Why does God hide himself?

[pianodwarf]

pianodwarf stated
So now I have my answer: Strawman.

That was about your philosophy class.

Doesn't matter what it was about.  It's still a strawman.

Still waiting for your one example.

Gnu Ordure already handled that (and thank you for that, BTW, Gnu), but if you insist on it being a human being, fine: Alexander the Great.

(need to go to bed now)

Pleasant dreams.

[Gnu Ordure]

whatchamean? :

I thought it was a given we were speaking about people, historical figures, or anyone after they drop over

You appeared to be making a general statement, but if you want to restrict it to a historical figure, OK.

How about JFK? Evidence of his existence is plentiful, films, photos etc. I could also show you his tomb, and theoretically you could compare his DNA with that of his living relatives.

None of that is testimony. But that evidence is conclusive.

Whereas for the Resurrection, you have nothing but testimony:

The testimony of those who prophecied the event and the testimony of those who witnessed it.

So you try to turn that into a virtue, by claiming:

What is irrational about the fact that without testimony, evidence is nothing?

Nice try...

You may complain that there were no cameras 2000 years ago; but that's your problem, not mine. God chose to incarnate at that time; he could have waited another 2000 years and had Jesus do his miracle and resurrection stuff in the full glare of technology. That would have been impressive.

But for some reason, he chose not to.

[Brakeman]

Brakeman stated
No I'm not 12, I'm 48 and well educated, and I'm not afraid to have a straight on discussion or debate without dodging or misleading to defend any precious delusions.

My spelling does work, but anyone who would say Lots wife like to watch couldn't be over 12. Unlike most of your members so far, you really aren't worth talking to

OOOooh! Did Lot's wife having donkey sex for god's viewing pleasure strike a nerve??  That wasn't directed at you, you know..
If god's prophets and True Christians TM have magic prayer powers of smite, why don't you pray up a storm tonight that lightning will hit me and return honor to Yahweh? Go ahead, I have not the slightest fear of it ever happening. You don't either do you?

Doesn't it seem just a bit peculiar to you that god can't take care of himself anymore? Once upon a time he supposedly smote people right and left for not being pleasing in his sight, but now I can call him the most disgusting words I can think of and get no reply at all unless it's from somebody playing SPAG warrior.

God doesn't respond to your loving prayers or my blasphemous tirades because he is make-believe. Santa clause will respond just as much as god. Always!

If you're young enough to live another 40 years, do you realize you will spend that entire forty years without once really hearing the voice of god? All you have are the circular ghost stories of long dead ANONYMOUS hucksters.

[Anfauglir]

Point was the evidence is all around you, even if you never used the Bible. Even if nobody ever preached the gospel.

If you want to use "the evidence is all around you" to prove YOUR particular god, then you need to show that that "evidence" of the world ONLY matches the way your religion says the world should be, and that of no other god that may be claimed to exist.  Otherwise, saying "look at the world" is just as good evidence for the Great Green Arkleseizure.

So what is there specifically about the world that could ONLY have come into being if your chosen god existed?

It does seem somewhat bizarre that - when armed with so much evidence of his (and only his) god that he could use to slap us down, that he prefers to argue over what a historical source is.  Surely if there is evidence - here, today - that proves HIS (and only his) god, he would be sharing it?

[velkyn]

I will go thru your rules Jetson and yes, the Bible is a historical document, in fact many. I'll be signing off for now.

I'm curious on what you think a historical document is.   

[whatchamean?]

Gnu Ordure stated
You appeared to be making a general statement, but if you want to restrict it to a historical figure, OK.
How about JFK? Evidence of his existence is plentiful, films, photos etc. I could also show you his tomb, and theoretically you could compare his DNA with that of his living relatives. None of that is testimony. But that evidence is conclusive.

And the evidence doesn't mean a thing without the testimony of others. Even with all the evidence you mentioned, for anyone who never knew of JFK, his existence could not be proven without the testimony of others. The very second you die, the only thing that will  matter is how credible the witnesses are.

Whereas for the Resurrection, you have nothing but testimony:

Unless the witness is honest, nothing else is of any value. How will that stone cutter know what to chissel on your marker?[/quote]

[whatchamean?]

Gnu also stated
You may complain that there were no cameras 2000 years ago; but that's your problem, not mine. God chose to incarnate at that time; he could have waited another 2000 years and had Jesus do his miracle and resurrection stuff in the full glare of technology. That would have been impressive. But for some reason, he chose not to.

I'm not complaining about no cameras, because cameras without a narrator are meaningless. Your claim that if Jesus waited till now to show himself alive from the dead would be impressive is interesting though. So if you lived back in the disciples days and saw what they said they saw, you'd believe in Jesus?

[whatchamean?]

Jetson stated
OK, now I will ask you to cite sources, which are extra-biblical, that support your claim specifically.  And I would ask you to point out which parts of any of the books or letters in the Bible are historical, and which are not.

Your request would take years. Why don't we take one book at a time, one subject at a time. Agreed?

[whatchamean?]

Jetson, I meant it would take me years to do one post. It will still take years my way, but one 5 minute subject at a time.

[Gnu Ordure]

whatchamean? :

And the evidence doesn't mean a thing without the testimony of others. Even with all the evidence you mentioned, for anyone who never knew of JFK, his existence could not be proven without the testimony of others.

What others? What else do you need?

You have JFK's corpse, you have the DNA which you can compare to his supposed descendants. You have tapes of him speaking, photos of him.

Seriously, why is that not enough proof of his existence? No testimony necessary.

I'm not complaining about no cameras, because cameras without a narrator are meaningless.

Nonsense. Photos of an event are evidence, whether they come with a narrative or not.   

Magruder's film of JFK's assassination doesn't have a narrator. It's still meaningful.

Your claim that if Jesus waited till now to show himself alive from the dead would be impressive is interesting though.

Glad you think so.

So if you lived back in the disciples days and saw what they said they saw, you'd believe in Jesus?

I'm not sure how you leapt to that conclusion. If I saw someone raised from the dead, I would first doubt my sanity, and then I'd ask other people what they saw. And I'd like to see a film of what happened. And lots more evidence as well (because extraordinary occurrences require extraordinary evidence).

[whatchamean?]

Gnu Ordure stated
What others? What else do you need?

Corroboration.

You have JFK's corpse, you have the DNA which you can compare to his supposed descendants. You have tapes of him speaking, photos of him.

Did you ever see the 1st "Back To The Future" movie? In one scene back in 1955, Marty says to his granddad, "That's John F Kennedy drive." Granddad replies, "Who the hell is John F Kennedy?"

If nobody ever heard of JFK, it wouldn't matter if you had his corpse, because you wouldn't know who the dead guy was. It wouldn't matter if you had his dna, because you wouldn't know who to test it against. Without testimony, you would have a picture, but no name to put to it. Lots of movies have been made where someone is playing the part of another person. Point is, people claim the identities of other people every day.

Seriously, why is that not enough proof of his existence? No testimony necessary.

Question for you Gnu....How did you come to believe that a person named John F Kennedy existed?
[/quote]

[whatchamean?]

Gnu also stated
I'm not sure how you leapt to that conclusion. If I saw someone raised from the dead, I would first doubt my sanity,

Yeah, I would too, but if I knew the person for years, I'd want to talk to them for awhile, ask questions....you know...."So how was death?"
 

and then I'd ask other people what they saw.

Yes, corroboration would be important. 

And I'd like to see a film of what happened.

Too much trick photography for a subject as serious as that for me. In a sense though, film, recording etc are actually instruments through which testimony can be transmitted.

And lots more evidence as well (because extraordinary occurrences require extraordinary evidence).

I think after getting over the initial shock, my own examination would suffice.

[Brakeman]

whatchamean,

I have need for some money. Will you give me yours? I can wait a little while while you sell your things..

 

[whatchamean?]

whatchamean,
I have need for some money. Will you give me yours? I can wait a little while while you sell your things.

Maybe you should seek employment. Then you could help the hungry. If every person did that, starvation wouldn't exist.

[Hatter23]

pianodwarf stated
That is, indeed, a most extraordinary claim.  What evidence do you have to support it?

The testimony of those who prophecied the event and the testimony of those who witnessed it.

Do you accept the statments made in the Koran, The BaghdadVita, The Illiad, The Odessy, The Books of The Dead, The Hindu Vedas, The Avestas of Zarathustra, The Adi-Granth of the Sikhs, The Urantia book,
The Kitab-i-Aqdas of Bahá’u’lláh, and Epic Norse Poetry? After all they have prophecy that come true within them, and are the testimony of those who witnessed the events therein.

[whatchamean?]

Hatter23 stated
Do you accept the statments made in the Koran, The BaghdadVita, The Illiad, The Odessy, The Books of The Dead, The Hindu Vedas, The Avestas of Zarathustra, The Adi-Granth of the Sikhs, The Urantia book,
The Kitab-i-Aqdas of Bahá’u’lláh, and Epic Norse Poetry? After all they have prophecy that come true within them, and are the testimony of those who witnessed the events therein.

Every single source you cited was written well after the fact. The only ancient writing in existence containing prophecy which is alleged to have come true is the Bible, as there is no dispute by anyone that the OT was written before Jesus was born.

[Hatter23]

Hatter23 stated
Do you accept the statments made in the Koran, The BaghdadVita, The Illiad, The Odessy, The Books of The Dead, The Hindu Vedas, The Avestas of Zarathustra, The Adi-Granth of the Sikhs, The Urantia book,
The Kitab-i-Aqdas of Bahá’u’lláh, and Epic Norse Poetry? After all they have prophecy that come true within them, and are the testimony of those who witnessed the events therein.

Every single source you cited was written well after the fact.

As was every event in the Bible

The only ancient writing in existence containing prophecy which is alleged to have come true is the Bible

Incorrect, you are only thinking in the terms of Christianity in the Christian world.  http://www.alislam.org/library/articles/prophecies.html

, as there is no dispute by anyone that the OT was written before Jesus was born.

The assumes there was a man named Jesus, and he was born.


My original questions still stand.

[whatchamean?]

Hatter23 stated
The assumes there was a man named Jesus, and he was born.

Man Hatter, u r hardcore! lol

[Brakeman]

whatchamean,
I have need for some money. Will you give me yours? I can wait a little while while you sell your things.

Maybe you should seek employment. Then you could help the hungry. If every person did that, starvation wouldn't exist.

Ha ha! most learned christians would instantly know what I was referring to and why, but evidently not you..

[Gnu Ordure]

whatchamean:

If nobody ever heard of JFK, it wouldn't matter if you had his corpse, because you wouldn't know who the dead guy was.

We are discussing historical figures, not anonymous people who left no mark.

We have a history of Jesus's life (let's say Matthew's Gospel) and a history of JFK's life (let's say the Encyclopedia Britannica article on him). These histories say who Jesus's/JFK's parents were, when they were born, where they lived, what they did, how they died and what happened to their bodies.

In order to demonstrate that this supposed JFK person was real, we can cite hundreds of films and photos of him, and theoretically we have incontrovertible DNA evidence. That's solid physical evidence, and it's not verbal testimony (of which we also have thousands of accounts).

But for Jesus's resurrection, we have no physical evidence at all; we only have verbal testimony, and that comes from a handful of witnesses.

And eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

[Finntroll]

But for Jesus's resurrection, we have no physical evidence at all; we only have verbal testimony, and that comes from a handful of witnesses.

And eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

And in this case they are not written by eye-witnesses. No serious theologian claims anymore that any of the Gospel writers actually met Jesus. Gets even worse: Those testimonies contradict each other so badly that they would be dismissed by a modern court.
http://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/?t=stone

[whatchamean?]

Hatter23 stated
As was every event in the Bible

I meant the OT predates Jesus birth, which means your assertion isn't true.

[whatchamean?]

Gnu Ordure stated

We are discussing historical figures, not anonymous people who left no mark.

We have a history of Jesus's life (let's say Matthew's Gospel) and a history of JFK's life (let's say the Encyclopedia Britannica article on him). These histories say who Jesus's/JFK's parents were, when they were born, where they lived, what they did, how they died and what happened to their bodies.

In order to demonstrate that this supposed JFK person was real, we can cite hundreds of films and photos of him, and theoretically we have incontrovertible DNA evidence. That's solid physical evidence, and it's not verbal testimony (of which we also have thousands of accounts).

You think because technology has advanced, it changes the need for testimony. It doesn't. Films are nothing more than cinematic testimony, providing they're biographical and without narration, they would be meaningless. Same goes for pictures. Without the testimony of someone who recognized an individual, all you'd have is a physical description of a nameless person. DNA would be useless without someone to test it against, so you'd need a witness there as well. There's no way around this Gnu. All your argument against Jesus really consists of is that you don't believe the witnesses and that's fine, as long as you have good reason.     

But for Jesus's resurrection, we have no physical evidence at all; we only have verbal testimony, and that comes from a handful of witnesses.

It was reported that more than 500 people saw him alive after he was crucified, but the point is testimony is so important that our entire system of justice is based on it....and nothing else.
 

And eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable.

Yes it is if we were talking about a car accident or some other incident that occured in a few moments, but that isn't the case with the resurrection.

[12 Monkeys]

whatchamean,
I have need for some money. Will you give me yours? I can wait a little while while you sell your things.

Maybe you should seek employment. Then you could help the hungry. If every person did that, starvation wouldn't exist.

Starvation exists ,,,,because God is a racist

[12 Monkeys]

500 eyewitnesses testimony would be good in a court of law,but is hardly evidence in a book written well after the death of this Jesus guy.....or do you think the books in the bible are eyewitness testimony?

 The guys who wrote the books never even knew Jesus on a personal level.

 The Bible is kind of like your uncle telling a fish story....every time he tells the story the fish is bigger than the last time he told it

[C]

I meant the OT predates Jesus birth, which means your assertion isn't true.

Or the fact that no prophecy was ever fulfilled? And since the OT predates Jesus, Jesus could very well be an attempt to fit those prophecies.

You think because technology has advanced, it changes the need for testimony. It doesn't. Films are nothing more than cinematic testimony, providing they're biographical and without narration, they would be meaningless. Same goes for pictures. Without the testimony of someone who recognized an individual, all you'd have is a physical description of a nameless person.

Subtitles. Dates. Textbooks. Hieroglyphs. The freaking countless written languages of humanity. No? Yet some contents of the Bible, particularly Jesus, is mentioned much later in the historical timeline. Besides the only reason why more technology is applied to the question of if Jesus existed or not (as the miracle-healing street juggler) is because it occurred CENTURIES ago, not DECADES ago as it did with JFK. Your argument, if valid, basically proves everything in history wrong.

DNA would be useless without someone to test it against, so you'd need a witness there as well. There's no way around this Gnu. All your argument against Jesus really consists of is that you don't believe the witnesses and that's fine, as long as you have good reason.

You're being pointlessly stubborn. You don't always need witnesses or testimony along with a huge mountain of other evidence to clearly prove something.

It was reported that more than 500 people saw him alive after he was crucified, but the point is testimony is so important that our entire system of justice is based on it....and nothing else.

I think someone's been reading too much 12 Angry Men. And considering the Messiah himself showed up to more than 500 people as you say, it's remarkable how God hasn't showed himself at all except to a very select few who always claim that God spoke to them instead of showing himself to a large amount of people at one time like he did with the Israelites in the OT.
 

Yes it is if we were talking about a car accident or some other incident that occured in a few moments, but that isn't the case with the resurrection.

It's completely the same case if the event supposedly occurred centuries ago. Do you know Herodotus? When it comes to numbers (in this case, for an army/war/battle), he 99% of the time exaggerates. But how do we know this? By calculating reasonable logistics for the army and then pretty much applying almost every factor (resources, water, travel time, geography) at that time to the possible number of troops at that time.

Crude example:

 Herodotus wrote that million(s) of Persians invaded Greece, when historians nowadays give a more modest number of approximately 200,000 because at that time it would have been simply impossible to supply that many soldiers in ancient Greece with the amount of resources and tools available for the Persian Empire at that time. Also consider the fact that supplying millions of troops even nowadays with the technology available is incredibly difficult as well.

And how do we know that the Second Invasion ever occurred? Well, besides the witnesses/testimony (i.e. accounts given by contemporary sources), you have the remains of military equipment used, the OTHER testimonies in the form of art, literature and so forth. Massive amounts of it from BOTH sides.

As for Jesus?

You only have the Bible. Nothing else.

[kcrady]

It was reported that more than 500 people saw him alive after he was crucified, but the point is testimony is so important that our entire system of justice is based on it....and nothing else.

No, you do not have 500 eyewitnesses of Jesus' resurrection.  What you have is a claim by one person, Paul, that 500 other people--who are not named, who produced no accounts, drawings, or records of their own that can be traced to them--saw Jesus.  If I were to say, "5,000 people in Taos, New Mexico saw an alien spacecraft land in the Taos Plaza," would you nod and say, "Whelp, there's the testimony of 5,000 people proving that alien spacecraft visit Earth, so I'm a believer!"  I sincerely doubt you would.

Furthermore, it is not clear in what sense these alleged people "saw" a resurrected Jesus.  In the same passage, Paul lists his own experience of "seeing" Jesus, and he uses the same word for "see" as he does with the others he speaks of.  Paul's experience was a mystical vision of light shining down from the sky.  The vision-entity had to tell Paul that it was Jesus.  Paul did not recognize him as such on sight, and he certainly had no way to verify that what he was seeing was Jesus and not Satan leading him away from the truth of Judaism, or some 12-year-old space alien playing a prank, or a hallucination in his own head.  We have no way to know if the alleged 500 others also "saw" Jesus in the same way, assuming they're real to begin with. 

The extreme paucity of detail (no time(s) and place(s) where the encounter or encounters took place, no description of the event itself or any words Jesus spoke at the time, and not the slightest indication of "where are they now?") casts doubt on the validity of the claim.  At the very least, these alleged 500 people would have claim to some sort of special status in the Christian community, relative to people who did not see Jesus.  The fact that the Five Hundred are not mentioned in other Christian epistles and correspondence, nor does anyone make reference to any grand, timeless words Jesus uttered to them, provides a pretty good argument that this was a non-event.

In the hands of a believer, this claim also puts the lie to the notion that Jesus has to hide and be coy.  If he can "appear" in some way to 500 people, what's to stop him from showing up at Billy Graham crusades to receive the altar call?  Why can't he visit the churches who worship him in spirit and in truth?  And not in some invisible, indistinguishable-from-his-not-being-there way, either.  That would certainly solve the problem of "false" Christians or churches, which has been a huge problem for Christianity throughout its history.  If "free will" or some other excuse prevents him from being as detectable as any other real entity, why didn't that stop him from making this alleged appearance to the Five Hundred?

[whatchamean?]

12 Monkeys stated
500 eyewitnesses testimony would be good in a court of law,but is hardly evidence in a book written well after the death of this Jesus guy.....or do you think the books in the bible are eyewitness testimony?
The guys who wrote the books never even knew Jesus on a personal level.

Yeah, I think they were eyewitness. What do you call "well after" the death of Jesus?

[C]

12 Monkeys stated
500 eyewitnesses testimony would be good in a court of law,but is hardly evidence in a book written well after the death of this Jesus guy.....or do you think the books in the bible are eyewitness testimony?
The guys who wrote the books never even knew Jesus on a personal level.

Yeah, I think they were eyewitness. What do you call "well after" the death of Jesus?

...I sure as hell don't call them eye-witnesses 

Eye-witnesses are people who WITNESSED (with their eyes hopefully) an event such as a crime, or in this case, alleged Resurrection preferably at the time it was going on. You could freaking call everybody an eye-witness long after a certain event according to your definition.