This post is a continuation of a series of posts by Mary Jo on the Minimal Facts Approach.
Fact #4 – Jesus’ tomb was empty
1) The Jerusalem Factor
2) Enemy attestation
3) The testimony of women
The Jerusalem Factor
Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem. His empty tomb and his resurrection were proclaimed there first. If Jesus’ body had still been in the tomb, why did no one go get the body and drag it through the streets of the city to shut down the Christian movement that so angered the Jewish officials? This would not be an easy task but it would be worth getting rid of a blasphemous group of rebels. Furthermore, an occupied tomb would at least have dissuaded enough of the believers to merit some apologetic attention on this matter. However, no apologetic work can be found on an occupied tomb by any of the apostles or even second or third century Christian writers: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp, Ignatius, and Origen (to name a few). There is a strong possibility they would have reasoned a defense for an empty tomb, as demonstrated in their reasoning of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, if they had needed to do so. In addition, no work on the tomb from early Christian opposition can be found, such as Celsus, the second century Christian critic.[i]
Enemy Attestation
If testimony about an event or person is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message or cause that benefits from the affirmation, then there is reason to believe the testimony’s authenticity. The empty tomb can be found either implicitly or explicitly stated in the works of Josephus, Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” Tertullian’s “On Spectacles,” and in the Jewish Toledoth (a derogatory version of Jesus’ life in Jewish tradition).
In the Jewish Toledoth:
“On the first day of the week his bold followers came to Queen Helene with the report that he who was slain was truly the Messiah and that he was not in his grave; he had ascended to heaven as he prophesied. Diligent search was made and he was not found in the grave where he had been buried. A gardener had taken him from the grave and had brought him into his garden and buried him in the sand over which the waters flowed into the garden.[ii]
In Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:
“You have sent chosen and ordained men throughout all the world to proclaim that a godless and lawless heresy had sprung from one Jesus, a Galilaean deceiver, whom we crucified, but his disciples stole him by night from the tomb, where he was laid when unfastened from the cross, and now deceive men by asserting that he has risen from the dead and ascended to heaven.” [iii]
Even to imply that Jesus was raised or that his tomb was empty is certainly damaging to the case against the resurrection if reasoning from the offensive.
Testimony of Women
If I had an intention of creating a story to make myself (or my story) look good, I would most likely not include information that would be damaging or embarrassing to the credibility of my story. By that standard, it would be an odd invention to have the women as the first witnesses of the empty tomb. In the accounts of the empty tomb, the women are exactly that, the first witnesses, in all four gospel accounts. This report would most likely be damaging to the case for the empty tomb when taken in context of the first century socio-cultural norms. The testimony of a woman was not regarded as highly as the testimony of a man. Habermas and Licona quote a few Jewish writings on this matter:
Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women. (Talmud, Sotah 19a)
But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex…..; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. (Joshephus, Antiquities 4.8.15)
Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman. (Talmud, Rosh Hashannah 1.8)[iv]
Why would the gospel writers include women as the number one witnesses to the empty tomb when it would behoove their cause to use men instead? The reason would be because they were reporting the truth; embarrassing as that may be.
These three factors contribute to the case for an empty tomb. Though the empty tomb is conceded by 75%[v] of scholars who write on the Resurrection (versus 95% or better on the other 3 facts), this is still an impressive number for the empty tomb case. Again, the empty tomb is a historically probable event that needs to be explained when discussing the evidences surrounding the Resurrection.
MJ
[i] Habermas, Gary. Mike Licona. The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids, Kregel Publications: 2004. pg. 71.
[ii] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/humm/Topics/JewishJesus/toledoth.html. Accessed December 1, 2006.
[iii] The Second Apology of Justin for the Christians: Addressed to the Roman Senate. The Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/justin-apology2.html. Accessed December 2, 2006.
[iv] Habermas. Licona. pg. 72. All three quotes were taken from The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus.
[v] Ibid. pg. 70.
© Mary Jo Sharp 2007
Very good analysis of the fact of the resurrection.
Thank you.
MJ
I was reading your comments a few posts down and was taken back when you said “without the resurrection of Jesus, there is no Christian faith.”
Looking to Christ as one who discovered a way to spiritually connect to the Creator, and not as God himself, does in no way undermine what Christ taught.
Perhaps there could be no Christian faith in its modern interpretation, but true Christianity in not reliant on the resurrection. One can still love the Lord with all their heart, mind, and soul. One can still follow the Ten Commandments. One can still pursue prayer and love as a way to connect with God.
I guess I do not understand what it is about Christianity (in its original form) that suffers from an unproven resurrection.
Steven,
You might want to reflect on the gap between your view of Christianity and that of the early Christians. Paul’s passionate defense of the resurrection in I Corintians 15 would be a good place to start.
Christianity is not about a vague “way to connect spiritually to the Creator.” Christ was neither a mystical oriental sage nor an ideal boyscout helping little old ladies across the Sea of Galilee. Christianity is an historical religion founded on the outrageous claim that Jesus, God himself incarnate, died for the sins of the world and rose again. If this is false, then Christians are the most pitiable dupes on the planet.
Granted, by the textbook definition of Christianity, resurrection is necessary.
However, without the resurrection, does Christ’s teaching and message become any less powerful or true?
Thank you for the timely response!
Steven,
First of all, welcome!
Concerning the message of Christ:
Jesus claimed to be God.
And Jesus said, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.” – Mark 14:61-62
“But he continued, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.” – John 8:24
“I tell you the truth,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” – John 8:58
These are claims to be God. I don’t have good reason to
follow the message of a man who supposedly claims to be God, but is not God. If Jesus was not resurrected, it would follow that he is not God. Therefore, his claims to be God would be false. This is not a person whose teaching I would trust.
So, my answer to your question is “yes,” because his message would be false. However, if he was resurrected, I would be looking at a man whose message and life were given God’s stamp of approval. Therefore, his teachings would be true and worthy of my trust.
MJ
“I don’t have good reason”
Wow. I am distraught by my poor grammar. 🙂
How about “I have no good reason to follow the message of a man…”
MJ
I’m not so sure about that 🙂
Buddha, Muhummad, and Jesus all taught the message of love. Even without divinity, this message seems to be the universal commandment from all religions.
But, free love talk aside 😉
I guess the big problem I have with the above is that every proof used is based on belief in the Bible being 100% purely quoted. John is really an unreliable gospel for me, in that it says a lot of things that are not found paralleled in other gospels. Matthew, Mark, and Luke have a lot of the same stories (and were written much sooner than John), but John says a lot of things that, by that time, could be bordering on legend. It is true that if you take the Bible as relating perfectly every quote and event that happened, you can prove a lot about Jesus’ need for divinity.
But, what if the Gospel was written by people scrambling to collect the miracles and teachings of Jesus before they were forgotten? There can be misunderstanding, guessing, and, as typical of all storytelling, exaggeration. Can we really assume that everything in the Bible is 100% correct?
I know this is a different tangent, and if you don’t wish to pursue that is fine! I just have a lot of questions, and am glad to finally have intelligent Christians with which to discuss them.
Hey, Steven, no problem on the tangent question. It is very relevant to the discussion! 🙂
To alleviate approaching your question with some long-winded spiel about the gospels and their early dating..yada yada…let me ask you if you believe there is any reliable material in the Bible, what that material is, and why it is reliable? I’m not looking for anything fancy, just what you think.
Thanks! I am glad to have you blogging on our site. You seem to have a genuine curiosity.
MJ
I guess the easiest answer to your question is that I tend to view the Bible on a macro level instead of a micro level. The individual stories and wordings may be incorrect or exaggerated. What a lot of the Gospels say are opinions of the bodies that are writing them. The Gospels are written by people trying to recall, and often promote, Jesus’ teachings and message, and the letters are Paul’s interpretation of what Jesus was trying to say. None of it is absolute. It is HUMAN.
Now, granted, parallel verses and stories are probably much more accurate than their counterpart. That is, something like John 2: 13-25, where Jesus “cleanses the temple,” is found also in Matthew 21, Mark 11, and Luke 19. This gives it a much greater chance of being true than something like John 1: 29-34, where John the Baptist talks of Jesus being the son of God. No parallel verses are found in regard to the latter.
I don’t think the truth of the Bible is in the verses. It’s in the book. It’s about Jesus understanding that the current way of living was not about love, but about separation, from God and each other, and him trying to show everyone a different way to live. I could get into the “purity system” that Jesus fought, but that is also speculative.
Basically, there are a lot of things in the Bible that are probably true, there are some things that are true but exaggerated, and there are some things that are simply made up. It is human nature. Let’s not delve into the verses, let’s delve into the love that Jesus showed when he ate with prostitutes and tended to the lepers.
(I had to write this quickly. Sorry for the choppiness!)
The love that Jesus Christ discussed and displayed is a very important part of his ministry and should be a vital aspect of any Christian’s life. I very much agree! I am going to attempt to understand where you are coming from, first, before going into any of where I am coming from, if that is okay. And you will have to help me out a little with what you are generally saying. I am going to summarize what I am getting and you can let me know if that is incorrect.
You believe we should look at the stories of the Bible for what the stories can teach us, but not look at the stories as literal, because they were written down by humans who have a tendency towards error. Am I on the right track? You also would say there are some reliable passages of scripture that discovered by cross-referencing those passages between the gospels and other books. So, you would like people to look more generally at the example of Jesus’ life, rather than getting entangled in the details.
Now, it is your turn again to tell me if I understand you correctly.
Looking forward to your reply!
MJ
I think you hit it perfectly. In fact, beautifully.
And, from this aspect, you can see how Jesus’ divinity is essentially a non-factor!
If people just concentrate on love, and on the example of such that Jesus gave, we no longer have to worry about the little details. Homosexuality, murder, abortion, etc. – all of those will find their true answer if one just leads a life of love!
Steven,
I can appreciate where you are coming from. I have experienced people who seem to have all the answers and none of the love. As for me, though, I am an incorrigible lover of truth. If I can have truth in the sciences, in mathematics, in the reality of my experiences, then why should I leave truth out of my religious beliefs? I am talking about absolute truth. For example, I know, as an absolute truth, that if I throw together the components of the space shuttle in a random way, that shuttle will not perform correctly. I know as an absolute truth that if I am diagnosed with skin cancer that I do not merely have a rash. If I deposit $1000 into the bank, I know absolutely that I have not only deposited $500 (and I would be very suspicious if the bank teller tried to convince me otherwise). These are truths that I expect to be absolute. If God exists, then there are certain necessary attributes of His that I must accept as absolutely true: God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good (including perfect love). In light of His necessary attributes (which qualify Him as God), what reason do I have that this perfect being would not give us truth about Himself? Being that He is perfect, I expect to find truth about Him that is absolute, especially considering that I find absolute truths in His creation. I believe there is good reason to think these truths are found in the Biblical texts and in the person of Jesus Christ.
Now that I have probably made my relationship with God seem to be somewhat dry and unemotional, I must say that it is not. As I have investigated the evidence for God by delving deep into those verses and in continuing to search for truth in as many areas as I can, I have developed a stronger love for the Creator. I have come to a much greater understanding of what God has done for us and I am inspired and amazed.
So what are your thoughts now?
MJ
But can there be absolute truths in this world? The only judge of truth is our experience with it.
In your examples, for instance, you say that if you randomly throw space shuttle parts together, the shuttle will not perform correctly. But what if you just happen to throw them together in the correct way? What if they are randomly put together in a more efficient way than we know? It is not ABSOLUTE that the shuttle will not perform correctly.
If you are diagnosed with skin cancer, it is by no means an absolute truth that your rash is not simply a rash. What if the doctor got your results confused with someone else’s? What if the doctor had an underhanded agreement with the local oncologist and so diagnosed people with cancer so that they would go to him? What if the testing methods weren’t accurate?
The truths are not absolute, because we are not the ones interpreting the data. And even then, the data could have been err’d from the start.
This is a good analogy to the Bible. I agree with you that Jesus and God communicated a lot of absolute truth during Jesus’ life. But that absolute truth may not have been recorded absolutely accurately. It is like the doctor misreading what the data implies. The data is 100% accurate, but because the doctor only glanced at it, or maybe heard the results from another doctor, it becomes skewed in its application.
The absolute truths of God that you mentioned are hard to accept. They make sense, but they also break down a lot of the doctrine that the church is currently using.
For instance, we assume that God is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-good. Being all-knowing, God knows what my life will be like from birth to death. He knows every choice I will make. He know, then, whether I will go to Heaven or Hell, based on those choices. He knows if I will follow Him or if I will turn away from Him. So, if God knows that a person will go to Hell, even before that person is born – why does he allow that birth to happen? This is just one of many arguments which make an all-knowing God and an all-loving God hard to justify.
I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion so far! Thank you for your time and tolerance in talking to me 🙂
All-righty… I realize that there is always a slight chance that things we know for sure will be wrong (such as my space shuttle and skin cancer example). However, I do not actually know anyone who would live according to the chance that these things may not be absolute. If you get your three opinions from differing doctors and they all say skin cancer, are you going to live like this is not a truth? As an astronaut, if the policy at NASA is to throw parts together, are you going to put your life in the hands of randomly chanced parts? I believe it is much easier to ponder the chances than it is to live the chances. But even if I have one truth in this whole world, such as 2 + 2 = 4, then how am I to be sure there are not other truths?
What about the truth that I felt warm at 4:00pm on Monday, April 02, 2007? That I, Mary Jo, felt warm at 4:00pm on Monday, April 02, 2007 is a true statement for all people everywhere at all times. They don’t have to agree with my feeling warm, but that I felt warm is a statement of truth which applies to all people at all times. It is not relative to their experience of that truth.
On the issue of what is called God’s foreknowledge (in reference to knowing whether you are going to go to heaven or hell and creating you anyway), I think we need to consider all the aspects of what a perfect God would be and not just put on Him what we desire Him to be (anthropomorphism). For example, a perfect being is not only all-loving, but also all-good and all-just. What does it mean to be all-good? I believe a case can be made that the act of creation is good in-of-itself. Since I believe creation to be good, the perfect being would necessarily create in order to maximize good (and the perfectly good being would maximize good). So I now have to wonder what kind of creation a perfect being would make. I highly value having free will as a created being. It is my will that allows me the opportunity to be moral, which is good in-of-itself. My will also allows me to choose to love God or not. An argument can be made against the value of free will and/or morality, but that is not the way we live. If someone steals from us, we think of that action as “wrong.” I have been told that there is no right or wrong by the same person who also thinks the war in Iraq is wrong. This is what I am talking about: we can speculate one way, but we live another way. We live as though there is right and wrong, and that we have the will to choose between them.
By the way, you have great questions! I like to be challenged to think through what I believe.
Oh, and…..Steven, you have twice mentioned the basic unreliability of the Biblical texts and I have not addressed that yet. I will do so next post. 🙂
Thanks,
MJ
I did not finish my argument on free will in my last post. That’s just kooky.
Picking up with “We live as though there is right and wrong, and that we have the will to choose between them.” So, there is right and wrong, otherwise there would be no free will, and we are given the opportunity to choose because free will is good. Free will is a part of maximized good in creation. Not good the way we think it should be (which is a moral judgment), but good the way it would necessarily be.
Okay, I think that wraps it up for now. And we’ve gone off the subject a little (which is okay) so I’m going to bring it back around. I believe in the ability to know truth. I believe in a perfect being, God, who would give us the ability to know truths about him, because He is perfect. Therefore, I will again say that if Jesus said he was God, and he was not (not risen from the dead either as he said he would be), then there is reason to question his message, for he is untruthful. And in order to not get too hung up on terminology, I am using “believe” as “this is something I have discerned through reasonable evidence or logical arguments.”
Thanks again, Steven!
MJ
Good answers 🙂
I think there are some key assumptions that are being made here, though. First, is that Jesus said he was God. It makes perfect since to me that the stories told for the 30 years before Mark was written could have exaggerated Jesus to a divine level, not only to spread the religion, but also to validate their lives. How are we to know? Can it be proven that Jesus’ divinity is an absolute truth?
Second, you assume that we have free will 🙂 It’s the gold standard of Christian discussions, so I’m sure both of us have heard every angle on it. So far, however, I have not been able to see how one can believe in free will.
First, why does God need us to have free will? The typical answer is: so that our praise for him is sincere, and not robotic. An example being a mother whose children are programmed to tell her that they love her. The mother does not actually feel loved.
Granting that this response is a valid retort, why does God need us to praise him if he is perfect. Was God not content being perfect before creation?
Second, free will does NOT exist, unless God creates with favoritism. When we think about free will, we think about choices, and when we think about choices, we think about what it is that makes us choose this or that. So, what is it? Generally, it is a matter of how we were raised and genetic code. Does the God granted soul have a role in decision making?
One thing that does play a huge role in decision making is will power. Are you going to say yes or no to evil? Why is it that one person says yes, and one person says no? Does God grant different amounts of will power? If so, why?
In your example, you speak of your morality. Why is it that you chose the moral path while others do not? Was it God that gave you the power to see the “truth”? And if so, why not everyone?
Also, you say if someone steals from us we view it as wrong. But what of someone who learns from the beginning of their life that stealing is fine? Would it be “wrong” in that case?
And just one more thing about the skin cancer example – getting a lot of opinions is key, and Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam all claim love is the greatest “commandment” =)
I know there is a LOT here, so if you want to narrow it down, we can take it a piece at a time.
Greatly looking forward to your response!
Steven,
I’ve got to run some errands. I’ll catch you either later tonight or tomorrow sometime. We can hash out free will, the problem of evil, how they get the cream in the middle of the twinkie, and solve all the world’s problems then! 😉 J/K
Talk to you later!
MJ
Hey Steven!
Sorry, I had to cut and paste due to lack of time. Your stuff is in bold; mine is not. I’m sorry I chopped up your statements, but I figured a reader could just go back up to your previous post if they want the whole enchilada. 🙂
I think there are some key assumptions that are being made here, though. First, is that Jesus said he was God. It makes perfect since to me that the stories told for the 30 years before Mark was written could have exaggerated Jesus to a divine level, not only to spread the religion, but also to validate their lives. How are we to know? Can it be proven that Jesus’ divinity is an absolute truth?
Throughout my posts on the minimal facts, I have argued almost entirely from 1 Corinthians 15, some of Paul’s writings. The professor I am quoting (Habermas) has complied nearly all the scholarly writings on the Resurrection by those who study the New Testament. These are atheist, skeptic, liberal, and conservative scholars. I am only using those facts that these scholars agree upon as too likely to be explained as myth or legend. Using these facts, I am looking at possible explanations for what happened. Resurrection is the best possible explanation because it satisfies all of the facts. If Jesus was raised from the dead, after predicting his crucifixion and resurrection, then we have reason to believe his message. Jesus called himself God. Paul writes that Jesus was bodily resurrected from the dead, and goes on to say:
“But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.” 1 Corinthians 15:12-19
Paul’s belief in resurrection and in Jesus as God is strongly stated here. He includes a spiritual reality check, as well…that we are found to be false witnesses about God if Jesus has not been raised from the dead. I think you can get as close as is possible to absolute truth when investigating the material about whom Jesus was and what history recorded about him. However, as Blaise Pascal states, “He [God] gives exactly the right amount of light. If he gave less, even the righteous would be unable to find him, and their will would be thwarted. If he gave more, even the wicked would find him, against their will. Thus he respects and fulfills the will of all.”
Second, you assume that we have free will 🙂 It’s the gold standard of Christian discussions, so I’m sure both of us have heard every angle on it. So far, however, I have not been able to see how one can believe in free will.
I have only assumed free will as a necessary part of a creation that has maximized good, as a perfect being must do. Also, if you explain away a human’s free will, then how do they have human rights?
First, why does God need us to have free will? The typical answer is: so that our praise for him is sincere, and not robotic. An example being a mother whose children are programmed to tell her that they love her. The mother does not actually feel loved.
Granting that this response is a valid retort, why does God need us to praise him if he is perfect. Was God not content being perfect before creation?
I have not argued that God needs us in any way. I am saying that God is all-good, due to the nature of a perfect being. I am also arguing that the creative act is good. Therefore, to be the ultimate good, God would necessarily create. I am not looking at the world and saying “this would have been better,” instead I look at the necessary attributes of a perfect God and then try to figure if this world is what I would expect from that being.
Second, free will does NOT exist, unless God creates with favoritism….. Does the God granted soul have a role in decision making?….In your example, you speak of your morality. Why is it that you chose the moral path while others do not? Was it God that gave you the power to see the “truth”? And if so, why not everyone?
Yeah. These are tough questions. I hope I don’t sound like I am “armchair-philosophizing” over them. That is not intended. Honestly, though, can it really be proven that not everyone has the power to see truth?
Also, you say if someone steals from us we view it as wrong. But what of someone who learns from the beginning of their life that stealing is fine? Would it be “wrong” in that case?
Yes, because the people from whom that someone is stealing still view it as wrong. Also, it would not be classified as stealing if it was not actually taken something wrongfully. Why would a person actually steal if they thought it was okay. Would that person not view it as borrowing, instead? There is an implication of “wrongness” in the concept of taking something without permission. Even our “supposed” person doesn’t get off that easy.
And just one more thing about the skin cancer example – getting a lot of opinions is key, and Buddhism, Christianity, and Islam all claim love is the greatest “commandment” =)
Yes, but their leaders do not all predict their own death and resurrection from the dead. Also, Christianity is the only one of the monotheistic religions whose leader claims to be that one God.
Reliability of the texts: I am only going to do one aspect at a time here. Manuscripts of the Biblical texts were found all over the ancient near east and there were thousands of manuscripts (around 5,000 Greek and 24,000 total). As these texts were codified, the early Christians had more than enough manuscripts to cross reference for accuracy.
I didn’t answer everything, but with a major Easter production this week….I’ve been a little time constrained.
Thanks,
MJ
I understand the Easter rush 🙂 It must be a busy time for you.
I appreciated your responses, but would like to focus on one concept as a time, before this gets too big to find truth in!
Let’s focus on two things: Paul and free will
First, do you believe Paul to be divinely inspired? Was Paul not just a person like you or I who was giving his interpretation of who Jesus was and what He wanted Christianity to be?
Second, we’ll break free will down as simply as possible.
Is free will necessary for “maximized good”?
Why does “maximum good” include Hell?
If God’s creation is to maximize good, and if He has done so, why are we not all in Heaven? Is Heaven not the epitome of good?
And finally, does a God-given soul have a part in the decision making process? Are individuals born with different capacities for good and bad?
Thank you very much for informing me about the number of manuscripts. I didn’t know there were that many, and it makes sense that they would cross reference in the biblical “piecing together” while not including the referenced texts in the actual work. That provides a much more solid perspective on the Bible. Do any of those manuscripts still exist? Where did they go? I know a lot of the apocropha is still around, but I’ve only heard of a few gospels, like Thomas.
Thanks!
Steven,
Hello! I’m finally back. I hope you had a nice Easter weekend. Maybe some rest and relaxation? 🙂
Yes, Paul was a human just like you and I. He could make mistakes, just like you and I. However, he could also be a person God used to write down the words God wanted Paul to write. Is the question you have with the potential for human error and the unreliability of human intentions related to a distrust of Paul’s character? Steven, why do you think Paul is untrustworthy?
Paul had a radical 180 degree turn-about in his life. He originally persecuted the Christians for committing what he believed to be heresy. He called himself a “Pharisee of Pharisees.” Paul clearly understood all that he was losing in order to become a Christian, including: his societal status, his way of life, his financial security, his friends, and his position of power. This was not a flippant action on his part. Paul was so careful to check the truth of what he believed that he went to the leaders of the church twice in Jerusalem to check the message he was preaching. As I read Paul’s letters, I do not see a power-hungry man or a man leading a cult. I see a man who believed he had the truth and could do no less than to share that truth with others.
Free Will
If I could imagine a world of beings without free will, I would say that it was a robotic-type existence. No choices would be made on the part of the robots, just what they were programmed to do (very similar to a reductionist concept of human will). If there are no real choices possible in the world, there is no possibility of good. How can something be good if it just “is”?
Maximum good includes hell, because people who choose not to be in the presence of God truly do not want to be in the presence of God. Why should God force them to be with Him? Is it possible for a perfectly good being to force his creation to choose Him? The idea of a hell may not be pleasing to the human, but it may very well be necessary in order to actually have a choice. What do you do, as God, if you must create perfectly, but that entails good, which entails giving a choice (without which there is no actual possibility of good), but you do not necessarily want anyone to be separated from you? That is a tough question. I do not want to sound patronizing. The idea of eternal separation from God has been described as torture, torment, wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc. To a Christian, separation from God would be all those things. The idea of eternal separation, to the Christian, is the worst thing that could possibly happen to a person (worse than any of the horrors of this world). I have not yet encountered many non-believers who really understand the gravity with which Christians approach this concept.
Why are we not all in heaven? In order to maximize good, this world could not be by-passed, for there are goods in this world that cannot be achieved in the heavenly world in God’s full presence. In David Wood’s debate on the problem of evil with John Loftus, he gives several examples of the goods of this world, including the choice of whether or not we will follow God, morality, and virtues such as courage and compassion. Morality in this world is only possible due to our free will to choose whether or not we will act morally. If God’s presence were fully known in this world, either His presence would overwhelm human will or humans would only be following God due to a fear of being “zapped” by this all-powerful watchman. By contrast, the goods of the heavenly realm include a lack of suffering and the full presence of God—the latter being the ultimate good.
And finally, does a God-given soul have a part in the decision making process? Are individuals born with different capacities for good and bad?
Good question. You are dealing with human nature. If you think that there are properties that make humans essentially human, then you agree that humans have a nature. Some parts of human nature are the body, the mind, and the soul. Do you put the mind and the soul as one? Your first question above alludes to that. The mind has a property of rationalization. Therefore, it has the ability to make decisions based on the information it receives. The mind makes decisions that informs the body and soul. Is that what you wanted to know? On your second question, you will have to expound where you are coming from. It sounds loaded, but I’m not sure with what. 🙂
Do any of those manuscripts still exist? Where did they go?
I’m so glad you asked. I was able to visit the Smithsonian’s most expensive exhibit this past November in D.C. It was a display of the earliest biblical manuscripts and texts. I actually saw pieces of the New Testament dated at 150 – 200 A.D. There were many more pieces dating from 250 – 400 A.D. It was impressive, to say the least. Included in the exhibit were Codex Sinaiticus (a complete New Testament from the early to middle 4th century), Codex Washingtonensis (5th century, contains the 4 gospels), parts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi texts, and some apocrypha. Each of the exhibits had come from different places around the world. I was just amazed. I have been defending these manuscripts, but I had never seen them myself.
Looking forward to hear from you again.
MJ
Going to focus on your response to the “choice” dilemma.
“because people who choose not to be in the presence of God truly do not want to be in the presence of God”
What is making that choice? Why would anyone choose not to be in the presence of God? The only answer I can come up with is if they are distracted by worldly things. And if this is the case, they are not making a choice to not follow God. Their experience gives them no reason to want “God.” And they are supposed to find God, how?
Steven,
Here’s where I have an issue with looking up at God from the world. I think it is of utmost importance to first describe what God necessarily has to be and then apply that knowledge back onto what the world would be. For example, if God is perfect, then how does he reconcile being all-loving with being all-just and what would that look like as applied here on earth? How could God be all-good and yet create things that have no choices? I could wish it to be that way, but is that actually a possibility within the nature of God? That is what I am looking to figure out.
So what I would like to know is 1) what attribute of God would cause him to create beings without a choice to love him 2) Is that a logical possibility, because a perfect God is also logically perfect 3) Is it possible to call that kind of creation good?
Keep bringing the good questions!
MJ
On the “how are people supposed to find God” question…
I believe what Paul said in Romans that God has revealed himself in the things that were made (all creation) to where man is without excuse. Here again the question is based from man to God and not on what God is. If there is truly a God-being that is perfect, he would be able to reveal himself to his creation in whatever way he must. I honestly do not mean this to sound like a punt. What is God?… then, how could that being reveal himself, and then what do we observe (adding in free will here, if accepted, explains much of the turning away from a God-being or to other beliefs).
I didn’t feel like I had attempted to answer the second part of your post, so I posted again. 🙂
Thanks for the responses 🙂
To answer some of YOUR questions for once:
1) What attribute of God would cause him to create beings without a choice to love him?
The question here is what would cause God to create? You have said that God is all-good and so creation is purely good. But, where is the necessity for an all-good entity to create? Something which is all-good does not need anything else to be “more good.” So God, through creation, did nothing to make anything “better.” Why, then, would He/It create? The fact is, however, that God did indeed create, or something was created and God put in charge – unless we can entertain the idea that outside of time, creation has always been.
Back to the question – what attribute of God caused Him to create? Can we really give God attributes? How can we even approach the smallest truth about what or how God really is? We say “good” and “perfect” and “loving” and “compassionate” and “judgmental” – but these words are human attempts to describe human attributes. Is it possible for there to be attributes outside of our reality that we cannot even understand? Whoah…I’m getting a little spacey here. Sorry!
Back to the question. Assuming the attributes are shared between humanity and God, the only logical reason that God has to create is because of loneliness, and consequently, selfishness. Again, I ask, even if 1 soul suffers eternally, and all other souls live peacefully in Heaven forever, is that “good”? Is it better to create suffering or not create at all?
2) Is that a logical possibility, because a perfect God is also logically perfect.
No, a selfish God is not a perfect God. So it is not a logical possibility (by human logic, perhaps there is more to it?)
3) Is it possible to call that kind of creation good?
No, I do not believe so. Hell has absolutely no justification, no matter how good everything else is. As long as bad is created with good, the creation is not good. If we were here, then God appeared, and created a place for “good” people to live eternally, sure, that would be good. But because God created the very evil that He is trying to save us from, the creation is no longer good, unless all people accept that good. And with free will, this is not the case.
As for the second post – I like what Paul said. God is in the trees and sky – in our life experiences. Perhaps personifying God as a man is not actually a helpful practice? Maybe God is simply creation, or the medium in which we exist.
Could it be that God is revealing Him/Itself every moment to us simply through our existence? Through our perception and awareness of “everything”?
As for revealing himself – God knows exactly what it would take to convince me of His existence and righteousness. He knows personally what the minimal requirement is for each of us to be convinced that He is God. Yet if He/It acts according to this knowledge, free will is pointless. Dilemma?
Hello, Steven!
I am sorry to answer your question with a question, but I need to know if you believe all people are basically good. If you do, I need to know a reason why you think that. The reason for my questioning is that as a Christian, I do not believe all people to be good, because of original sin. The human nature inherited is a sin nature. That is why people do not want to be with God. God, being righteous, exposes our blemishes, our wrongs. It is not a kill-joy attribute, but an attribute of perfection.
How do we know any of the attributes of God? We have a mind that we can use to investigate evidences, experiences, data, and ideas to come to conclusions on what we can know. The first thing we could reasonably say about a God-being is that this being is not us. In order to have made everything, it could not be what it made. Is that an acceptable attribute?
I know I have not answered all your questions (again), but I am going to focus on what a being that we call God is for now, unless you want to do otherwise. I think it is very important to discuss what God is in order to figure out what we think about everything else. I realize you have said that you do not think we can know God, but I think this is the heart of the questioning. Can we know God? What can we say about this being?
Thanks for your patience with me. As finals approach, I am becoming busy again. I continue to enjoy your challenges.
MJ
P.S. I would especially like to discuss the idea of hell, because I understand how important that issue is….so I haven’t forgotten, I just don’t want to answer you in a rushed manner.
Here is what Josephus wrote ‘But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex. Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.’
And here is how it appears in the article.
‘But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex…..; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment.’
Can anybody spot where the author of the apologetic post has cleverly disguised the fact that Josephus wrote that servants probably did not speak truth, and did not write that women probably did not speak truth?
Very clever!
Hello, Steven! Welcome.
The author of the apologetic post, is me, MJ. I was directly quoting from the book “The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus” as footnoted after all three quotes used. I do see how including the rest of the quote could change the meaning in regards to that one particular evidence of the testimony of women. You may expound on that if you would like.
“The author of the post has cleverly disguised”
I usually check out the primary source myself, as in my other posts on this subject. This time I used a particular quote from a book that was not the primary source. If you are meaning to discredit my integrity, why?
Thanks,
MJ
I went back and read the passage again and noticed that the part regarding the women basically says do not let the testimony of women be admitted and gives reason for why (levity and boldness). The quote I used made it look like the explanation for not admitting their testimony was because it was probable they may not speak truth. However, the full quote credits the reason for not admitting their testimony as being because of the levity and boldness of their sex. The testimony of women is still not admitted in Josephus’ account in either the full or partial quote.
Thanks,
MJ
Another blunder in the Bible, which regarded the testimony of women as perfectly credible.
John 4:39 Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony…
But people did not accept the testimony of women ?!?
Of course, the Gospellers knew that the testimony of women certainly was accepted in court.
http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/SAL/texts/latin/classical/cicero/inverrems1e.html
‘Why do you compel the wife of your comrade, the mother-in-law of your comrade, in short, the whole family of your dead comrade, to bear evidence against you?
Why do you compel most modest and admirable women to come against their wont and against their will into so great an assembly of men? Recite the evidence of them all.
[The evidence of the mother and grandmother is read.]’
Or the manuscript P.Oxy. 1.37 from 49 AD which has a woman called Saraeus appearing in court and giving evidence.
Examples could be multiplied at will.
‘Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman.’
This applies only to testimony about whether a new moon had been seen, and women’s testimony was not valid on that subject, presumably because women were not considered to have the required knowledge about astronomy.
It says nothing about women’s testimony in general.
So you have some quotes that infer that a woman’s testimony was allowed. I have some quotes that infer that women’s testimony was not as highly regarded as a man’s (notice I did not say “not allowed”). Tell me about the view of women in the 1st century in the area of Jerusalem. Why should I believe that a woman’s testimony, outside of Christianity, was credited as equal weight of a man’s testimony? I am attempting to establish the principle of embarrassment. Are you tearing down the principle of embarrassment and its relation to textual criticism? Or do you feel that the women finding the tomb does not qualify as the prinicple of embarrassment and why?
It appears Mary Jo accepts that the Gospel authors taught that women’s testimony was perfectly credible….
Christians, of course, felt no embarassment whatever at women evangelists.
If Mary Jo wants to use the principle of embarassament , then she should produce a Christian who was embarassed by the idea of women visiting the tomb. Can she name one?
Were Christians embarrassed by the thought of the infant Jesus striking people dead?
By the principle of embarassment, such stories must be true, because no Christian would have invented them out of thin air.
Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen the resurrected Jesus ascending into the sky. Isn’t that embarassing?
It appears Mary Jo accepts that the Gospel authors taught that women’s testimony was perfectly credible….
My acceptance or non-acceptance of an issue is not relevant to the understanding of the culture of Jesus’ time. What was the view of women in Jesus’ culture in the first century? And how does this view play out in the credibility/acceptance of testimony by women either in a court of law or in important matters of any kind?
If Mary Jo wants to use the principle of embarassament , then she should produce a Christian who was embarassed by the idea of women visiting the tomb. Can she name one?
Your statement implies that someone should have written down “I was embarrassed by the women finding the tomb, because this is not acceptable in my culture. So I did not want to write it in my letters about Jesus Christ.” Or something to that effect. But you really are not asking for this, right?
Were Christians embarrassed by the thought of the infant Jesus striking people dead?
Please quote the text.
MJ
Mark 16:5 ‘As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.’
The story says the first witness to the resurrection was a young man.
In the ancient world, men were not considered credible witnesses.
If people were making up stories about the empty tomb, they would have had women be the first human beings at the tomb, not a man.
Reading from an Interlinear Greek/Hebrew/English Bible, Mark 16:5 reads, “And having entering into the tomb they saw a young man sitting on the right, having been clothed (in) a robe white. And they were much amazed.”
The word ‘amazed’ has been translated from the Greek “ekqambeo” meaning
– to throw into terror or amazement
– to alarm thoroughly
– to terrify
– to be struck with amazement
First, these definitions imply a different meaning to the “alarmed” of the Mark 16:5 you quoted. These women were “thoroughly” alarmed, i.e. as alarmed as you could be, by the sight of the young man in white. Why would they be terrified by this gentleman?
Plus the rest of this section of Mark does not make sense if this were truly just a young man:
“Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’ ” Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.
The remarks you posted reminded me how important textual criticism or “scholarly editing” is in the realm of reading ancient documents. Below, I have posted a couple of sites on how ancient documents (like the Bible) go from original manuscripts to the material we have today.
Interpreting Ancient Manuscripts – “Textual Criticism” This site is a web adaptation of a HyperCard version of this material as developed at Brown University.
Literary Resources — Bibliography and History of the Book This site has great resources on the history of books and ancient documents. It also links to literary and criticism societies. Great place for valuable and scholarly resources.
The Oxford Hebrew Bible:
Prologue to a New Critical Edition by Ronald Hendel, University of California, Berkeley This is a 32 page breakdown of how the Oxford Hebrew Bible was developed. If you have ever wondered about the process and considerations of putting together a Bible, this is a great description.
Thanks,
MJ