rites and services, and those who emphasized the importance of other Mosaic Laws. A fourth point of conflict, specifically religious, involved different interpretations of the Torah and how to apply it to current Jewish life, with Sadducees recognizing only the Written Torah (with Greek philosophy) and rejecting doctrines such as the Oral Torah, the Prophets, the Writings, and the resurrection of the dead.

Josephus (c. 37 – c. 100 CE), believed by many historians to be a Pharisee, estimated the total Pharisee population before the fall of the Second Temple to be around 6,000.[3] Josephus claimed that Pharisees received the full support and goodwill of the common people,[citation needed] apparently in contrast to the more elite Sadducees, who were the upper class. Pharisees claimed Mosaic authority for their interpretation[4] of Jewish Laws, while Sadducees represented the authority of the priestly privileges and prerogatives established since the days of Solomon, when Zadok, their ancestor, officiated as High Priest.

Pharisees have also been made notable by numerous references to them in the New Testament. While the writers record hostilities between some of the Pharisees and Jesus, there are also several references in the New Testament to Pharisees who believed in him, including Nicodemus, who said it is known Jesus is a teacher sent from God,[5] Joseph of Arimathea, who was his disciple,[6] and an unknown number of "those of the party of the Pharisees who believed",[7] among them the Apostle Paul — a student of Gamaliel,[8] who warned the Sanhedrin that opposing the disciples of Jesus could prove to be tantamount to opposing God[9] — even after becoming an apostle of Jesus Christ.[10][11]
{SOURCE}

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #367

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

Just so you know, I will start this conversation but if this goes like most of our conversations I will not be able to finish this conversation. I have to leave on Sat. for a couple of months because the wife, kids, chicken, dogs, and goats, all seem to like to eat.
Let's assume that I either didn't know about or didn't take Philippians 3:3-6 into account. How does that help your argument or hurt mine?
So are you saying that Philippians is an allegory also? Or do you believe that Paul was the person he says he was in Philippians 3?

1. It is a well-established fact that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is the central message of CHRISTianity. Belief in the resurrection is what it means to be a Christian.
"Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity." Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 231.
The spiritual resurrection and your allegorical theory cannot account for the resurrection being the historical origination of Christianity.

2. Why was Paul persecuting the church?
Acts 2:31-34, 38 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being, therefore, exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,....“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
According to the verse above Paul was persecuting the Church for the following reasons.

a. The Church believed that Jesus was raised from the dead
b. The church was baptizing people in the name of Jesus. This is calling Jesus God.
c. Jesus also called Himself God when He was alive every time He called himself the Son of Man.

If the resurrection was spiritual Paul would have no reason to persecute the Church.

3. Being a Pharisee Paul would have understood the significance of Jesus calling Himself the Son of Man. To a Pharisee Jesus calling himself the Son of Man is the same thing as calling Himself God.
Daniel 7:13-14
“In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.
This Son of Man is given the authority of God himself, ruling as God with the power of God forever. Hence it is right that he should be worshipped by all.

Paul also would have known Ps. 16:10 "For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay." Pharisees believed in the resurrection of a physical body.

Paul was persecuting the Church because of their belief that Jesus was raised from the dead and worshiping Jesus as God. Paul also was a Pharisee with the highest connections in Jerusalem so he would have had access to knowledge as to what happened to the body of Jesus.

Your spiritual theory and allegorical theory do not give a reason why Paul would worship Jesus as God.

4. Why would Paul become a Christian?

Paul had everything to lose and nothing to gain in becoming a Christian. Wealth and fame were Paul's for the taking if he had remained a Pharisee.

For Paul to become a Christian he had to believe that Jesus died and was raised to live and believe that Jesus was God. All of these beliefs are why he persecuted the Church because he was a pharisee. This was a radical change. Especially the belief that Jesus was raised from the grave because he would have known if there was a body. There would be no reason for Paul to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead if he knew there was a body of Jesus lying dead somewhere.

Your spiritual and allegorical theory cannot explain why Paul would become a Christain.

5. What is a Spiritual Resurrection?

You claim that Paul was speaking of Spiritual Resurrection. What is a Spiritual Resurrection and why would it be called a Resurrection? What was being resurrected? How could 500 people see this spiritual Resurrection? Why would a Spiritual Resurrection affect Paul and change his belief system?
Why would Paul agree with those that he once persecuted for their belief in the resurrection if it was a spiritual resurrection?
Why is a spiritual resurrection a better option for a materialist? A materialist would not believe in a soul. Are you saying that men have souls?

Your spiritual and allegorical theory does not advance your materialistic worldview.

6. Paul says that He (Christ) was buried and He (Christ) was raised in 1 Cor. 15. The other times that ἐγήγερται was used by John it meant a bodily resurrection.
John 21: 9 When they got out on land, they saw a charcoal fire in place, with fish laid out on it, and bread. 10 Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish that you have just caught.” 11 So Simon Peter went aboard and hauled the net ashore, full of large fish, 153 of them. And although there were so many, the net was not torn. 12 Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” Now none of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. 13 Jesus came and took the bread and gave it to them, and so with the fish. 14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
John 2: 20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body. 22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.
Spiritual and Allegorical theories cannot explain Paul's use of the phrase ἐγήγερται.


The spiritual resurrection theory cannot
*Explain why Paul would become a Christian.
*How so many people believed they saw the risen Christ.
*The fact that The Resurrection of Jesus has always been the central message of Christianity.
*Why Paul would agree with those that he once persecuted.
*Why a materialist would support a spiritual resurrection.
*If the resurrection was spiritual Paul would have no reason to persecute the Church.
*The spiritual resurrection and your allegorical theory cannot account for the resurrection being the historical origination of Christianity.
*Your spiritual theory and allegorical theory do not give a reason why Paul would worship Jesus as God
*Your spiritual and allegorical theory does not advance your materialistic worldview.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #368

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pmJust so you know, I will start this conversation but if this goes like most of our conversations I will not be able to finish this conversation. I have to leave on Sat. for a couple of months because the wife, kids, chicken, dogs, and goats, all seem to like to eat.
No rush or hard feelings.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pm
Let's assume that I either didn't know about or didn't take Philippians 3:3-6 into account. How does that help your argument or hurt mine?
So are you saying that Philippians is an allegory also?
No. I just don't see why his having once been a Pharisee somehow made him think Jesus physically rose from the dead.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pm1. It is a well-established fact that...
This is the essence of the Gish Gallop. One presents a whole bunch of dubious and unsupported arguments that nevertheless are tedious to refute. I'll deal with your arguments if you insist, but I'll be examining them one at a time. If some of them turn out to be meaningful, we can then put them back together and see what we have.

Since you presented Paul's apparent Pharisaism as important enough that I must be something I neglected to "take into account," I'll deal with that one. Once we've established whether it's important and how much so, I'll move on. I'll be ignoring the other gallops in the meantime.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pmBeing a Pharisee Paul would have understood the significance of Jesus calling Himself the Son of Man. To a Pharisee Jesus calling himself the Son of Man is the same thing as calling Himself God.
Paul never refers to Jesus as the Son of Man. If that tradition is as old as Paul's letters, he either didn't know it or didn't consider it important.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pmPaul also would have known Ps. 16:10 "For You will not abandon my soul to Sheol, nor will You let Your Holy One see decay." Pharisees believed in the resurrection of a physical body.
When Paul speaks of having been a Pharisee, he immediately contrasts that with his Christianity in Philippians 3:7:
However, I consider those things that were gain to me as a loss for Christ. Yes most certainly, and I count all things to be a loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus, my Lord, for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and count them nothing but refuse..."
Did he still consider himself a Pharisee? It seems that he counted his previous Pharisaism as "nothing but refuse." Did he still believe all of the same things that he did before, or did he now have a new, different, and Christian understanding of what Jesus' resurrection meant?
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pmPaul was persecuting the Church because of their belief that Jesus was raised from the dead and worshiping Jesus as God.
None of that is in Paul's letters. All we have from Paul himself is that he "persecuted the assembly of God." He wrote that multiple times, but without any indication of why. Acts fleshes that out a bit, but the very position that you're trying to defend with the historicity of the resurrection is ultimately the historicity of Luke/Acts. Claiming that Acts tells us something about Paul's motivations in order to ultimately prove that Acts is historical is a circular argument.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pmPaul also was a Pharisee with the highest connections in Jerusalem so he would have had access to knowledge as to what happened to the body of Jesus.
This is speculative at best. Being a "Pharisee in regard to the Law" didn't somehow in itself give him "connections in Jerusalem."
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pmWealth and fame were Paul's for the taking if he had remained a Pharisee.
If this is an important part of your argument, you'll have to support it somehow.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Thu May 26, 2022 3:15 pmFor Paul to become a Christian he had to believe that Jesus died and was raised to live and believe that Jesus was God. All of these beliefs are why he persecuted the Church because he was a pharisee. This was a radical change. Especially the belief that Jesus was raised from the grave because he would have known if there was a body. There would be no reason for Paul to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead if he knew there was a body of Jesus lying dead somewhere.
This is all speculation. All we know from Paul himself is that Jesus "appeared" to him in some fashion. Unless you can support this, it just looks like you're starting with your conviction that Paul believed and working backward and concluding that he had all of the evidence you imagine he'd require. Maybe he was just nuts, instead.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #369

Post by AquinasForGod »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #2]

If the source created/cause this whole system to exist, then why would you expect to be able to find the source within the system it created?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Is it reasonable to assume a creator?

Post #370

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #369]
If the source created/cause this whole system to exist, then why would you expect to be able to find the source within the system it created?
As I said in post #2 that you referenced, gods are the realm of religion, not science. So science would not expect to find gods via scientific efforts. Gods are postulated to exist, and over the millennia literally thousands of them have been imagined by humans. Which ones are real and which are not? Ask the Abrahamic religions and they are absolutely convinced that their god is the only "true" god. Ask a Hindu and you get a different god or set of gods. Are all of the god concepts valid? If not, what determines that one is valid and another is not?

Most of these human inventions require allegiance or worshop, and it is surprising to me that not a single one of the thousands of gods humans have dreamed up have ever made themselves known in some way as to confirm their existence and instill confidence in their subjects that they actually do exist and can help with their lives (or even, as many religions promise, a life after death). Why the need to hide or be so mysterious? Many gods are defined in such a way that they cannot be seen or heard or physically identified (eg. they are a force or energy source or some mysterious "thing" that has no physical existence, which is very convenient if you want to invent a god concept that can never be shown to be false). Gods apparently exist only in the minds of people who believe that they do.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

Post Reply