Dem bones, dem bones...
Any reasonable person of faith has to admit that what he or she believes could conceivably be a crock. By definition, faith in the resurrection of Christ is not a fact. It can't be proved in the same way that the earth's rotation around the sun can proved.
"I know that my redeemer liveth'' is not something you know by looking through a microscope or a telescope.
God could conceivably hang the suspense and unambiguously let us all know just who we're dealing with. But that comes dangerously close to coercion and God seems real big on free will and human choice.
Around 1950, philosopher R.M. Hare coined the word "blik'' to describe those unverifiable and unfalsifiable axioms we hold onto. An unshakable blik is a dangerous thing, if we ignore evidence that is contrary to our beliefs. But it takes more than a small breeze to topple them.
All of which is to say that "Titanic" director James Cameron's dog-and-pony show yesterday, shilling for an upcoming Discovery Channel documentary on Jesus' bone box is not enough to shake my faith.
First of all this discovery of the ossuary is over 20 years old. Cameron didn't pick it up at a flea market last week. The thing's been studied.
The documentary also makes all kinds of leaps that require more faith than I've got. The idea that this bone box shows that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had a son? (How does Jesus Jr. ever try to stay home sick from school. His dad would just heal him) is ludicrous. I don't think so.
If you're going to give up your faith, I hope it's for some more unsinkable evidence than this.
"I know that my redeemer liveth'' is not something you know by looking through a microscope or a telescope.
God could conceivably hang the suspense and unambiguously let us all know just who we're dealing with. But that comes dangerously close to coercion and God seems real big on free will and human choice.
Around 1950, philosopher R.M. Hare coined the word "blik'' to describe those unverifiable and unfalsifiable axioms we hold onto. An unshakable blik is a dangerous thing, if we ignore evidence that is contrary to our beliefs. But it takes more than a small breeze to topple them.
All of which is to say that "Titanic" director James Cameron's dog-and-pony show yesterday, shilling for an upcoming Discovery Channel documentary on Jesus' bone box is not enough to shake my faith.
First of all this discovery of the ossuary is over 20 years old. Cameron didn't pick it up at a flea market last week. The thing's been studied.
The documentary also makes all kinds of leaps that require more faith than I've got. The idea that this bone box shows that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and they had a son? (How does Jesus Jr. ever try to stay home sick from school. His dad would just heal him) is ludicrous. I don't think so.
If you're going to give up your faith, I hope it's for some more unsinkable evidence than this.
posted by Michael Riley at 9:50 AM
23 Comments:
"By definition, faith in the resurrection of Christ is not a fact." -- Michael Riley
I once served on a jury. The defendant was charged with the armed robbery of a liquor store. Four witnesses testified for the State. (3 witnesses were in the store and testified under oath that they saw the defendant pull a gun from his waistband and demand money from the cashier. One witness testified under oath that she saw the defendant fleeing from the store whilst holding a gun in one hand and cash in the other.) The defendant took the stand and said he was home playing video games when the robbery took place.
I, along with the rest of the jury, voted to convict the defendant. I did so because I was convinced, after carefully examining all of the evidence, that the defendant "did it." I was and am convinced that the defendant did it despite not having seen the crime take place myself. In short, the testimony of others established in my mind "the fact" that (a) a robbery took place and (b) the defendant was responsible for that crime.
So too it is with my faith in Christ and, incidentally, in the Church that He founded, the Holy Catholic Church. Why do I have the faith that Michael Riley admits he lacks? I suppose I could write all day on that point alone. That said, the "testimony" of so many others who saw Christ both before and after The Resurrection leaves no doubt in my mind that (a) Jesus died on Good Friday and (b) rose from the dead on Easter Sunday.
Like the four witnesses in the criminal case mentioned above, 11 of the 12 original Apostles "testified" about Christ. 10 of the 11 suffered brutal, horrible martyr's deaths rather than renounce Christ and what they saw. Now if what they saw and heard was in fact a hoax, don't you think that at least one of them would have fessed up before dying and admitted as much, particularly when, like St. Bartholomew, they were being flayed alive? But yet, none of them did. Nor, might I add, did any of the thousands of people who witnessed the miracles Christ and the Apostles performed ever come forward and express their suspicions that a hoax had taken place. (e.g., "You know, St. Peter really didn't raise Tabitha from the dead. She was really just hung over. Boy, you should have seen the boat load of cash Peter collected after that one...", etc.)
Christ rose from the dead, Mr. Riley. And that is an established fact.
anonomys and I are on the same page. We have to have good reasons for our faith, and the testimony of the Gospel writers is one reason for mine. But faith knowledge is not the same as scientific knowledge or mathematical knowledge. "Jesus rose'' is simply not the same kind of fact as E=mc (squared). And doubt is not always the opposite of faith. As theologian/writer Frederick Buechner wrote, "Doubt is an element of faith.'' That's why one of the most poignant lines in Scripture is spoken by the man with the ill son: "I believe; help me mine unbelief
Margaret, the shroud of Turin is not the burial shroud of Jesus. It was proven to be an artist's work when it emerged in the 13th or 14th century.
"But faith knowledge is not the same as scientific knowledge or mathematical knowledge. 'Jesus rose' is simply not the same kind of fact as E=mc (squared)." -- Michael Riley
One can demonstrate the historical fact that is The Resurrection of Christ in much the same way that one could prove that Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams spent at least some time in the city of Philadelphia during the summer of 1776. To the extent that the proof required to prove those historical facts cited above is different from the proof required to prove something to a mathematical certainty is, to me, little more than an exercise in semantics. At the end of the day, the proof exists.
Faith, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. An example of faith -- the sort of faith that Margaret spoke of -- can be found at any Catholic Mass. When we Catholics receive Holy Communion, for example, we believe we are receiving far more than a mere symbol of Christ's body and blood. We believe -- and therein lies our faith -- that we are receiving the actual body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Risen Lord. Moreover, we believe this while readily recognizing that only moments before, what we now believe to be Jesus Christ was, before the Consecration, merely ordinary bread and wine. In short, it is only through an act of faith, a faith that is devoid of doubt and which belies human reason, that one can believe in The Real Presence.
The Real Presence of Christ In The Holy Eucharist
"And doubt is not always the opposite of faith. As theologian/writer Frederick Buechner wrote, 'Doubt is an element of faith.'" -- Michael Riley
And St. Peter was able to walk on the water for only as long as he had faith. The moment he doubted, the moment he trusted his own ability to reason, he went swimming.
Thanks, incidentally, for mentioning Buechner. I have been meaning to read Godric since I was in college. The only thing holding me back was my own obstinate bias against anything deemed worthy of a Pulitzer. (Godric was nominated for a Pulitzer in 1981.) I think I'll break my own self-imposed rule and order a copy from Amazon.com. I'll let you know if I liked it.
Cedric by Frederick Buechner
Forgive the typo immediately above. The title of Buechner's novel is Godric and NOT "Cedric." I guess I need another cup of coffee.
Margaret, I don't know how close you are to Lakewood, but if you ever get the chance, stop by the rectory at St. Mary's of the Lake and ask to speak with Deacon Martucci. A former teacher of mine -- and what a great teacher he was! -- Deacon Martucci is rather knowledgeable with respect to the Shroud of Turin. I trust you will be interested in his perspective.
Margaret:
I like you. I really do. But, really, Christians are not under attack in this country. We're the overwhelming majority. A few overzealous people do not an attack make. Nobody is telling you you can't call something a "Christmas tree.'' Frankly I've never understood what kind of victory it is to have a creche on public property if it is surrounded by Santa Claus and Rudolph.
"But, really, Christians are not under attack in this country." -- Michael Riley
Court Allows Jewish & Muslim Symbols But Outlaws Nativity Scenes
Comedy Central's Christmas Gift: "SACRILICIOUS SUNDAY"
There's Real Venom on the Left Against Conservative Christians
Christmas Desecrations: Anti-Christian Bigotry Reaches New Lows
Two Bloggers For John Edwards Resign After Making Anti-Catholic Remarks
Anti-Christian Bigotry Moves Front and Center
University Is Accused Of Bias Against Christian Schools
BBC Internal Memo Admits Anti-Christian Bias
Help Stop Media Bias Against Christians
Christians Persecutied? In America? Open Your Eyes -- It is Happening Right Now
Double Standard: New York Times Sides With Muslims, But "Piss Christ" Foes Were Compared to Nazis
Anti-Christian Double Standard On The Left
NBC To Explain Decision To Air Bigoted Anti-Christian Concert
Anti-Catholic Bias in Children's Literature
Are The Fires Anti-Baptist Hate Crimes?
Shall I continue, Mr. Riley?
"OTOH, the "proof" of the resurrection of Christ depends on the testimony of those we do not know and, worse still, on their hearsay statements about still others who were allegedly present." -- Ray
We most certainly do know who witnessed the death and Resurrection of Christ. Matthew and John were both Apostles that witnessed and wrote of both events. Indeed the Apostle John, along with Our Blessed Mother, was at the foot of the cross during Our Lord's passion. John and Matthew were also present in the Upper Room when a risen Christ appeared to the Apostles on that first Easter Sunday. There is no hearsay involved whatsoever. Again, the Resurrection of Christ is a historical fact whether you choose to believe it or not.
I wasn't asked to address a larger issue, Ray, nor did I ever suggest that Christians are "uniquely under attack." Riley foolishly made a claim and I refuted it. If you want to ramble on about other religions, feel free. I, for one, am not at all interested in what you have to say on the subject. Perhaps others might feel differently.
Anonymous,
You have made claims sevenfold as foolishly as Riley.
You cannot relate Jefferson et al to the Resurrection of Christ. Ray has done a fantastic job of showing that fact.
Now, you're absolutely ridiculous jury analogy. If the only evidence in the case was the affadavit of 2 individuals, the most recent of which was authored some 90 years after the robbery, others written by people with no geographical or chronological connection to the liquour store, the case wouldn't even make it to court.
I see no reason why you have nothing to say on the subject of the blog but feel the need to nitpick at a logical argument that has held the higher ground for a good many years now.
I have nothing to say about the initial blog either. I have never responded to a blog or to comments on a blog. However, something about your IMMENSE stupidity on this subject has prompted me to let you know of it.
Stupid.
Ray (aka Different Anon), apparently I struck a nerve, huh? You sound like a well-intentioned yet scatterbrained young man. I'd encourage you to take a course in basic logic at your local community college. Perhaps Brookdale might have something up your alley. Regardless of what you choose to do, I sincerely wish you the best of luck. God bless.
Ray, you are an intellectual lightweight. You are also tedious and not at all worth my time.
And I see that we now have more than one "anonymous" writer.
"But you don't know anything about these people and some scholars argue that what is claimed to be their words may have been written by several different people. None of this would be admissible in court, thus, it can't be considered as fact. That makes it religious faith, not historical fact." -- Ray
If I have learned anything in the time that I have been on this earth, it is that you don't have to look for very long to find "some scholars" that will, much like yourself, say damned well near anything. If finding "some scholars" that doubt the veracity of a proposition is all that it takes to discredit something -- much less render that proposition beyond, say, a jury's consideration -- then nothing would ever be worthy of consideration by anyone under any circumstances. It is a pretty weak argument indeed to suggest that here are "some (unnamed) scholars" that dispute the veracity of the Gospels, therefore one should discount the historical value of Sacred Scripture altogether, or otherwise consider Scripture as something akin to a fairytale or a matter of "religious assumption."
We know, for example, a great deal about Christ, his Apostles and those that wrote the New Testament. Moreover, we know of them from sources that had nothing whatsoever to do with the writing of Sacred Scripture. One could and should, for example, look to the writings of Christianity's Founding Fathers, particularly when those writings corroborate what is written in Sacred Scripture, and when those writings otherwise speak to the veracity of Sacred Scripture and its authors.
One should and could also look to sources beyond the Church. That Christians were put to death by the Romans for their beliefs in Christ and His Resurrection is, I would hope, beyond dispute. The persecution of Christians by the Romans is, after all, widely accepted by "scholars" whose religious affiliation, if any, is unknown or irrelevant. As the bones in the catacombs readily attest, St. Peter is most certainly not the only person to have witnessed a Risen Christ and who suffered a brutal death rather deny that they had witnessed Christ sometime after Good Friday. In the same way that Abel's blood cried out to the Heavens, the blood of the martyrs attest to the historical fact that Christ is Risen. And that "fact," Ray, isn't changed because you refuse to accept it.
"Please elaborate on how I'm "scatterbrained." -- Ray
Well, for starters, I don't know anyone, save a comedian, that would ever write the following sentence: "Thus, the Word of God is whatever you want it to be." You wrote those words and you certainly didn't write them with tongue in cheek. You falsely claimed that I had previously made the argument that Christians are "uniquely under attack." I never made any such claim. Your remarks to Margaret about political correctness and not being able to wish Christ "Happy Holy Days" was as silly as it was nonsensical. And your ramblings about the persecution that other religions suffered was so off the point of the original blog as to be something out of Tangetland. I could go on, but I think I've made my point. You are scatterbrained. As such, continuing this discussion would be an exercise in futility. Again, look into taking a basic logic course. And once more, good luck and God bless. (Psst .. It's never "too late.")
You talk about taking a logic class, anonymous, while neglecting the fact that in the rare instance that you complete a full argument, it is riddled with logical fallacies.
If we were to validate any belief system based on the fact that people died for it, we'd all be waiting to hop on Jesus' spaceship as it rode in the tail of Haley's comet.
I'm not trying to argue against Jesus' resurrection. I'm only trying to point out that it is impossible to prove scientifically. You do Christians a disservice when you claim that it takes no faith to believe in the resurrection.
Even when science seems to disprove religious belief, as in the revelation that the world is more than 6000 years old, religious beliefs persist or adapt.
Just stop trying and shut up.
What follows are some great video clips from Christian apologists Lee Strobel, Dr. William Lane Craig and Michael Licona:
Did Jesus Rise From The Dead? The Resurrection Is A Historical Fact
Lee Strobel: Did Jesus Rise From The Dead?
How Many People Saw Jesus Alive? Eyewitnesses Of A Risen Christ
Dr. William Lane Craig: The Historic Evidence For The Resurrection Of Jesus
Dr. William Lane Craig: What Do Most Scholars Believe About The Resurrection of Jesus
Michael Licona: Is There Proof For The Historical Jesus?
Some articles in support of the notion that The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is A Historical Fact:
Evidence For The Resurrection by Josh McDowell (Several Historians and/or Scholars Are Quoted Herein)
The Resurrection of Christ: A Historical Fact" by Dr. Benjamin B. Warfield
Seven Historical Facts About The Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth ("Myths do not generate faith that will endure the fires of persecution. Strong faith grows out of factual evidence.")
How Do We Know That Jesus Rose From The Dead: A Debate
Jimmy Williams: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ is a Historical Fact
Jesus Christ's Resurrection: Fact or Fiction (R. Totten)
The Physical Resurrection Of Jesus Christ Is Historical Fact (Randy Singer)
Two additional video clips:
Lee Strobel: Is The New Testament Reliable As A Historical Document
Are The Gospels Reliable For Us Today?
A Comparison: Can We Trust The New Testament As A Historical Document?
Can We Trust The New Testament?
Can We Trust The Gospels? A letter to my Muslim brothers by Hans Wijngaards
Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable (Gary Habermas)
Archaeological Support For The New Testament
Manuscript Attestation For The New Testament
Archaeology and the New Testament
The New Testament: Truth Or A Lie?
I agree with you Ray, some of these bloggers are missing the main point: where's the empirical,scientific proof? all religious/spiritual writings are , in effect, oral histories passed down for generations -similar to Greek Mythology, Native American folklore,Egyptian hieroglyphics and Mayan/Incan murals,etc...with no scientific proof for most of the claims..gee, how many centuries was it believed that the earth was flat 'til proved otherwise by so-called heretics(scientifically) ..as far as Ray's jury analogy, how about this? it's all hearsay testimony and your so-called "expert witnesses" can be skewed to fit either side's testimony -without any real scientific evidence..it's not even circumstantial evidence, just hearsay evidence..ray/margaret both seem to believe that Catholics' beliefs are the only Christian beliefs that count let alone, non-Christian ones and for that you are both narrow-minded in accepting other hypotheses/faiths..I believe that everyone should be able to believe in anything - call it spirituality, religion, faith - whatever-as long as it harms no one in the process..the problem is, too many force their fanatical views on others in the name of that belief which causes all the strife in the world.. I love the bumper sticker: "my dogma ate my karma"..
"I agree with you Ray, some of these bloggers are missing the main point: where's the empirical,scientific proof?" -- DG
Do you even know what the word empirical means, DG? It means that one is able to replicate a hypothesis in order to either prove or disprove it. That water boils at 212 degrees is accepted as fact because anyone can go into their kitchen and see at what temperature water boils. That's empirical proof. Since a historical fact cannot be replicated, one doesn't prove or disprove historical facts empirically or scientifically.
"all religious/spiritual writings are , in effect, oral histories passed down for generations ..." -- DG
All religious/spiritual writings, huh?
The New Testament Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Acts was written by Luke and Revelations was written by John. The Epistles were written by those named in Scripture. In short, none of the New Testament was orally "passed down" to anyone, much less was it passed down for generations. Indeed there is now archaeological evidence to suggest that the canon was written and completed no later than 80 A.D., some 20 years before the Apostle John died.
Moreover, and as any Muslim will be quick to tell you, while Mohammed was illiterate, he dictated what is now known as the Koran to various scribes over a period of years. Muslims would certainly take issue with your claim that the Koran was orally passed down for generations before being written down. Mormons and others would also.
"as far as Ray's jury analogy, how about this? it's all hearsay testimony..." -- DG
It's hearsay only in the sense that the more than 500 people (1 Corinthians 15:6) that witnessed a risen Christ are now dead and unable to testify in a court. It wasn't hearsay testimony when St. Paul asked those in Corinth -- his readers, I might add -- to question these witnesses themselves. It wasn't hearsay testimony when some of those 500 witnesses were martyred in Rome rather than deny that they had seen a Risen Christ.
"it's all hearsay testimony and your so-called "expert witnesses" can be skewed to fit either side's testimony -without any real scientific evidence..it's not even circumstantial evidence, just hearsay evidence" -- DG
Well, if you are looking for historical sources beyond those contained in Scripture itself or the writings of early Church founders, I would urge you to read the writings of the first century Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus. Tactitus wrote of Christ, his death and the persecution of Christians who claimed to have seen a Risen Christ. It is believed by many that Tactitus had access to a report written by Pontius Pilate himself.
The historians Justin Martyr (150 A.D.) and Tetullian (200 A.D.) also wrote of Christ and referenced that same official report that Pilate submitted to Rome, a report that not only detailed the death of Christ but which also spoke of various "miracles" associated with Christ and his Apostles.
Even before Tacitus, Thallus wrote about the crucifixion of Jesus. His writings date to circa 52 A.D.
In 112 A.D., Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote that Christians in Bithynia worshiped "a risen Christ."
Moreover, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of Christ. He also wrote that Christians in Jerusalem believed that Christ rose from the dead three days after his death and that Christ was the messiah. Flavius Josephus died in 97 A.D.
"ray/margaret both seem to believe that Catholics' beliefs are the only Christian beliefs that count let alone, non-Christian ones and for that you are both narrow-minded in accepting other hypotheses/faiths" -- DG
I assume you are speaking of me and not Ray or the other anonymous writer on this thread. Insofar as I am concerned, you most certainly are wrong. Although a Catholic myself, all the Christian apologists I cited in the hyperlinks above, for example, are or were Protestants. If I didn't think that we can all learn from these non-Catholic apologists -- my brothers in Christ, to be sure -- then I certainly wouldn't have mentioned them or their works on this blog site, and certainly not in defense of the notion that The Resurrection of Christ is a historical fact.
anonymous said:
"In 112 A.D., Pliny the Younger, a Roman author and administrator who served as the governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor, wrote that Christians in Bithynia worshiped "a risen Christ."
Moreover, Jewish historian Flavius Josephus wrote of Christ. He also wrote that Christians in Jerusalem believed that Christ rose from the dead three days after his death and that Christ was the messiah. Flavius Josephus died in 97 A.D."
This is even less than the "heresay you offered earlier. Now you have resorted to the objective observation that Christians believe in a risen Christ from an outside perspective.
Of course I can agree with you there. Christians believe in the Resurrection of Christ.
That statement in and of itself carries absolutely no other implications.
Hey,
I mostly visits this website[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url]medwardriley.blogspot.com really contains lot of useful information. I am sure due to busy scedules we really do not get time to care about our health. Here is a fact for you. Recent Scientific Research displays that about 70% of all United States adults are either chubby or overweight[url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips].[/url] Hence if you're one of these people, you're not alone. Its true that we all can't be like Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Megan Fox, and have sexy and perfect six pack abs. Now the question is how you are planning to have quick weight loss? [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss[/url] is really not as tough as you think. Some improvement in of daily activity can help us in losing weight quickly.
About me: I am webmaster of [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/lose-10-pounds-in-2-weeks-quick-weight-loss-tips]Quick weight loss tips[/url]. I am also health trainer who can help you lose weight quickly. If you do not want to go under painful training program than you may also try [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/acai-berry-for-quick-weight-loss]Acai Berry[/url] or [url=http://www.weightrapidloss.com/colon-cleanse-for-weight-loss]Colon Cleansing[/url] for quick weight loss.
Post a Comment
<< Home