Skeptics of Christianity have continually sought to reveal logical, historical, or even theological flaws in the foundations of the faith, especially since early in the 19th century. I do not decry nor discredit the majority of these investigations, for it is only in the testing and proving of the sword, as they say, that its qualities can be truly revealed.
A worldview (and all faiths or the-lack-thereof are worldviews) must be able to withstand thorough scrutiny. In the framework of another analogy: the hammers of skepticism have repeatedly and vigorously beat upon the anvil of truth, and over time, we see the hammers broken, shattered, yet what of the anvil? It remains, fundamentally unchanged, having earned the respect of its opponents, and the confidence of its multiplied seekers.
Among the more common challenges leveled against faith in God (in general) and Jesus Christ (in particular) center around a highly subjective and emotional (yet important) question:
"How can a God that is all-powerful and loving, allow evil, pain, and suffering in the world?"
All of us, believers or not, have probably wrestled with this deep question at one time or another. Many Christians, unfortunately, seem at a loss to respond to this challenge, but it is crucial to remember that one’s inability to completely satisfy the question does not mean that Christianity itself does not offer real solutions, and it certainly does not imply that there are no answers. For a clarifying analogy, let’s consider modern science.
Scientists struggle to explain everyday phenomena such as the fundamental nature of light or gravity, yet, we don't discard the science surrounding these realities, and we certainly don’t reject the research as completely worthless or invalid. Scientists have developed well-supported models that seem to explain most of the common questions about these issues.
But, concerning the problematic areas that do not fit neatly into these models, we realize that there are answers, though we may not have all those answers...yet. The same may be true regarding the issue of God and suffering. Are there good models offering real solutions? Absolutely. Are there specific areas that we still struggle with? Absolutely.
As with any theological question with emotionally-charged consequences, we need to separate two very different aspects of the problem: The first is the intellectual challenge, which is usually framed as:
“HOW could an all-good, all-powerful God and very real evil/suffering co-exist in this world?”
Resolving this intellectual question typically involves using philosophy and carefully constructed logical arguments. But most people aren’t interested in philosophy, and fewer yet have the patience and background needed to dissect logical constructs. Most people are far more concerned with the second aspect of this issue: the emotional challenge.
If the intellectual challenge revolves around the word ‘HOW’, then the emotional challenge centers upon the word ‘WHY.’ This perspective could best be summed up with a simple question:
“WHY does an all-powerful, all-good God allow suffering and evil?”
For most inquirers, that is the real question. For them, it's the WHY and not the HOW that matters. We all struggle with the WHY questions in life, "Why didn't I get that promotion? Why doesn't she love me like I love her? Why did my friend commit suicide?" The list goes on and on, as does our incredulity.
With these two very different perspectives in mind, let's consider ten different possible solutions to this difficult and emotionally-charged question. Three of these models primarily focus on the intellectual problem of God and evil, and the remainder offer satisfying emotional justifications for the existence of suffering in a universe created by an all-good God.
1. The Creator’s ways are higher than our understanding.
In reference to His dealings with mankind, God clearly states:
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways My ways,"
declares the LORD.
"As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are My ways higher than your ways
and My thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8,9)
Simply put, it is not possible that we (as finite, created beings) could necessarily understand all that an infinite God “thinks” or does. This is simple to demonstrate, evidenced by the fact that God created the complex human brain, with its 100 billion neurons, that we use to contemplate these tough questions. Therefore, He must be nearly infinitely higher than our ability to comprehend.
To illustrate this, think about a young toddler stumbling across the living room, his attention fixated on a small, shiny razor blade laying on a coffee table nearby. His father sees this dangerous attraction, and just as the excited youngster reaches the “toy”, the caring adult intervenes, removes the object, and lovingly swats at the hand of the child, following it up with a firm “No! No!” In predictable fashion, the toddler protests with loud wails and crocodile tears, no doubt completely confused at the sudden contradiction from loving daddy to evil killjoy.
Just as the immature understanding of the toddler’s mind cannot even begin to fathom all the consequences his innocent action (which the parent, though, does understand), our minds and our ability to comprehend difficult questions cannot even begin to compare with God’s understanding. Just as the young child cannot fully understand the reasons that the parent has for such supposedly harsh actions, likewise humanity, in a child-like role in comparison to the Creator, may not be able to fully reconcile God’s reasons for allowing events or conditions that we may consider contradictory.
Setting aside this analogy about differences in understanding for a moment, we also have another disadvantage when it comes to wrestling with this issue. To put it simply, we are too limited, and our lives too short to actually and accurately see the “big picture.” With our limited exposure to the total mass of humanity, and since our life spans are insignificant compared to all of human history, we are incapable of rendering a sufficient judgment about the reasonableness of suffering or evil.
Looking at it logically, since God is dealing in a far bigger picture than just one person's life, or even an entire nation of people, and He is working across a longer time frame than one person's life span, then His ways, almost by default, will seem to be mysterious or even, at times, appear contradictory.
But the truth is, we don’t always have to understand something in order to accept it. Consider gravity, not one physicist in a thousand will say that they understand the real nature or mechanism of gravity. But we all accept (and even expect) that when we drop a rock, it will (almost always) fall down to the ground. Gravity. Do we understand it? No. Do we accept it? Yes.
Now translate that same perspective over to a spiritual example: consider Jesus Christ dying on the cross for our sins. Even His disciples did not understand why He had to die, and the apostle Peter even tried to prevent it. They were perplexed and disillusioned, but afterward, they understood that the tragedy of Jesus' unjust crucifixion was for our good, for our salvation.
Jesus said: "What I am doing now, you do not understand, but you will know after this." (John 13:7) On this side of eternity, we may not understand all of God's allowances and dealings, but it stands to reason that He may reveal His wisdom after this short time here. It is an issue of basic trust, as the distressed patriarch Abraham proclaimed as he contemplated God’s difficult dealings: “Shall not the judge of all the earth do what is right?”
2. We would understand the reasons for suffering, if we had all the information.
Though similar to our first answer, this explanation is fundamentally different. Whereas the first solution revolved around God’s ultimate PURPOSES in allowing suffering, this explanation involves, at it’s heart, our limited appreciation of specific reasons for suffering or evil. What may seem unjust or bad to us, may only seem that way because we do not have all the information about that event or condition.
An example from last century may help. If someone (who knew nothing about World War II) was to read about Harry Truman authorizing the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and nothing else, they might conclude that the US President was a sadistic and truly evil man, and the bombings unprovoked and unjustified.
But, if they understood, in the light of the fact that the US was engaged in the throes of World War II, and that the best estimates of a land invasion of the Japanese homeland would result in multiplied millions of deaths on both sides of the conflict, then a different understanding of the action would be realized. What at first appeared to be unprovoked evil was soon understood to actually be a type of mercy. The bombings, which caused loss of life, were intended to (and more than likely did) lessen the loss of life and minimize suffering.
Consider cancer surgery. Why do people allow a surgeon to cut open and invade their bodies, even carving out entire sections of their brains, livers, or lungs? This will surely result in much suffering and pain, and even loss of function. Why do we allow it? Answer: for the greater good. The cancer may threaten our very lives, but yet, by this painful and difficult decision of surgery, it may cure the condition, or prolong life, or at least prolong quality of life.
But if you walked into an operating room and saw a surgeon with a large scalpel about to slice into what appeared to be an unconscious and helpless victim, you might think that the doctor was a sadistic killer. But, with the understanding that there is a greater good that can be brought out of this painful event, we realize that some suffering is not only warranted, but can actually be for our own good.
Christian apologist and philosopher, Michael Horner, commented about the problem of God and suffering: "It may be too complicated, or, more than likely, we are lacking crucial information that is available to an all knowing God. Therefore, merely because we can't think of a good reason why a particular evil should be allowed, it does not follow that God does not have a good reason, nor does it follow that we are irrational in believing God has a good reason."
Another good example can be found in the Bible in the life of Joseph. His jealous brothers conspired against him and sold him into slavery in Egypt. Joseph suffered greatly in his slavery and eventual, wrongful imprisonment. But later, through the providence of God, Joseph provided the key wisdom needed to help Egypt survive a multi-year famine, and indirectly saved many other peoples, including his own brothers who had earlier plotted against him. When Joseph confronted them, he was forgiving and declared: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good" (Gen. 50:15-21). If someone had stopped reading the account too early, they would have wondered “Why is God letting his faithful servant Joseph suffer so unjustly?” But, once all the facts are in, we marvel at God’s timing, wisdom, and His ability to redeem even the most painful of events.
3. We live in a fallen world cursed because of sin.
This is usually the first generic type of answer that most offer when the question of God and suffering comes up. And though it is sound intellectually and can even be proven experientially, it is an emotionally unsatisfying answer. Let’s restate the premise from a different perspective: We live in a world that is in rebellion against it’s own Creator, therefore, we would expect events and circumstances to be at odds with our sense of the way things ought to be. In other words, things aren’t right, because WE aren’t right in our relationship to our Creator.
One does not have to look too far to realize that the universe (generally) and this planet (specifically) is not the perfect place it once was in the beginning. Violence, wars, sickness, suffering, hatred, tragedy, and ultimately death are external witnesses to an undeniable inward realization that something is wrong, very wrong. There is an abiding and universal understanding that we were never meant to have to stand by the casket of a deceased loved one, or witness the abuse of innocent children, or to feel the emotional pain of a society filled with racism, cruelty, or indifference.
We feel the sting of injustice, and we know that some things are just not right. Phrases such as “It just isn’t fair” or “But that’s not right” are found in every language, every culture. The concepts of morality, of right and wrong, inexplicable by evolutionary models, are universally experienced. Universal effects are the result of universal causes.
Imagine a classroom filled with men and women, all ‘devout’ atheists. At the end of the course the instructor stands before the class and announces: “I have posted your final grades, but there is no need to look at the roster. All women get an ‘A,’ and all the men get an ‘F.’” A sense of indignation and injustice would, no doubt, manifest in the minds of all of the men present. “But, wait, that’s wrong, that’s not fair!” one of the gentlemen would protest. The wise professor would turn to the enraged student and say: “I’m sorry, sir, your complaint is illogical, because right and wrong, fair or unfair, cannot exist in a universe with no God.” The teacher is correct. But, whether convinced atheist or committed Christian, universally we find a fundamental law of morality, not identical between all cultures, but foundationally similar.
Just as the fruit of the apple tree can be traced all the way back to its tiny seed, to understand the modern fruit of evil and suffering, as well as the common sense of morality we all share, we must also go back to the beginning, the origin.
The Bible repeatedly decrees that when God had first made the cosmos, He declared that everything was “good” and even “very good.” The scripture records that there was no death, no pain, no suffering, no animosity, no injustice. Our original parents were placed in an environment that was perfectly suited to them, and they to it, but more importantly, they existed in a state of perfect relationship with their Creator. Mankind was given the privilege and responsibility by God to be the caretakers, the superintendents if you will, of God’s physical creation.
But something went terribly wrong.
The ability to have a sincere and real relationship with mankind required God to create something even more amazing than massive galaxies or minute strands of DNA. For there to be true love and a willing relationship, God had to give mankind a FREE WILL. Without free will, the obedience and love of mankind would have been an illusion, a hollow drama with only the appearance of substance. A logical consequence of the gift of free will is the possibility of rebellion, of rejection, of disobedience…of sin. Unfortunately the possibility turned to reality, and the rest is, as they say, history. Mankind abused its free will and turned against the Creator.
Even the critics of Christianity admit that the presence of sin and evil in the world are verifiable and undeniable realities. Strangely enough, evil in the world is one of the strongest arguments for both the reality of God and the truth of Christianity. Bertrand Russell, one of the foremost opponents of Christianity in the 20th century espoused what is called the “Correspondence Theory of Truth.” This logical argument states that, for something to be TRUE, it must CORRESPOND to what we actually observe in the world. Ironically, Bertrand’s pet axiom can be used to help verify the faith that he despised.
Since God placed mankind as the custodians of His creation, and we rebelled against Him, He has allowed suffering and tragedy into His creation as proof, evidence that something is indeed wrong...and that something is US. We are all in a state of open rebellion against the God Who created us, Who desires for us to know Him the way mankind once did. God promised, from the very beginning, that disobedience would lead to horrible consequences, and eventually death. Not only us, but all of God’s created natural order, was placed under God’s judgment.
Therefore, suffering and evil are the inescapable results of our rebellion against the good God Who created us. Instead of allowing us to have the illusion that everything is still “OK,” God gave us continual reminders that we are not right, and that we are under the condemnation of our own evil.
4. Suffering is often the best way to cause us to seek after God.
Comfort and pleasure are rarely the motivating factors that move people to evaluate their lives and turn back to God. Indeed, ease and prosperity often cause people to live lives indifferent to (and even hardened against) God. In the “good times” we can often become arrogant and self-sufficient, not realizing that the purpose in life is not about gathering up things, but about having a relationship with the Creator Who made us and loves us.
When is the last time you met someone who had become a Christian because they had won the lottery, or had landed that dream job, or found that perfect spouse? Probably never. But, often the rule rather than the exception, are those who have found Christ in the midst of suffering, tragedy, or heartache. Pain and tragedy have a way of getting our attention far better than blessing or comfort. And this is unfortunate. We should turn to the Lord because of His goodness and blessing, but instead, like the unthankful prodigal son, we arrogantly take God's gifts without honoring the One Who gave them, and go on our merry ways.
But when did the prodigal son realize the true situation, and make things right with his father (a picture of the sinner being reconciled to God)? It was not when he was partying and ‘living it up,’ it was when he had lost everything, and was suffering. The suffering was a justifiable way to bring him (representing us as sinners) back to the father (representing God). Just as God does not like to see us suffer, the father of the prodigal son felt no joy from hearing about his son's horrible lifestyle, but the repentance and reunion brought on by the suffering made the suffering (which was for only a short time) worth it eternally.
Have you ever heard an alarm clock that used soothing and soft sounds to waken it’s owners? What about tornado or fire alarms, do they use gentle methods to create awareness? No. Alarms use loud, harsh, even annoying sounds or flashes to gain our attention. Why? Because often that is what it takes to get us to “wake up,” to become aware of the actual danger around us that we are either ignoring or indifferent to. If we, as mere people know this, then surely the Creator of the universe knows that unpleasant things are far faster ways of getting our attention, evidently far more efficient than comfort, pleasure, or prosperity. If it is for our good, then God in His love and care, will allow us to be inconvenienced, if it can or will cause us to quit ignoring Him, and to even seek Him out.
This solution also applies to the suffering experienced by God’s people. Born-again Christians are not immune from the trials and tragedies of life. Earlier we spoke of the value of suffering in causing a person to realize their need for a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, but what of those already saved? The apostle Peter grants us valuable insight when he shared this about why Christians suffer:
“…you have suffered in various trials, so that the genuineness of your faith…may be found…”
(I Peter 4:6,7)
Also, the apostle Paul encourages us with these words:
“…but we also glory in trials, knowing that trials produce perseverance; and perseverance (produces) character; and character (produces) hope.”
(Romans 5:3,4)
In a very real sense, sufferings tend to produce faith, or better, tend to produce trust in God. For those who do not know Him as Lord and Savior, sufferings drive them to seek Him out. For those who are saved, trials should cause them to lean on Him more, to trust Him for the strength to persevere, which leads to maturity and growth.
5. Tragedy and disasters do not increase the amount of death in the world.
At first glance, that statement seems ridiculous. Earthquakes, tornadoes, tsunamis--multiplied millions have died due to their destructive effects. But think about it, every person will die at one time or another. Death is still at the same rate it has always been...one death per person. It is just shocking or jolting to us when we hear of or see tragedies, perhaps because it is so many deaths in such a short time. But most people aren't aware that each day about 160,000 people die in the world, mostly due to illness or accident. Setting aside huge disasters, such as earthquakes, we still lose 160,000 people EVERY DAY. That's over a million per week. Disasters do not increase the amount of death, it is still one per person.
Admittedly, this answer is not actually a direct solution to the question at hand of God and suffering. But the inevitable fallout of large disasters is the predictable tirade of skeptics who use these events as a platform to launch fresh attacks against the character of God. But, regardless of the emotional pleas, natural or unnatural disasters do not increase the amount of death in the world.
6. The reality of death is a great motivator for spiritual action.
It is an odd thing with the human race---they say that one of the only two certain things in this world is death (the other being taxes). And yet, most people live their lives in complete denial of their own eventual death, they avoid coming to terms with their own mortality. Since every person will die one day, and since the real purpose in life is to come to a personal relationship with our Creator, then if God can use death as a way of causing people to think about their own mortality, then even death can turn out for good.
It was the tragic death of my very young cousin that caused my oldest brother to consider his own mortality, and this contemplation led him to turn his life over to Jesus Christ. Every person will die one day, so if God can take that death and turn it into an opportunity for someone else to look at their own spiritual condition, then even death can be a blessing.
Think of organ donors...their death is a tragedy, but the gift of their healthy organs can mean life for someone else. This can also be true spiritually, in a way. Coming face to face with the reality of someone else’s death may cause us to find spiritual life. Death is, unfortunately, a teacher like no other. His lessons are inescapable, his conclusions undeniable. Neither I nor God says that death is (in itself) good. But God is so powerful and His wisdom so complete, that He can even take that which is evil and cause it to bring forth blessing.
7. Tragedies allow opportunities for God to show His love and kindness through His people.
There is an old expression: “God is good, all the time.” Even though we should see the good times of life as direct evidence of the goodness of God, honestly, most of the time we don't. Often, it is when hard times, suffering, pain, or tragedies come, that we see and realize the goodness of God demonstrated through His people. The Salvation Army, Samaritan's Purse, Operation Blessing, World Vision, and many hundreds of other Christian relief organizations exist to demonstrate God's love and care in the very center of need and tragedy.
Untold millions have found a personal relationship with Jesus Christ after coming face-to-face with the compassion of God revealed in the physical presence of a Christian relief worker or missionary. Many countries that do not allow religious liberties or missionaries, will open the door to Christian relief workers during times of crisis and suffering. God can use these opportunities to get His gospel into these hard to reach places of the earth. In some places in the world, the only Christians some could ever hope to meet will be representatives of Christian relief agencies.
God, though He is in control of all, often humbles Himself to work His compassion through people. Sometimes He can even work through those who care nothing for Him. There is the story that is told of a destitute widow woman who was praying aloud to God in her apartment. She besought the Lord to provide just enough food for her to survive. Unknown to her, an atheist from the apartment next door overheard her cry to God. The unbeliever went to the store and bought several bags of groceries and placed them at her door and rang the doorbell. The widow opened the door, and seeing only the food, immediately fell to her knees and said: “Thank you, Lord, for my answered prayer!” Just then, the atheist jumped out of hiding and scoffed: “God didn’t provide you that food---ha, ha, it was me. I bought it and put it here!” The woman then looked up and said: “And, Lord, not only did you provide…you got the devil to pay for it!”
8. Tragedies can motivate Christians to fulfill God's purpose in their lives.
There is a funny (and sadly, too true) song from back in the early 90’s that said: "Lord, please don't send me to Africa, I don't think I've got what it takes.” It goes on to remark: “I love my life here in suburbia." This chilling observation of lukewarm Christianity reprimands us for our lack of compassion and rebukes us for failing to get outside of our neat little lives and share the love of God. I know of hundreds of fellow Christians who have been emotionally moved by the awareness of the suffering of others, and who have left "suburbia" to visit the sad, the needy, and the desperate places of the earth to demonstrate God's love.
As followers of Christ, we should be reaching out daily to those around us, but we get caught up in the illusion of comfort and the danger of complacency, and we become jaded to the real needs in this world. There are many passages of God’s word that encourage us to go to “the ends of the world” to help our fellow man. But, sadly, most of us have a hard time just walking across the street to help a neighbor in need, much less to travel across the world. But sudden tragedies can be powerful wakeup calls to fulfill our reasonable service for our God and Savior.
Let’s be clear: we are NOT saved BY our good works, but the Bible says that, if we are truly saved, if we really do have Christ dwelling within, it will be evidenced by His works in and through us. If it takes suffering to get God’s people to reach out with His love, then we can see that suffering can indeed, be justified.
9. To stop all evil and suffering, God may have to deny us our free will.
For our final two solutions, we turn the discussion to intellectual, logical answers to the problem of God and suffering. Consider a searching question: What causes most human suffering? Is it really earthquakes or tsunamis? No. Most of the evil in this world is in the daily interaction of people toward other people. Therefore, since most human suffering and evil in the world is due to the greed and wickedness of people toward each other (murder, rape, torture, kidnapping, racism, etc.) then, to stop all suffering, God would have to deny us our free will.
Are you ready for Him to do that?
God created us with the ability to choose and make decisions, to create, to destroy, to love, and, to hate. We can accept God's gift of salvation, or we can reject it. We can help our fellow man, or we can take advantage of him. In order to have a true, free will in this world, the possibility must exist for rebellion and sin. We are not robots, merely automatons that can only repeat a carefully programmed mantra: "God I love you.” (repeat)
Freedom is a precious thing, indeed, people have died so that we can enjoy it. Even Jesus died for our freedom, so that we could have the opportunity to come to know the forgiveness and salvation of God. Most suffering is caused by the sin of people towards each other, and not just horrific evil such as Hitler, Stalin, or Osama Bin Laden, but also the multitudes of small and hurtful injustices we all commit toward each other, even daily. Racism, unkindness, envy, lying, and greed, all necesssarily lead to tragedy and suffering. To price to prevent all of this comes at the infinite cost of our freedom of will.
10. It may not be logically possible to have a universe without suffering.
Some would argue: "But couldn't God create a world that does not allow for the possibility of evil and suffering?" The answer is surprising...but then again, maybe not. Even the atheist philosopher Evan Fales admits, "Not even an omnipotent being can guarantee the best of all possible worlds, for if such a world must contain created free beings, it will be partly up to them what transpires." To say that God is all-powerful does not mean that everything imaginable is possible. God cannot make Himself not exist. God cannot sin. God cannot make a round square.
As the renowned philosopher and college campus speaker, Michael Horner, explained: "It is entirely possible that it is not within God's power to create a world containing moral good without that world also containing moral evil. When free moral agents are involved it is entirely possible that a good end could not be achieved in any other way."
Some skeptics attempt to put the challenge this way:
1. An all-good God and evil cannot co-exist.
2. Yet evil exists.
3. Therefore, an all-good God does not exist.
As we have seen, even dedicated atheists, such as Evan Fales, deny this challenge as being illogical. The missing piece of the puzzle is the reality of free will. As the recent commercial slogan puts it: "This changes everything." And, indeed, our free will is the game changer in this debate. We could put the logical statements in this order instead:
1. An all-good God created everything.
2. Free will exists.
3. Therefore, evil is possible because of free will.
And since human-to-human evil is the primary cause of suffering and tragedy, as demonstrated earlier, then we see that our free will, and not God's lack of ability (or His supposed non-existence) is the primary culprit.
In conclusion.
The perplexing problem of God and suffering is a difficult one. It involves, not just logical or intellectual issues, but deep-seated and troubling emotional ramifications. This short treatise is not meant to be the final word on this topic. Rather, it is set forth as a demonstration of the earlier premise of this discussion, namely that a valid worldview: (1) must be able to provide real answers. (2) it must “correspond to the truth” of actual human experience, and, finally (3) it must be able to withstand rigorous criticism and investigation.
When it comes to the issue of resolving the difficult problem of God and suffering, even the small sample of solutions presented here substantiate all three of these basic conditions.
These solutions have shown, that what at first appeared to be a serious challenge, rather serves to validate the claims of Christianity instead of casting doubt upon them. They have revealed that the existence of evil does not contradict the existence of God, but rather provides verification of free will and of the consequences of sin as recorded in the Bible. They have demonstrated that suffering, instead of being a challenge against the character of God and His love, provides the backdrop against which God can not only demonstrate His care through His people, but also draw people to Himself for salvation. They have shown that suffering can even be a mechanism to drive growth and maturity, and that evil may be unavoidable in a perfect universe containing free will.
To sum it up, former atheist and famous Christian apologist, C.S. Lewis proclaimed:
“God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world”.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
The Hiddenness of God
"Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"
"God, if you are there, why are you so hard to find?"
Perhaps the most quoted of all skeptics, Friedrich Nietzsche, also fired salvos against Judaism and Christianity with similar attacks. He wrote there should be "a Duty of God to be truthful towards mankind and clear in the manner of his communications." In other words, WHY isn't God more clear, more obvious, more open in His dealings with mankind?
With Nietzsche in the 19th century, and Russell in the 20th century, I would like to suggest a radical answer here at the outset of the 21st century (actually this answer goes back to the very beginning, at the origin of humanity).
God is not hidden, and if He were any more open, then belief in Him would border on coercion instead of free will.
Imagine walking up to the famous painting of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in Paris. As you admire this incredible and mysterious work of art, you turn to the person standing next to you, and you say: "Isn't it amazing that no one painted that painting." With an incredulous stare, the person (and rightly so) turns to you and exclaims: "Excuse me?" "Yeah," you continue, "no one painted that. It is the result of random processes over vast ages of time, through well-known chemical and other natural processes." With raised eyebrows and head-shaking, the crowd around you would, no doubt, slowly disperse.
Why would you be rejected in your position? For several well-founded reasons, including:
(1) the complexity of the painting
(2) the form and function of the image
(3) testimony of historical sources confirming the origin of the painting
(4) comparison with other known works of man-made art
(5) improbability of natural processes arriving at such a product.
 |
Let's look at just ONE facet of creation: DNA.
The DNA in your cells contains the complete instruction manual of how to build and maintain---YOU. It defines organs, systems, and life-processes that make YOU possible. It is an unimaginably complex, encoded system of information storage, averaging over 3 billion bits of data.
"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind."
Werner Gitt, a professor of information systems, states:
"The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather than a [lucky] chance".
Whether we look inward, to the very small and microscopic world of chemicals and DNA, or outward to the vastness of space and the beauties of the galactic landscape, we are confronted with the reality of not only a superintelligent God, but a super-creative God, a God of unimaginable power.
The late Sir Fred Hoyle, considered one of the greatest astronomers of the modern age, made this observation:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Hidden? God is not hidden at all...perhaps only to those who would rather imagine that He doesn't exist. Perhaps the reason that some skeptics don't find God is the same reason most criminals don't "find" a policeman--they aren't looking for Him, and, in fact, have a great vested interest in NOT finding Him. Everything complex and beautiful in life and in nature is explained away almost as quickly as the sleight of hand of the skilled magician.
"Why doesn't God just say something, audibly, or write a message in the sky, or do something fantastic for all to see?" This is a common query. It supposes that just such an action would immediately satisfy every skeptical doubt, and move humanity into the "God" column. I was struck recently when I paid attention to the words of a song written by Carolyn Arends. She cries out:
"I was hoping you would write to me a message in the stars.
As if the stars themselves were not enough."
Let me restate my earlier premise: God is not hidden, and if He were any more open, then belief in Him would border on coercion instead of free will.
In my many debates with atheists and skeptics, I have often asked a simple question: "What evidence would you accept as conclusive proof of God's existence?" Almost immediately you will get one of the following "standards" of evidence:
1-God would do something supernaturally visible, like appear to them in the sky, etc.
2-God would speak to them audibly, perhaps announce that He is there and that He loves them.
3-God would give some physical object would supernatural abilities, and let us see it, touch it, use it.
4-God would do something medically impossible, maybe raise the dead, heal an amputation, etc.
I will show how each of these supposed "faith-clinchers" would do no such thing, at least, not for long.
This would be impressive, but that is all. After a few minutes or hours, the "vision" would soon be explained away as fantasy, illusion, perhaps a hallucination caused by high fever. For those who could hold the zeal of the experience for a few days, they would first begin to question and then soon dismiss this event in the face of ridicule from their peers. After the seventh or eighth person saying to them: "Well, I didn't see it," or "You've been talking with too many crazy Christians!" or "Well, of course, we know that's impossible because God doesn't exist," the conviction of it's reality would evaporate into the air. A vision, like anything historical, is difficult to hold, and impossible to prove. What about if a group or a bunch of people saw the vision? Pretty much the same result, maybe with a bit longer period until rejection since you would have an instant support group. But, then again, maybe it was mass hysteria, group hypnosis, who knows?
2-God would speak to them audibly, perhaps announce that He is there and that He loves them.
This is very similar, if not the exact same, as number one above. Visions, voices, and feelings are all far too subjective to be retained or proven.
You know, like a healing stone, or a crown of thorns that glows in the dark, or a crystal that sees into the future. Interesting. Imagine if you could take a computer back in time, even only one hundred years ago. It would have been seen as supernatural, divine, etc. No doubt, if God were to give us some object with supernatural abilities, it would be relegated as a machine from the future, or perhaps left here by advanced aliens, anything except divine. People can rationalize anything away, rather than face the truth.
4-God would do something medically impossible, maybe raise the dead, cure cancer, etc.
This is an interesting, but predictable hypothesis. If someone were to be "raised from the dead" then the obvious conclusion would be that they weren't really dead in the first place, perhaps only in a deep coma. Healings would be almost identical, such as a cure from cancer. Critics would say that the person didn't really have the disease, a medical misdiagnosis, or incorrect test or lab results. Amputations or other outwardly visible types of healing would be dismissed as new medical technology, perhaps from stem cell technology or other genetic research.
You see, it is not really about the evidence, it is usually more about the preconceived notions, in other words, the presuppositions that form the basis of our worldview. If we do not find God to be a logical concept, then nothing could ever convince a mind that has been set on not accepting His reality.
Many skeptics are in that same condition, since they have already decided on the implausability of God's existence, no evidence can surmount their prior assumptions. Any evidence can be explained away, any proof can be rationalized away, and any logical argument can be dismissed as flawed...somehow, because, well, IT MUST BE.
As the late Carl Sagan once said, revealing his immovable prior assumptions:
"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."
Wow. Now there's an open mind.
This may seem to be a strange turn, but stay with me. What if one of NASA's rovers on the surface of Mars found a circular pattern of perfect arrowheads in the Martian soil? Every newspaper across the globe would herald the find on their front pages:
PROOF OF LIFE ON MARS, or, WE ARE DEFINITELY NOT ALONE, or, MAN ISN'T THE ONLY INTELLIGENCE IN THE UNIVERSE.
You could easily write the headline.
But let me ask you, what is an arrowhead? It is a rock that has been shaped by an intelligence to have form and function, usually symetrical down the long axis. So, if the finding of an arrowhead on Mars would PROVE that there was intelligent life on Mars that had to make the arrowheads, then how do you explain things infinitely more complex than arrowheads here on earth, like DNA, the human brain, cellular mitosis, symbiotic relationships, genetic transcriptioning, photosynthesis, autoimmune systems, migration patterns, multicellular organization, etc?
The leap of faith and the denial of logic required to accept this is staggering, almost to the point of being funny if it weren't so sad, and so prevalent.
So, is God hidden? Absolutely not. His handiwork and proofs of His intelligence, design, and care are everywhere we look. The fact that we can intelligently discuss this intelligent matter proves prior intelligence in the Universe. Think about it.
Beware of that jaded state of mind that looks at significant evidence and says: "Wow, dead men DO bleed." Don't laugh at that as being ridiculous, it happens everyday. It is happening right now, all over the world.
Creation and Evolution Part 1
Many create a strawman argument by positing a challenge for a creationist hypothesis or mechanism. Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life based upon purely naturalistic conditions (which could be a false term, since, if a higher power created all things, then nothing is "natural" per se), and creationism is an explanation based upon the actions of an intelligent designer.
To request the processes by which an intelligent designer composed life (DNA for example) is a mocking strawman. It is like asking "How many corners are there on a circle?" or "What does the color blue taste like?" You can ask the question, but by virtue of it's own premise, it is a failed endeavor at discovering any meaningful answers.
I could take a computer program, and then ask you to explain how that computer program came into being without any intelligent agency (evolution) and then tell you that a programmer designed it (creation). To then ask about how the programmer, through the myriad complexities of the programming process, arrived at the decisions in the logic, the order of the code, the purpose of various subroutines, etc. is to go beyond investigation, for that deals with decisions made that are outside of the mere existence of the code.
We can study the results of the creation event, and the implications of various design features AFTERWARDS. It would be like a cosmologist discussing what occurred before planck time, its all very fun and, sometimes even stimulating, but not meaningful. To demand that a creationist propose the methods and strategies of an intelligent designer is a disingenuous request.
As creationists, we would be glad to discuss the cambrian explosion, the bushes of life (not "tree"--a variety of bushes is a much better graphical illustration of the record of life, the "tree" died years ago), the problem of information technology and DNA, common design (not common descent), the impossibility of abiogenesis from a biochemical standpoint (including left-handedness, reducing atmosphere, etc), mathematics, and the well-demonstrated tendency of lab induced "evolution" to achieve stasis within a short generational period.
We could also discuss the built-in error correction in DNA, and the fact that DNA contains not only the encoded language of building life, but that the ability to decode (read) the code must have been present from the beginning (an impossibility "naturally"). You cannot have an "intangible language" that reads the code of the DNA without an intelligent source. Transcription though codons in a 20-amino acid system utilizing 4-bases has been demonstrated to be an ideal, designed process. Werner Gitt (professor of information systems) said: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather than a [lucky] chance".
The only reason that the letters in this sentence are meaningful to you, is because you already possess an understanding of the rules, the grammar, and the vocabulary of the written English language.
Show that previous sentence to a remote tribesman in the Polynesian chain and they will shake their heads, and perhaps shrug their shoulders. The letters (A-G-C-T) in a certain order (AAA+ACT+CAG, etc) define words and phrases (proteins and processes) and some even encode for starts (beginning of a sentence) or the stops (end of sentence or command for protein synthesis).
Point is, the information encoded into DNA is meaningless without a PREVIOUS language to interpret and execute the encoded information. This is an impossible barrier to cross without intelligence, because LANGUAGE is intangible (not natural/physical) and DNA is encoded information (again, not purely natural, due to its specified complexity).
Now, to discuss the various examples of micro-adaptation (which almost always involve the loss of genetic information, not the arrival of optimized, new information) which we have seen in nature, and to then extrapolate in a manner inconsistent with mathematics and known biological boundaries and to postulate that these equivocate into the appearance of new, advanced structures or systems over time, which the fossil record does not support, and then ask those who see irrefutable and demonstrable evidence of intelligent design to discuss the merits of either theory---we will be glad to do. (editors note: that may be the longest run on sentence in this thread---in bio terms, was it merely "junk" DNA???)
Remember: just because you can IMAGINE a process to explain something, does not mean that you have an ACCURATE explanation. Let's say that we find a wooden chair in the middle of desert. Im sure that given enough time, Mr. Naturalist could write up a purely naturalistic explanation for how that thing arrived there (you know, starting from a tree long ago, and through various natural forces eventually ending up in something that looks like a chair) and then, you know, a simple moron walks up and says, "Whoa, dude. Look here on the bottom, there's a sticker and it says 'Made by #4 in China.'" The naturalist scoffs at the simpleton, noting internally that "if this intellectual ant were at my level, he would at once abandon such simple and only-superficially obvious explanations, and would see the infinite merits of my gradual processes!"
The fossil record could best be summarized as: abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction. Current genetic studies involving multi-generational, induced mutations, again demonstrate limited variation (even marginal) and then stasis. Geologic research reveals a reducing atmosphere during the period mandated for abiogenesis. All major body plans appear in the Cambrian explosion.
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)
"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, pp. 23-24.)
Dr. Paul Chien (chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco) "A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now."
Stephen J. Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. Evolution predicts a single source developing into more phyla over time, and the fossil record shows many phyla originally, and less now (extinction not evolution).
The case for creation hardly ends there, though it is enough evidence. Let's consider DNA. DNA requires both a language and the message to be present simultaneously. This type of system requires intelligence, for it contains specified complexity---something never demonstrated to occur naturally.
I would posit then, that a straight-forward review of the evidence would favor creation.
Now, to discuss the ability of species to adapt based upon environmental factors (which is not evolution, per se) still falls neatly into the creation model. For example, if an architect designed a building for the northeast, he/she would no doubt, design both heating and cooling systems to be present. In certain colder times of the year, the environmental conditions would mandate that the heating system "activate" and in the warmer times, the cooling system would "activate." It is logical that an intelligently designed lifeform would follow similar parameters. The DNA of the creature would contain a range of variation necessary for life in expected climates. Nuff said.
Returning to my opening statement--Be careful of the strawmen you create, they may end up catching on fire and incinerating presuppositions that many hold dear.
To request the processes by which an intelligent designer composed life (DNA for example) is a mocking strawman. It is like asking "How many corners are there on a circle?" or "What does the color blue taste like?" You can ask the question, but by virtue of it's own premise, it is a failed endeavor at discovering any meaningful answers.
I could take a computer program, and then ask you to explain how that computer program came into being without any intelligent agency (evolution) and then tell you that a programmer designed it (creation). To then ask about how the programmer, through the myriad complexities of the programming process, arrived at the decisions in the logic, the order of the code, the purpose of various subroutines, etc. is to go beyond investigation, for that deals with decisions made that are outside of the mere existence of the code.
We can study the results of the creation event, and the implications of various design features AFTERWARDS. It would be like a cosmologist discussing what occurred before planck time, its all very fun and, sometimes even stimulating, but not meaningful. To demand that a creationist propose the methods and strategies of an intelligent designer is a disingenuous request.
As creationists, we would be glad to discuss the cambrian explosion, the bushes of life (not "tree"--a variety of bushes is a much better graphical illustration of the record of life, the "tree" died years ago), the problem of information technology and DNA, common design (not common descent), the impossibility of abiogenesis from a biochemical standpoint (including left-handedness, reducing atmosphere, etc), mathematics, and the well-demonstrated tendency of lab induced "evolution" to achieve stasis within a short generational period.
We could also discuss the built-in error correction in DNA, and the fact that DNA contains not only the encoded language of building life, but that the ability to decode (read) the code must have been present from the beginning (an impossibility "naturally"). You cannot have an "intangible language" that reads the code of the DNA without an intelligent source. Transcription though codons in a 20-amino acid system utilizing 4-bases has been demonstrated to be an ideal, designed process. Werner Gitt (professor of information systems) said: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather than a [lucky] chance".
The only reason that the letters in this sentence are meaningful to you, is because you already possess an understanding of the rules, the grammar, and the vocabulary of the written English language.
Show that previous sentence to a remote tribesman in the Polynesian chain and they will shake their heads, and perhaps shrug their shoulders. The letters (A-G-C-T) in a certain order (AAA+ACT+CAG, etc) define words and phrases (proteins and processes) and some even encode for starts (beginning of a sentence) or the stops (end of sentence or command for protein synthesis).
Point is, the information encoded into DNA is meaningless without a PREVIOUS language to interpret and execute the encoded information. This is an impossible barrier to cross without intelligence, because LANGUAGE is intangible (not natural/physical) and DNA is encoded information (again, not purely natural, due to its specified complexity).
Now, to discuss the various examples of micro-adaptation (which almost always involve the loss of genetic information, not the arrival of optimized, new information) which we have seen in nature, and to then extrapolate in a manner inconsistent with mathematics and known biological boundaries and to postulate that these equivocate into the appearance of new, advanced structures or systems over time, which the fossil record does not support, and then ask those who see irrefutable and demonstrable evidence of intelligent design to discuss the merits of either theory---we will be glad to do. (editors note: that may be the longest run on sentence in this thread---in bio terms, was it merely "junk" DNA???)
Remember: just because you can IMAGINE a process to explain something, does not mean that you have an ACCURATE explanation. Let's say that we find a wooden chair in the middle of desert. Im sure that given enough time, Mr. Naturalist could write up a purely naturalistic explanation for how that thing arrived there (you know, starting from a tree long ago, and through various natural forces eventually ending up in something that looks like a chair) and then, you know, a simple moron walks up and says, "Whoa, dude. Look here on the bottom, there's a sticker and it says 'Made by #4 in China.'" The naturalist scoffs at the simpleton, noting internally that "if this intellectual ant were at my level, he would at once abandon such simple and only-superficially obvious explanations, and would see the infinite merits of my gradual processes!"
The fossil record could best be summarized as: abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction. Current genetic studies involving multi-generational, induced mutations, again demonstrate limited variation (even marginal) and then stasis. Geologic research reveals a reducing atmosphere during the period mandated for abiogenesis. All major body plans appear in the Cambrian explosion.
"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)
"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, pp. 23-24.)
Dr. Paul Chien (chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco) "A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now."
Stephen J. Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. Evolution predicts a single source developing into more phyla over time, and the fossil record shows many phyla originally, and less now (extinction not evolution).
The case for creation hardly ends there, though it is enough evidence. Let's consider DNA. DNA requires both a language and the message to be present simultaneously. This type of system requires intelligence, for it contains specified complexity---something never demonstrated to occur naturally.
I would posit then, that a straight-forward review of the evidence would favor creation.
Now, to discuss the ability of species to adapt based upon environmental factors (which is not evolution, per se) still falls neatly into the creation model. For example, if an architect designed a building for the northeast, he/she would no doubt, design both heating and cooling systems to be present. In certain colder times of the year, the environmental conditions would mandate that the heating system "activate" and in the warmer times, the cooling system would "activate." It is logical that an intelligently designed lifeform would follow similar parameters. The DNA of the creature would contain a range of variation necessary for life in expected climates. Nuff said.
Returning to my opening statement--Be careful of the strawmen you create, they may end up catching on fire and incinerating presuppositions that many hold dear.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
The Tragic Crash of the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Question--What can we understand about the Creator, just using logic and inference? Using these tools we can infer that "God" is:
1. Outside the universe (He created it)
2. Eternal
3. Infinite (omnipresent)
4. Spiritual
5. Intelligent
6. Qualities of an individual "person" or greater
What do we read in the Bible? We see that the God of the Bible claims to be the creator of the universe, eternal, infinite, a spirit, intelligent, and a person that is knowable, and who seeks for us to know Him.
Therefore, the God of the Bible is a logical candidate for the Creator of the Universe.
Some will counter with the logically-flawed and mocking rebuttal and challenge: But I think that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe! (This is the most common taunt, if you don't believe me, just Google that phrase. At last check, it comes in at just under a half-million hits. There are even elaborate websites devoted entirely to the mocking praise of this faux-god. I'm not kidding.)
Lets break that down logically---
Flying: A system of movement through a medium that either moves in conjunction with differences in pressure (birds, planes, etc), or due to propulsion (rockets, etc) or initial movement (asteroids)
Problem: While this doesn't contradict anything about the God of the Bible, it presupposes that this monster-god must move somehow, instead of being infinite, and omnipresent.
Spaghetti: Since spaghetti is a physical substance within the universe (it is an "Effect" of the original "Cause") then it is illogical that a Creator who is OUTSIDE of the universe, and not composed of anything in the universe, would be comprised of spaghetti.
Monster: Since this term is pre-supposed upon many different bases (i.e. evil, scary, large, etc) this one is difficult to deal with logically. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to know if the Creator is a monster, in the sense of an evil being, since evil is a subjective, qualitative term, as is monster. So it would be illogical to posit that the Creator is a monster, as that requires knowledge unobtainable without revelation from the Creator.
Also, in conclusion, what you call God---(examples: Creator, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Deity, the First Principle, Lord, etc) has no bearing WHATSOEVER in this discussion. Nomenclature does not effect the essential nature of something, it only seeks to describe it or limit it through language. But, as in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can analyze that hypothesis to see if it bears up under logical scrutiny as a sufficient desciptor, or whether it should be discarded as wholly inadequate.
In the final analysis: There were no survivors in the crash of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
1. Outside the universe (He created it)
2. Eternal
3. Infinite (omnipresent)
4. Spiritual
5. Intelligent
6. Qualities of an individual "person" or greater
What do we read in the Bible? We see that the God of the Bible claims to be the creator of the universe, eternal, infinite, a spirit, intelligent, and a person that is knowable, and who seeks for us to know Him.
Therefore, the God of the Bible is a logical candidate for the Creator of the Universe.
Some will counter with the logically-flawed and mocking rebuttal and challenge: But I think that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe! (This is the most common taunt, if you don't believe me, just Google that phrase. At last check, it comes in at just under a half-million hits. There are even elaborate websites devoted entirely to the mocking praise of this faux-god. I'm not kidding.)
Lets break that down logically---
Flying: A system of movement through a medium that either moves in conjunction with differences in pressure (birds, planes, etc), or due to propulsion (rockets, etc) or initial movement (asteroids)
Problem: While this doesn't contradict anything about the God of the Bible, it presupposes that this monster-god must move somehow, instead of being infinite, and omnipresent.
Spaghetti: Since spaghetti is a physical substance within the universe (it is an "Effect" of the original "Cause") then it is illogical that a Creator who is OUTSIDE of the universe, and not composed of anything in the universe, would be comprised of spaghetti.
Monster: Since this term is pre-supposed upon many different bases (i.e. evil, scary, large, etc) this one is difficult to deal with logically. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to know if the Creator is a monster, in the sense of an evil being, since evil is a subjective, qualitative term, as is monster. So it would be illogical to posit that the Creator is a monster, as that requires knowledge unobtainable without revelation from the Creator.
Also, in conclusion, what you call God---(examples: Creator, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Deity, the First Principle, Lord, etc) has no bearing WHATSOEVER in this discussion. Nomenclature does not effect the essential nature of something, it only seeks to describe it or limit it through language. But, as in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can analyze that hypothesis to see if it bears up under logical scrutiny as a sufficient desciptor, or whether it should be discarded as wholly inadequate.
In the final analysis: There were no survivors in the crash of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Creationism Misunderstandings
It is a common and often repeated fallacy that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. The reference that most refer to contains the greek word for "quarters" or "quadrants" referring to the 4 compass points (which we use to this day: North-South-East-West). The verse (in modern english) should be rendered "the four quadrants of the earth." The King James english ( the translation that most refer to) has words that today have completely different meanings. For example, the simple word "LET" in the "king's english" meant to RESTRAIN, but now, 400+ years later, it means to ALLOW.
Also, in the book of Isaiah (written approx. 700 BC) it says that God is above "the sphere (circle) of the earth." In the book of Job (perhaps the oldest of the books of the Bible) it says that God "hangs the earth upon nothing." God is aware of the solar system. Even we, in this enlightened age, say things that are strictly-speaking, incorrect. Phrases such as "watching the sunrise" is actually inaccurate, but of course, it is true in the relative sense of an observer on the earth as fixed point of reference (which is a logical position). You may get a speeding ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 20 miles per hour, but ACTUALLY, due to the movement of the earth through space at many thousands of miles per hour, you may have actually been going backward by many factors. Try to use that with a cop, though. (Don't). Many things we say are spoken with a frame of reference in order to be ultimately meaningful. Many Bible passages contains similar language, and, with an understood frame of reference, are entirely accurate.
Returning to a definition for creationism, it need not be difficult. It refers to the study of cosmology that acknowledges God as it's origin. Since biology is a subset of cosmology, it is included (as are all of the fundamental sciences--physics, chemistry, etc.)
The problem with a presupposition such as naturalism, is that it must lead to illogical conclusions. For an analogy, imagine an aboriginal tribe (who believe that they are indeed alone on the earth) finding a computer circuit board. In their quest to explain its existence, they will have to go to ridiculous and highly-speculative and extrapolated theories to deny it's intelligent origin.
Just because someone can conceive of a "possible" way to arrive at complexity and order (look into information theory) does not indicate that it was the way in which it occurred.
As far as the fossil record goes, it has proved to be an embassment, rather than a vindication, for Darwin. This problem was highlighted by Niles Elredge and Stephen Jay Gould when they postulated the controversial punctuated-equilibrium hypothesis. Elredge laments:
“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record that gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” (Elredge)
Regardless, abiogenesis seals the coffin of naturalism. For decades, even the greatest naturalist minds have come up against the proverbial brick wall in even hypothesizing a method that could arrive at information systems from dead chemicals.
Using inductive reasoning, though, we can intelligently conclude:
1. All languages, codes, encoding / decoding mechanisms we have observed come from intelligence.
2. DNA is a language (with an encode and decode process)
3. Therefore DNA came from intelligence.
We could go on with RNA transcriptioning, the perfection of DNA encoding from an engineering standpoint (using a 4-base system with nucleotide-triplets to construct protein chains), the fact that all amino acids in life are left-handed(contrary to all logic), the finiteness of time ("proven" by inflation models and the first and second law of thermodynamics), and on and on.
Yes, there is a solid and growing foundation for creationism. It is not a system based upon "well I just believe it that's why!" I certainly did not arrive at my current position that way, but only after research and study, especially Biblical prophecy. Like famous former-atheist C.S. Lewis, I was compelled by the evidence, evidence that he wanted to deny initially.
Regardless of all of the empirical dribble and quibble, the main thing to realize is that the same Creator that made you, became a man and died you, for me.
He died for me? Wow. That's a truth you can't hear and then walk away unchanged from. It will either break your heart into gratitude, or harden you into further rebellion and stubborness.
Also, in the book of Isaiah (written approx. 700 BC) it says that God is above "the sphere (circle) of the earth." In the book of Job (perhaps the oldest of the books of the Bible) it says that God "hangs the earth upon nothing." God is aware of the solar system. Even we, in this enlightened age, say things that are strictly-speaking, incorrect. Phrases such as "watching the sunrise" is actually inaccurate, but of course, it is true in the relative sense of an observer on the earth as fixed point of reference (which is a logical position). You may get a speeding ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 20 miles per hour, but ACTUALLY, due to the movement of the earth through space at many thousands of miles per hour, you may have actually been going backward by many factors. Try to use that with a cop, though. (Don't). Many things we say are spoken with a frame of reference in order to be ultimately meaningful. Many Bible passages contains similar language, and, with an understood frame of reference, are entirely accurate.
Returning to a definition for creationism, it need not be difficult. It refers to the study of cosmology that acknowledges God as it's origin. Since biology is a subset of cosmology, it is included (as are all of the fundamental sciences--physics, chemistry, etc.)
The problem with a presupposition such as naturalism, is that it must lead to illogical conclusions. For an analogy, imagine an aboriginal tribe (who believe that they are indeed alone on the earth) finding a computer circuit board. In their quest to explain its existence, they will have to go to ridiculous and highly-speculative and extrapolated theories to deny it's intelligent origin.
Just because someone can conceive of a "possible" way to arrive at complexity and order (look into information theory) does not indicate that it was the way in which it occurred.
As far as the fossil record goes, it has proved to be an embassment, rather than a vindication, for Darwin. This problem was highlighted by Niles Elredge and Stephen Jay Gould when they postulated the controversial punctuated-equilibrium hypothesis. Elredge laments:
“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record that gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” (Elredge)
Regardless, abiogenesis seals the coffin of naturalism. For decades, even the greatest naturalist minds have come up against the proverbial brick wall in even hypothesizing a method that could arrive at information systems from dead chemicals.
Using inductive reasoning, though, we can intelligently conclude:
1. All languages, codes, encoding / decoding mechanisms we have observed come from intelligence.
2. DNA is a language (with an encode and decode process)
3. Therefore DNA came from intelligence.
We could go on with RNA transcriptioning, the perfection of DNA encoding from an engineering standpoint (using a 4-base system with nucleotide-triplets to construct protein chains), the fact that all amino acids in life are left-handed(contrary to all logic), the finiteness of time ("proven" by inflation models and the first and second law of thermodynamics), and on and on.
Yes, there is a solid and growing foundation for creationism. It is not a system based upon "well I just believe it that's why!" I certainly did not arrive at my current position that way, but only after research and study, especially Biblical prophecy. Like famous former-atheist C.S. Lewis, I was compelled by the evidence, evidence that he wanted to deny initially.
Regardless of all of the empirical dribble and quibble, the main thing to realize is that the same Creator that made you, became a man and died you, for me.
He died for me? Wow. That's a truth you can't hear and then walk away unchanged from. It will either break your heart into gratitude, or harden you into further rebellion and stubborness.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will
I have had some of the most interesting discussions lately over what (at least at face value) would seem to be the driest of topics: God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will. Yet these interactions have been quite rich and (at least to my low level of excitement) even "fun."
To those who are not quite familiar with this philosophical challenge, let me state it flat out (I'm not saying I agree--but this is the general challenge):
1. God knows everything that will happen in the future (every choice, every action, every thought, etc.)
2. As people, we make decisions and choices
3. BUT, since God already knew everything that we WOULD CHOOSE, we then do not actually have a free will to make our decisions.
I know that some of you have already started shaking your heads, and maybe others have even allowed a chuckle to escape, that's perfectly fine. I do not agree with the conclusion statement (3) of this logical (illogical?) progression, but many seem to really struggle with trying to reconcile God's foreknowlege (perfect prior knowledge) and mankind's ability to still make real, valid decisions and choices.
Let me begin with an example, then I will define terms and move on.
Imagine that you are on the 10th floor of a building that is on a street corner. You even happen to have a CORNER office (oooh, special). You are standing in the corner of your office looking down at the two streets that meet at the intersection far down below. On one street you see a car driving recklessly towards the corner, and, shockingly, you see another car driving on the other street (also recklessly) toward the same intersection. From your vantage point, you can see that this is going to end badly, i.e. that the 2 cars are going to collide right at the intersection below you. Sure enough, in a wail of tires, glass, and horns, they hit. Bam.
Now: question: Did YOU CAUSE the 2 cars to hit each other?
Most of you would say: "No, I only watched them hit each other, I didn't MAKE THEM hit each other!"
And you would be correct in your response.
So, applying this (loosely) to the above logical progression (and making a few liberal substitutions):
1. You "knew" that the 2 cars were going to hit
2. The drivers were freely choosing to drive the way they wanted to (but they obviously did not have access to YOUR knowledge of what was about to happen)
3. But, since YOU KNEW that they would hit each other, the police should haul you off to jail for causing the wreck, and your insurance should have to pay for everything.
Ludicrous. But this (albeit slightly flawed) analogy is an accurate illustration of the fallacy of the claim that God's prior knowledge somehow magically limits my choices or controls my behavior.
Let's define terms and then dive deeper into the meat and potatoes of this debate:
Free Will is defined as:
The ability to make a decision without direct compulsion from an external source.
Foreknowlege is defined as:
A divine attribute which enables God to have perfect knowledge of all events yet future.
Knowledge is defined as:
Awareness of a fact, event, situation, or condition.
With these definitions out of the way, buckle your seatbelts, and secure all loose personal belongings, here we go.
What is the difference between PASSIVE and ACTIVE? Passive implies that circumstances are not changed or altered, and active means that something has influenced or changed something else. Active means that something has the ability to CAUSE something else (it is causative).
Let me illustrate: I open a history book and see the the sentence "Ronald Reagan was the 40th President of the United States." By merely reading (or becoming aware) of that statement in the book, did I change or alter it in any fundamental way? No. Therefore, reading is PASSIVE. But, let's say that I took a marker and crossed out the the number 40, and changed it 50. Did I influence or change the statement in a fundamental way? Absolutely. Yes. Therefore, that was ACTIVE.
Can KNOWLEDGE (awareness) then ever be ACTIVE? Absolutely not, for that is a logical impossibility, for by definition knowledge is awareness, and awareness by default is ALWAYS passive.
Since God's knowledge is not a compulsory force (it is passive not active) then logically it does not (nor can it) influence any future action (or choice, decision, etc.)
1. Free will ONLY has to do conditions existing at the moment of decision (therefore, anything whatsoever to do with God and His foreknowledge do not come into play)
2. Regardless of God's knowledge of what you WILL choose (which implies free will--since God has to know WHAT you CHOOSE) the person is completely free at the moment of decision. To put it another way, it is a case of CONTINGENCY. God's knowledge of what we will choose is contingent upon what we actually will choose. Therefore, in a very real sense, our choice is primary, God's knowledge of that choice is then contingent upon that choice (I mean no disrespect, and I am not saying that God does not exercise His will in the universe)
3. The concept that a decision is unavoidable because God already knows the decision is as illogical as saying that "George Washington was the first president of the United States because the Sun is 93 million miles from the earth." POINT IS: those 2 facts HAVE NOTHING TO DO with one another---they are not related. Similarly, God's knowledge and our choice do not overlap.
Sometimes those who deny that we have a free will to make choices will say: "When an option is presented and God knows you will choose, it becomes unavoidable. And to have free will, any option must be avoidable."
This is logically flawed, since God knows the future, any choices to be made will always be known in advance--BUT that does not in any way affect the actual decision making process required for FREE WILL.
Also, any option is avoidable at the moment of the decision being made. The fact that the Creator has advance knowledge of that in no way impedes the person's choice in the moment of decision.
Free Will has nothing to do with the number of options, or whether the decision is already to known, Free Will only has to do with the "ability to make a decision without compulsion from an external force." God's foreknowledge IN NO WAY compels a person to choose A,B,C, or D.
There are other ways to prove or demonstrate that mankind does have a free will (and therefore is responsible (accountable) to God for what we do and choose to do)
Consider this logical sequence:
-God is perfect and cannot sin or commit evil (do something against Himself)
-God is all-powerful and created everything
-Evil and sin exist
THEREFORE: God must have created beings with FREE WILL who have the choice to sin and to do evil.
The "problem" of evil is perhaps the greatest logical proof of the undeniability of free will. Otherwise, we are left with ridiculous conclusions (or premises) such as: God is imperfect or has imperfect power.
Also, since God's foreknowlege is not available to us, it does not and cannot constrain us in the internal decision-making process, therefore, God's foreknowledge does not infringe upon our internal free will choices.
Individually, each of these points is powerful evidence for our free will. But taken collectively, the proof is established. For example, who is the person that I am describing:
1. Was a married man with children (that only narrows it down to maybe 25% of the population)
2. Was a President (now we are getting somewhere---less than 40 people once #1 is taken into account)
3. Assassinated (now we are at about 4 or less)
4. Last name: Kennedy (only one)
The answer is obvious by the time you reach the 4th condition.
Individually, they could point to many (even billions of) people, but cumulatively, they only point to one.
The same is true of the issue of free will. Once we consider the (1) definition of free will (the ability to choose) (2) that foreknowledge is only passive (non-causative) (3) The reality of sin and evil in a universe created by an all-powerful and perfect God, and (4) We do not have access to God's perfectly predictive awareness we then see that the cumulative case is just as definitive.
We have a free will. Now the question is, what are we doing with it?
When it comes to the issue of sin and disobedience against God, we have no excuse, we choose to sin.
But, when it comes to salvation from sin, the Bible shouts out many times, "whosoever will" can be saved, or "whoever will" may be saved, and "Today, make your choice." Speaking of salvation in Christ, John the apostle said: "But as many as RECEIVED Him (Jesus), to them did He give the power to become the children of God."
Receiving is an act of a free will. If we did not have a free will, then God is a liar at worst, and a cruel deceiver at best.
Salvation is always called a GIFT in the Bible. A gift cannot be forced upon anyone, a gift must be accepted, it must be received.
The Lord says:
"For the penalty for sin is death (eternal hell), but THE FREE GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
Both sin and salvation involve a free will. Use your free will to accept God's absolutely free gift of salvation. You can't earn it, deserve it, or buy it. You must RECEIVE it.
He's waiting.
To those who are not quite familiar with this philosophical challenge, let me state it flat out (I'm not saying I agree--but this is the general challenge):
1. God knows everything that will happen in the future (every choice, every action, every thought, etc.)
2. As people, we make decisions and choices
3. BUT, since God already knew everything that we WOULD CHOOSE, we then do not actually have a free will to make our decisions.
I know that some of you have already started shaking your heads, and maybe others have even allowed a chuckle to escape, that's perfectly fine. I do not agree with the conclusion statement (3) of this logical (illogical?) progression, but many seem to really struggle with trying to reconcile God's foreknowlege (perfect prior knowledge) and mankind's ability to still make real, valid decisions and choices.
Let me begin with an example, then I will define terms and move on.
Imagine that you are on the 10th floor of a building that is on a street corner. You even happen to have a CORNER office (oooh, special). You are standing in the corner of your office looking down at the two streets that meet at the intersection far down below. On one street you see a car driving recklessly towards the corner, and, shockingly, you see another car driving on the other street (also recklessly) toward the same intersection. From your vantage point, you can see that this is going to end badly, i.e. that the 2 cars are going to collide right at the intersection below you. Sure enough, in a wail of tires, glass, and horns, they hit. Bam.
Now: question: Did YOU CAUSE the 2 cars to hit each other?
Most of you would say: "No, I only watched them hit each other, I didn't MAKE THEM hit each other!"
And you would be correct in your response.
So, applying this (loosely) to the above logical progression (and making a few liberal substitutions):
1. You "knew" that the 2 cars were going to hit
2. The drivers were freely choosing to drive the way they wanted to (but they obviously did not have access to YOUR knowledge of what was about to happen)
3. But, since YOU KNEW that they would hit each other, the police should haul you off to jail for causing the wreck, and your insurance should have to pay for everything.
Ludicrous. But this (albeit slightly flawed) analogy is an accurate illustration of the fallacy of the claim that God's prior knowledge somehow magically limits my choices or controls my behavior.
Let's define terms and then dive deeper into the meat and potatoes of this debate:
Free Will is defined as:
The ability to make a decision without direct compulsion from an external source.
Foreknowlege is defined as:
A divine attribute which enables God to have perfect knowledge of all events yet future.
Knowledge is defined as:
Awareness of a fact, event, situation, or condition.
With these definitions out of the way, buckle your seatbelts, and secure all loose personal belongings, here we go.
What is the difference between PASSIVE and ACTIVE? Passive implies that circumstances are not changed or altered, and active means that something has influenced or changed something else. Active means that something has the ability to CAUSE something else (it is causative).
Let me illustrate: I open a history book and see the the sentence "Ronald Reagan was the 40th President of the United States." By merely reading (or becoming aware) of that statement in the book, did I change or alter it in any fundamental way? No. Therefore, reading is PASSIVE. But, let's say that I took a marker and crossed out the the number 40, and changed it 50. Did I influence or change the statement in a fundamental way? Absolutely. Yes. Therefore, that was ACTIVE.
Can KNOWLEDGE (awareness) then ever be ACTIVE? Absolutely not, for that is a logical impossibility, for by definition knowledge is awareness, and awareness by default is ALWAYS passive.
Since God's knowledge is not a compulsory force (it is passive not active) then logically it does not (nor can it) influence any future action (or choice, decision, etc.)
1. Free will ONLY has to do conditions existing at the moment of decision (therefore, anything whatsoever to do with God and His foreknowledge do not come into play)
2. Regardless of God's knowledge of what you WILL choose (which implies free will--since God has to know WHAT you CHOOSE) the person is completely free at the moment of decision. To put it another way, it is a case of CONTINGENCY. God's knowledge of what we will choose is contingent upon what we actually will choose. Therefore, in a very real sense, our choice is primary, God's knowledge of that choice is then contingent upon that choice (I mean no disrespect, and I am not saying that God does not exercise His will in the universe)
3. The concept that a decision is unavoidable because God already knows the decision is as illogical as saying that "George Washington was the first president of the United States because the Sun is 93 million miles from the earth." POINT IS: those 2 facts HAVE NOTHING TO DO with one another---they are not related. Similarly, God's knowledge and our choice do not overlap.
Sometimes those who deny that we have a free will to make choices will say: "When an option is presented and God knows you will choose, it becomes unavoidable. And to have free will, any option must be avoidable."
This is logically flawed, since God knows the future, any choices to be made will always be known in advance--BUT that does not in any way affect the actual decision making process required for FREE WILL.
Also, any option is avoidable at the moment of the decision being made. The fact that the Creator has advance knowledge of that in no way impedes the person's choice in the moment of decision.
Free Will has nothing to do with the number of options, or whether the decision is already to known, Free Will only has to do with the "ability to make a decision without compulsion from an external force." God's foreknowledge IN NO WAY compels a person to choose A,B,C, or D.
There are other ways to prove or demonstrate that mankind does have a free will (and therefore is responsible (accountable) to God for what we do and choose to do)
Consider this logical sequence:
-God is perfect and cannot sin or commit evil (do something against Himself)
-God is all-powerful and created everything
-Evil and sin exist
THEREFORE: God must have created beings with FREE WILL who have the choice to sin and to do evil.
The "problem" of evil is perhaps the greatest logical proof of the undeniability of free will. Otherwise, we are left with ridiculous conclusions (or premises) such as: God is imperfect or has imperfect power.
Also, since God's foreknowlege is not available to us, it does not and cannot constrain us in the internal decision-making process, therefore, God's foreknowledge does not infringe upon our internal free will choices.
Individually, each of these points is powerful evidence for our free will. But taken collectively, the proof is established. For example, who is the person that I am describing:
1. Was a married man with children (that only narrows it down to maybe 25% of the population)
2. Was a President (now we are getting somewhere---less than 40 people once #1 is taken into account)
3. Assassinated (now we are at about 4 or less)
4. Last name: Kennedy (only one)
The answer is obvious by the time you reach the 4th condition.
Individually, they could point to many (even billions of) people, but cumulatively, they only point to one.
The same is true of the issue of free will. Once we consider the (1) definition of free will (the ability to choose) (2) that foreknowledge is only passive (non-causative) (3) The reality of sin and evil in a universe created by an all-powerful and perfect God, and (4) We do not have access to God's perfectly predictive awareness we then see that the cumulative case is just as definitive.
We have a free will. Now the question is, what are we doing with it?
When it comes to the issue of sin and disobedience against God, we have no excuse, we choose to sin.
But, when it comes to salvation from sin, the Bible shouts out many times, "whosoever will" can be saved, or "whoever will" may be saved, and "Today, make your choice." Speaking of salvation in Christ, John the apostle said: "But as many as RECEIVED Him (Jesus), to them did He give the power to become the children of God."
Receiving is an act of a free will. If we did not have a free will, then God is a liar at worst, and a cruel deceiver at best.
Salvation is always called a GIFT in the Bible. A gift cannot be forced upon anyone, a gift must be accepted, it must be received.
The Lord says:
"For the penalty for sin is death (eternal hell), but THE FREE GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
Both sin and salvation involve a free will. Use your free will to accept God's absolutely free gift of salvation. You can't earn it, deserve it, or buy it. You must RECEIVE it.
He's waiting.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Non-Biblical Sources Referencing Jesus or Other New Testament Events/People
(These are not original, but are being collated here for quick reference from various online sources)
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt
Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
Luke 22:1-2, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.
___________________
Sources
McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1979.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996.
Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com
============(above) CARM.ORG================
Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).
Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).
Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.
In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian]
I would like to take these in probable historical order.
(First, a methodological note about the issue of 'independent sources')
Thallus (c. 50-75ad) [4/2/96]
Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93) [The best current discussion on this passage is in a skeptical piece by my friend Jeff Lowder.]
Let me also just mention something about the Josephus issue. Every now an then I get an email about someone abjectly 'dismissing' the data from Josephus, without even interacting with the data and the positions of solid scholars. This is inappropriate. By far and away, the bulk of modern scholarship accepts that Josephus makes two independent references to Jesus--to argue otherwise requires the objector to dismantle the historical consensus, and this requires argumentation instead of simple assertion (and disallowance of Josephus as a witness!). One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus. He writes:
"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)
"Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus' miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus' appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus' messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about "the Messiah," whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term "Messiah" for Josephus' readers. In short, Agapius' version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers." (p.172)
"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings." (p.174f)
Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) [The best current discussion on this passage is in my friend JP Holding's site]
Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
Lucian (mid-2nd century)
Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3)
Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
There are other references to "Christians" in this period, but I am not concerned with those--although some would offer supporting evidence for someone named 'Christ'. For example, Marcus Aurelius (Meditations 11.3) calls the believers 'Christians', but Epictetus (Discourses 4.7.6) calls them "Galileans".
===============(above) http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html ====================
Good links on the subject:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/49/cbmoduleid/1694/default.aspx
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt
Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
Luke 22:1-2, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.
___________________
Sources
McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1979.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996.
Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com
============(above) CARM.ORG================
Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).
Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).
Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.
In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian]
I would like to take these in probable historical order.
(First, a methodological note about the issue of 'independent sources')
Thallus (c. 50-75ad) [4/2/96]
Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93) [The best current discussion on this passage is in a skeptical piece by my friend Jeff Lowder.]
Let me also just mention something about the Josephus issue. Every now an then I get an email about someone abjectly 'dismissing' the data from Josephus, without even interacting with the data and the positions of solid scholars. This is inappropriate. By far and away, the bulk of modern scholarship accepts that Josephus makes two independent references to Jesus--to argue otherwise requires the objector to dismantle the historical consensus, and this requires argumentation instead of simple assertion (and disallowance of Josephus as a witness!). One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus. He writes:
"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)
"Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus' miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus' appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus' messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about "the Messiah," whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term "Messiah" for Josephus' readers. In short, Agapius' version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers." (p.172)
"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings." (p.174f)
Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) [The best current discussion on this passage is in my friend JP Holding's site]
Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
Lucian (mid-2nd century)
Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3)
Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
There are other references to "Christians" in this period, but I am not concerned with those--although some would offer supporting evidence for someone named 'Christ'. For example, Marcus Aurelius (Meditations 11.3) calls the believers 'Christians', but Epictetus (Discourses 4.7.6) calls them "Galileans".
===============(above) http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html ====================
Good links on the subject:
http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html
http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm
http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/49/cbmoduleid/1694/default.aspx
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)