| WHB Home : All Blogs : Recent Blogs : Who is this Jesus? Five Reasons Christianity is True - 2/10/2009 | |
June 12, 2008 1:50pm v.9
Rating:
Status: Hidden
| Leave a comment: 6 comments ~ | Printable Version |
| PREV | 363 of 459 | NEXT |
 Tim Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian Church has an excellent podcast called "Who is this Jesus?"; and I highly recommend you listen to it for its five reasons for god.
The podcast ends There are many other free sermons in Redeemer's sermon store. I listened to this sermon a long time ago, but revisited it after talking to some Jehovah's Witnesses this morning who discredit Jesus' claim to be God. Tim Keller makes an excellent point that the first and second commandments would make it impossible for a first century Jew to worship a man as god, yet several times people worship Jesus as God, and he lets them: Thomas "My Lord and My God" in John 20:28, Peter in John 16:16, Blind man in John 9:38, etc Jehovah's Witness is another form of the Arian Heresy that produced the Nicene Creed in the 4th Century. I first read about Arianism in Eusebius' Church History. John Piper has a great discussion of Arianism in the first chapter of the Pleasures of God.
Last Update: February 10, 2009 1:06pm |
| PREV | 363 of 459 | NEXT |
| Leave a comment: 6 comments | [Hide Comments] | Printable Version |
Comments: #1 June 13, 2008 8:20am Just a few comments on the points made... * There was a man in Palestine, 2000 years ago who claimed to be God, who claimed to be bringing the Kingdom of God from Heaven to Earth This is not a unique claim. Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be God as well as various other rulers at the time. No doubt there were countless others then just as there are today who claim some supernatural power or connection to God. This argument is known as argumentum ad antiquitatem which is the argument that something is right or good simply because it's old. A claim this great must be backed up with a substantial amount of evidence. * The people who heard Jesus speak saw him do apparent miracles, including the feeding of 5,000 people, walk on water, heal people and raise people from the dead. (Whether he actual did it, people believed that Jesus actually did miracles) All of these claims come from his disciples. The lack of any third-party substantiation is has to cast a shadow of doubt as to whether these things actually occurred. Jesus did come for the Jews first and foremost and the gentiles later, so the general population may not have been available to see what the gospel claims Jesus did. However, one would expect that someone who was not one of Jesus' close associates to have witnessed and recorded any one of these events. I would also expect to see someone on record dismissing these events as tricks of some sort. This argument is known as argumentum ad numerum or argument or appeal to numbers of people. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. What we do read is that Jesus was an extremely effective in his speech and that his composure conveyed authority that contrasted with his otherwise meek disposition. Throughout the gospel accounts we read over and over phrases like 'Never has another man spoken like this'. The debate about whether Jesus performed miracles can rage on in the absence physical evidence, but I doubt anyone could argue that Jesus was not extremely skilled in debate and public speaking. * He claimed to be God and convinced those people closest to him that he was God. (The last people group to worship a man as God was first century Jews) So did David Koresh who claimed to be "the Son of God, the Lamb who could open the Seven Seals" and whose followers believe that Koresh will someday return to Earth. Some hoped, based on Daniel 12:12, that this would occur 1,335 days after his death: December 14, 1996. The Hidden Manna faction believed that it would take place on August 6, 2000, then October 20, and now March 2012. Clearly, David Koresh is not God, yet he convinced a good number of people that he was... or is in some people's minds. He was a charismatic and effective public speaker who used scripture along with his animated, enthusiastic interpretation to persuade people to allow him to direct their thoughts and actions. He understood the power, not of the divine, but of belief. The beliefs of a group can be intoxicating and empowering. Belief empowers some to do good. Belief enables some to do evil. Belief itself cannot however, prove the thing believed to be true even if many people believe it to be true. This is another argumentum ad numerum. * After he died, hundreds of people confessed that they saw Jesus risen from the dead, including over 500 people at once * The experience of the resurrection caused those people to go spread that news to the world and were martyred for it. Accepting the Bible accounts as true is one thing, asserting that they are true because... ...they happened along time ago “Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God” - Martin Luther
Shawn Holland #2 June 13, 2008 12:08pm Thank you for your long comment, and all of your objections are addressed in the podcast. These five premises are accepted facts about Jesus, and they build on top of each other. Tim Keller talks about the implications of these facts. Your reasoning has prevented you from listening to the podcast, and therefore has prevented you from having faith in Jesus. Tim Keller talks about David Koresh. Caligula wasn't able to dupe anyone when he declared his horse God. Koresh convinced a small naive group of people for a limited time. Jesus' claim resulted in the conversion of half the Roman Empire within 300 years. Approximately 33 million Christians at the time of Constantine the caused the Roman Empire to make Christianity the official religion. There are two billion Christians today. David Koresh hasn't risen from the dead, or appeared to anyone, like Jesus did. 1 Corinthians 15 mentions the 500 people, and several other people groups that saw Jesus and most of them were alive and in the Church at the time he wrote the letter. It was circulated among the churches, and there myriads of writings about people who have seen the risen Jesus, or knew someone who had seen the risen Jesus. Virtually all the people who saw Jesus risen, went throughout the world to tell people and were all marytered. If Jesus hadn't been risen, then the people wouldn't have given up their lives. Simply reading any history books will reveal this is how Christianity was established. There's a church on every corner of this country for a reason, they didn't just show up there. Like I said, all of your concerns are fully addressed in the podcast, so I ask you to reason with yourself why you haven't listened to it, and judged jesus without considering the evidence? so that your reasoning doesn't prohibit your faith.
Wyatt #3 June 14, 2008 10:17am
The following will provide the BEST and MOST ACCURATE info about Jehovah's Witnesses, their beliefs, and how they actually practice such day to day.
Jerry Jones #4 June 14, 2008 5:37pm Fair enough. I listened to the podcast, but the points I brought out above become even more fluorescent in the context of the entire sermon. Keller relies almost entirely in debate fallacies to present his case for why Christianity is true. I've listed the points below which are in addition to my comments on the five main point above. * In the book, The World's Great Religions, which has been around a long time. Something that has been around a long time is not proof that it is correct. * Jesus' claim to divinity is validated by the number of believers. Just because many people believe something does not make it true. Many, many people believed the world was flat at one time. This belief turned out to be false. * The magnitude of his claim requires that you must know he is false. argumentum ad ignorantiam - The claim that if it is not known to be false, then the statement must be true. * No thoughtful person - would not study Jesus' life. This is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. It implies that one either has to accept the statement or in this case, not be a thoughtful person. I would venture to say that you have not made an in-depth study of Babylonian or Egyptian religion to determine that it isn't in fact the 'true' religion. A person can be thoughtful and choose not to study the scriptures. This of course, does not apply to either of us, but I wanted to highlight the use of this method. In this case, Keller is using it as a sort of compliment to the audience. * If you received a letter from a major law firm stating that you were the heir to the throne, wouldn't you at least call? This is known as an extended analogy. This situation is different from the question of whether Christianity is true, but there is a general rule that underlies them both. Keller's example implies that they are the same. Both situations are making a big claim, however in the claim that a person were the heir to the throne, the recipient would certainly require third-party verification... physical proof that the claim is valid before picking up and moving to England. Religion is based on faith, not physical evidence. No one can go to God and say "I want a signed statement with my name on the document that I'll be in heaven with you before I devote my entire life on earth to you." That statement is ridiculous and even arrogant vis-a-vis speaking with the creator of the universe. However, that is exactly what one would require of someone making the claim that that person was the heir to the throne. So the two situations are not actually the same even though they appear to be. * You better know he's false because if he's right, your life is ruined! This argument is both the fallacies of bifurcation and argumentum ad baculum. Bifurcation is the assertion that there are only two possible outcomes and argumentum ad baculum is the the use of force or the threat of force to persuade the listener to accept the conclusion. Neither approach does anything to prove the truthfulness of the proposition and at worst is verbal bullying.
Here Keller goes again with the 'No true Scotsman' argument. I've covered this previously so I won't repeat myself. * Keller said the Koresh doesn't count because there weren't enough people who believed - that is the evidence that he was false. Argumentum ad numerum - but this time in reverse. Keller asserts that Koresh was not authentic because not many people believed him. A much better argument is that Koresh had a deeply disturbed childhood which included verbal, physical and sexual abuse. This contributed to a series of dysfunctional sexual relationships culminating with his affair with Lois Roden, the prophetess and leader of the Branch Davidians who was then in her late seventies, eventually claiming that God had chosen him to father a child with her, who would be the Chosen One. Given this information, the fact that only a few people believed him is ridiculously trivial. * The bible is not written as legend. The bible is written as fact. Luke claims to have written the eye-witness accounts Anecdotal - It doesn't matter if it was written as if it's fact and unverifiable third-party eye witness accounts aren't even allowed to be admitted as fact in court. Why should they be admissible for a claim of someone being God on earth? * The argument that the accounts as written would have to be realistic prose fiction to be false. This style didn't exist before the 18th century Argumentum ad ignorantiam - Keller asserts that realistic prose fiction was unknown before the 18th century. ( actually he said that it didn't exist, but I'm going to assume he knows that it's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. ) However, if the accounts of the gospel were in fact false, they would be the earliest known realistic prose fiction. So this point doesn't prove anything. * When you read the gospel, you have to assume that it is a complete hoax, all lies or historical fact; there is no in-between. Bifurcation - Here's another all-or-nothing argument, which is rarely the case in reality. There are many possibilities including factual information together with dubious accounts. There is certainly reason to believe that Jesus based on writings of the Jews and the Romans who found him annoying for good reason. * He claims the Paul could not have fabricated his accounts by saying that he wrote them only 20 years after the events took place. He said that if he fabricated a story about a riot at his university and published it, his former schoolmates would read his account in the New York Times and call him on the fabrication. Straw man - The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made. The was no form of wide-spread mass media like the NYT then. Letters were copied and distributed at what would be a snail's pace today. Also, if the events didn't happen, it would be impossible for anyone to say it didn't happen because you can't prove something didn't happen just because you didn't see it. People would simply assert that that person wasn't present at the event. * Paul claims that 500 people witnessed the resurrected Jesus. Keller claims that people would have protested if that wasn't true. Again, a person cannot argue that something did not happen because they did not see it any more than someone can assert something happened without evidence. People could have assumed that they were not part of the 500. He claims that no one protested, but really, there is no record of anyone protesting. There might have been people who protested who weren't represented in the Bible. Really, why would they be included? * They couldn't have said "The tomb was empty" if the tomb wasn't empty. This argument implies there can only be one possibility, that Jesus was resurrected. Is it not possible that his closest disciples removed his body? * Keller said that they couldn't say that he had claimed to be the son of God unless he had said that. That doesn't prove that it's true, just that he made the claim. I don't think there are many people who would say that Jesus did not make this claim. * Keller claims that we have far more evidence that Jesus existed than we do of Rome invading Gaul. There's only one account of the invasion of Gaul, but there is four accounts of Jesus' existence. This ignores the actual, physical archaeological evidence of Rome's occupation of Gaul. This is actually a bad argument for him to make because it's true, eye-witness accounts in themselves are not sufficient to support the invasion and occupation of a country, let alone a claim of the magnitude of miracles or God on earth as a man. * While it doesn't matter if the Gallic wars are true, The gospel being true requires one to change the course of one's life. No one can be objective when reading the scriptures. Of course one can be objective when studying the scriptures. In fact, I would assert that if someone were not objective in their study of the scriptures, how would they know the difference between making the decision that what they are studying was true and merely being swept up on a wave of emotion? * Keller claims that because Jesus makes such an incredible claim of divinity and because he instructs his followers to love him so much that their love of their family looks like hate, that he could not be just a good man. He must either be telling the truth or he must be a terrible liar. Bifurcation - He could've been a persuasive, delusional person who believed what he was saying so much that he convinced those he was speaking to. * Keller makes the argument that Jesus could not have been delusional because so many people have been fascinated by the gospel account. Again, just because many people believe something does not make it true. * Keller claims that no one has ever come up with a statement Jesus ought to have said. Just because no one has come up with a line Jesus ought to have said doesn't mean he was what he said he was. Personally, I think Jesus ought to have said that owning another human being as a slave was immoral and unbefitting of one of his followers, but he didn't. * Keller says that if you don't believe that Jesus was who he said he was, you must believe in theories that have even more holes. As if there are only two competing belief systems. * Keller says that the only three possible reactions to the knowledge of Jesus are hate, fear, or love. This is simply not true. It's completely possible to be indifferent, but still a serious student of the scriptures. Christianity has had such a massive impact on our world, it needs to be studied. * Keller claims that the Buddha says that he can show you the way to God. This is evidence of his lack of understanding of other beliefs. Buddhism teaches that there is no such thing as God. There is no way to God, there is only the way to enlightenment. * Keller claims that if a listener does not believe, that this person is afraid or is prejudiced against Jesus. Also not true. There are lots of people, myself included who have no more fear or prejudice against Jesus than Thor or Apollo. So, there it is. I listened. I took notes. I thought carefully about what was said and wrote them down. I'm most interested in arguments that pass the cross examination of reason, but I'm still looking.
Shawn Holland #5 June 14, 2008 8:26pm Shawn, I really appreciate that you listened to the podcast and considered what Tim Keller said. It was very impactful on me. I don't think I could improve on his message. It seems possible to find a fallacy in any decision that we do, regardless whether its true or not. I read all your comments. My wife and I did a lot of planning to move to Seattle, but ultimately when we stepped on the plane and didn't have a place to live or a car, we were depending on faith to get us there. It's been a wild success but we had many doubts. Christ will be the same, and although doubts are part of life, having faith that Jesus is real, and that there is historical, scientific, philosophic reasons to believe in him, it's ultimately faith that proves the greatest reward. I hope you keep reading my blog, thanks for your comments!
Wyatt #6 July 15, 2008 11:06pm Pwned
Anonymous Coward
| ||
| BACK TO COLUMNS | ©2024 http://www.houtz.tv by Wyatt Houtz | LOGIN |