How can I be reasonably sure God still exists?

[golgotha61]

Gumph,
Instead of answering the last posts point by point, let me cover some topics and make some clarifications that should help in our discussion. First is what I think your main problem is and that is believing ancient texts written by men 2000+ years ago as being truth. And the second issue would fold into the first and that is how can truth transcend time and not be affected.



Some topics to cover are language, speech-act theory, culture, mythology, genre, and cognitive environment. Some of these topics overlap and they will be repeated as we look at each one, albeit in a brief presentation.



Language
This is kind of simple since the ancient languages are still being deciphered and that the antiquity of these languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) are what hinder the extraction of the meaning that is embedded in the text. Even in our native language of English, ancient English hampers interpretation of the text and requires study of the language in its ancient form, sometimes through comparative studies, in order to extract the meaning that the author intended. This is obvious as one reads from Beowulf, Spenser and Chaucer through Shakespeare and the King James Bible. Over time the language changes and the meaning gets more difficult to extract. However, concerning truth, the gradual change in language that makes interpretation more difficult does not affect the truthfulness of what the author wrote.



Genre
This is the basic ability to understand that genre will define the use of the language and the text. Proverbs are not laws for example. I don’t want to get into this too much and so I will give the book and author that help explain how to be genre sensitive and be able to determine how it affects the language and the text. The book is Cracking the Old Testament Codes: A Guide to Interpreting Literary Genres of the Old Testament by Sandy D. Brent and Ronald L. Giese Jr.


Speech-act theory
The information that I will briefly give comes from Is There Meaning in This Text by Kevin Vanhoozer. The crux of the book is that there is a necessity to allow the author to maintain his authority over the text. The text has dimensions 1) what lies behind the text (ie context) 2) the locution or the letters that form the words and 3) what lies in front of the text (the context of the reader). In this postmodern culture and what is proposed by various philosophers, such as Jacques Darrida, is that the text becomes the property of the reader and is reader defined. This is partially what leads to the postmodern notion that truth can never be known and can never be transmitted, because the postmodern reader takes ownership of the text and the author, and his intent, is left out.



Culture
This of course bleeds into speech-act theory and what lies behind the text but there are other factors that come into play in this very large category. Much of this information comes from the author John H. Walton and his books The Lost World of Scripture: Ancient Literary Culture and Biblical Authority, The Lost World of Genesis: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate, and Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the Conceptual world of the Hebrew Bible.


Culture takes into account the cognitive environment, which is the knowledge of how the world works in a defined culture. So, the explanation for life occurrences in the ANE (Ancient Near East) are explained by using their science and not ours. You may ask, did the ANE have science in their vocabulary? No they did not but what we call mythology in reference to the ANE is what they would have called science. In The ANE there were no “natural” occurrences, everything that happened in life was the act of the gods and there was no word for nature or natural in the ANE. So, when an event took place that the ANE wanted to explain or to transmit a description of the event to another person, the cognition of the world they lived in was used. We call it mythology but to them it was fact and truth and mythology was the science of the ANE.



Science in our time could be called mythology by folks 2000+ years from now, since the scientific theories and laws would then be defined by the standards of a more knowledge rich culture. Mythologies varied and changed in their explanation of life events just as our sciences change views and present facts. Science as we know it is self-correcting and what may be the new scientific discovery today is open for correction in the future. That is the nature of science.


When we use modern sciences to redefine the Old World science of the ANE, it violates the message of the author of the texts. The truthfulness of the ANE authors is challenged because of what we have forced on their text and this removes the original message and replaces it with our interpretation. So, when we say that Christ died and then rose again as described in Scripture, it is truth and it transcends time because to attempt to alter the truth embedded in the Biblical text is to take that text, the message that lies behind the text, and make it reader defined. This cannot be done without changing the intent of the author. It is, after all, the purpose of reading the Bible; to gain the meaning that the author intended.
*continued*

 

[golgotha61]

In the New Testament, the narratives are given concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is accepted without argument from the leading atheists that the historical Jesus that is spoken of in Scripture is indeed a historical figure. It is also logically accepted that a historical figure from 2000 years ago died at some stage of his life. What could be questioned is the way Jesus died and the claim that He rose from the dead. This is where the acknowledgment of the existence of the metaphysical world comes in to play.


I have never seen any refutations that are considered valid arguing a different death for Jesus. You have presented “what if” scenarios concerning the disappearance of the body but those scenarios don’t stand up to the ANE culture’s environment. If you try to follow these scenarios to a conclusion, they miss the reality that existed in Jerusalem which was under the control of the Roman government. What some have tried to do, because the “what if” scenarios are not accepted by Biblical scholars who question the resurrection and the works of Christ, is attack Christ’s metaphysical characteristics. One of these men is Bart D. Ehrman, who’s only realistic method of refuting the confessional view of the New Testament narratives, was to claim that Christ’s life is shrouded in mythology and once the mythology is removed, a more common, natural human being is revealed. After studying Ehrman, it becomes apparent that his methodology is driven by the inability to reconcile suffering with a loving God. We have already covered mythology and what it represents, so in light of that definition, Ehrman’s argument is shaken.



The text of the New Testament was not the original account because we are still dealing with an oral culture and not a textual one. What was spoken was given more authority than what was written. This is one reason why it is such folly to try and claim the lack of authority for a Biblical book that some form or text critic proves was written later than previously thought. The oral tradition was what was first created and there is less success in determining the dates of origin for oral narratives, even though the text is what is canon. The reason these oral narratives were put into text was because the apostles and the Christian evangelists knew that they could not live forever and the NT oral narratives were put into text for posterity's sake.



With what we have covered it is easier to see why the NT accounts are accepted as written. We have no way of exercising a method of falsification on the physical accounts and we have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the NT authors. So we must accept the accounts in the NT as truthful which leaves one with a choice. To accept the accounts as truthful or to deny them. But to deny their truthfulness, one needs to prove that they are false. For the record Gumph, the NT authors were not all uneducated. Luke was a doctor and Paul was a Pharisee and if Matthew is the same man as the tax collector in the Gospels, then he was also educated. Even so, education had no bearing on oral narrative and the oral narratives could have been, and were, put into text by scribes or men who were literate.



Your desire is for God to create a Gospel account 2.5 but this is unreasonable. First of all, it would require God to sacrifice His Son at each stage of major detachment of the message receiving cultures from the message giving one. Surly you see the absurdity in that solution. Perhaps you want God to reenter the human experience and proclaim the truthfulness of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but any supernatural occurrence would be met with attacks by the scientific centers that are run by atheists and antitheists. There is no amount of supernatural evidence that would convince unregenerate mankind that the resurrection did take place and that sin is covered by Jesus death. When an unexplained occurrence takes place in the world, observe who it is that gives God the credit and who it is that calls on science to reveal the truth. So, it is not a matter of evidence nor is it a matter of truth too far removed by time and culture, rather it is a matter of choice and frankly it is a matter of recognized need for a savior. Blessings on your journey.

 

[aiki]

He can't present himself to me because then I would have no choice. He wants me to have choice, so drops some clues that he exists. I then need to try and piece these clues together to find him and then he will present himself. Fair summary?

No, I'm afraid not. First of all, God has left more than mere "clues." The record of Scripture is most certainly more than just a "clue." And the philosophical arguments I mentioned are more than clues as well. They offer logically-airtight arguments in favor of God's existence and as such are as solid ground for asserting His existence as anything empirical. Second, as I remarked in an earlier post, God must both draw you to Himself and reveal Himself to you. Part of the revelation of God comes through the Bible, but part of it must be more direct. God must meet you on a personal level. And He will as you ask Him to - though, not in some off-hand casual way, but with heartfelt desire and sincerity.

I really need the background on why this whole system needs to take place. Why does he feel the need to follow this process? I'm expected to blindly participate in a process without being given the reason why.

With another person we might be right in demanding to be completely satisfied about how and why they are doing a particular thing. But we really can't legitimately make the same demand of God. Doing so turns the proper dynamic between finite and infinite, between creature and Creator on its head. God, being God, gets to call the shots; He decides the character of our interactions with Him. This is His right as God. And we can either accede to this or rebel. In either case, God is not diminished or improved. We, though, reap enormous consequences from how we choose to interact with our Maker.

Without intending to trivialise the matter, I feel like someone is inviting me on a treasure hunt, but the map is complicated, I'm not sure if its the right map and no one will tell me what the treasure is, just that its wonderful.

Well, the treasure isn't a mystery, it's a Person: God Himself. And the "map" to Him is through faith in Christ as your Saviour and Lord. Not particularly complicated, actually.

And most importantly, they can't tell me why the treasure hunt is even there in the first place. If I fail to find the treasure though, there will be trouble.

Well, it seems pretty evident to me that if God exists, the single greatest endeavour to which you can apply yourself is to know Him as fully as possible. It seems equally evident to me that to refuse to pursue knowing God - if He can be known - would quite naturally produce some very unhappy consequences.

What happened to "I would have no choice but to bow down in awe of him?

Christ didn't come to Earth in the fullness of his divine glory and power. His purpose here wasn't to declare his deity but to do for humanity what it could not do for itself: satisfy the justice of a perfectly holy God. So, his full God-ness was veiled in human flesh, without the full power and glory that would compel the submission of all humanity.

You are so frustratingly right. I have no idea. Why doesn't he just sit down with me and explain who he is, why we are here and what the general deal is?

That's exactly what the Bible does!

And do so personally in 2015 English. Don't send a fallible messenger, do so personally or at the very least use some super natural method that removes all doubt.

Luke 11:9-13
9 "So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
10 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
11 If a son asks for bread from any father among you, will he give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will he give him a serpent instead of a fish?
12 Or if he asks for an egg, will he offer him a scorpion?
13 If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!"

I'm ranting and trivialising a bit. Hope I'm not offending. I do think it illustrates my frustrations though.

No worries. Rant as you must.

Selah.

 

[Gumph]

Phew, that quite a bit to absorb and get my head around. Thanks for all the effort.

Gumph,
Instead of answering the last posts point by point, let me cover some topics and make some clarifications that should help in our discussion. First is what I think your main problem is and that is believing ancient texts written by men 2000+ years ago as being truth. And the second issue would fold into the first and that is how can truth transcend time and not be affected.

Yeah that's pretty much my general concern. Most of the rest of the post seems to be about the techniques used to interpret and verify that what was written was in fact written at the time and that those original texts have been preserved adequately and interpreted as accurately as possible. I thank you for that information, and I think it would be fair for me to accept for now that all a good job was done by all concerned. To discuss further is going to require a lot of research.

It didn't really seem to deal with how reliable the original text is though. Did I miss the appropriate lines perhaps?

So, when an event took place that the ANE wanted to explain or to transmit a description of the event to another person, the cognition of the world they lived in was used. We call it mythology but to them it was fact and truth and mythology was the science of the ANE.

Doesn't that allow for something that has a presently rational explanation to be attributed to a super natural cause?

When we use modern sciences to redefine the Old World science of the ANE, it violates the message of the author of the texts. The truthfulness of the ANE authors is challenged because of what we have forced on their text and this removes the original message and replaces it with our interpretation. So, when we say that Christ died and then rose again as described in Scripture, it is truth and it transcends time because to attempt to alter the truth embedded in the Biblical text is to take that text, the message that lies behind the text, and make it reader defined. This cannot be done without changing the intent of the author. It is, after all, the purpose of reading the Bible; to gain the meaning that the author intended.

This kind of reinforces my nagging worry that this is an unnecessarily difficult task. Intention, interpretation, these are words that concern me. They create doubt, they create varying outcomes, they create confusion.

Billions of people are now required to rely on an intellectual minority who study this complicated scripture, and then present the results to us. I get lied to every day, and although that of course does not mean that this is a lie, surely you can understand why so much scepticism exist.

 

[Gumph]

I have never seen any refutations that are considered valid arguing a different death for Jesus. You have presented “what if” scenarios concerning the disappearance of the body but those scenarios don’t stand up to the ANE culture’s environment.

Simply because a body went missing and no one can explain why, doesn't necessarily mean it rose from the dead. Yes, "what if" scenarios can be regarded as improbable, but surely never as impossible?

Let me try a different angle of questioning. If God wanted to show beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was divine, why did he not make the resurrection a grand spectacle for thousands to witness?

With what we have covered it is easier to see why the NT accounts are accepted as written.

I can accept that scholars have done their best to interpret the original texts into a way we can possibly understand and may have done a damn good job.

I can accept that there are valid reason why the texts were written at later dates.

We have no way of exercising a method of falsification on the physical accounts and we have no reason to doubt the truthfulness of the NT authors.

They may well have been doing their best to tell the truth, but doubt remains a huge black cloud over this IMO:

- Oral tradition is not 100% reliable
- We don't know details of the original witnesses and the original writers. Some say that the gospels are not necessarily from individuals.
- What did they see, but not record?

Surely these count as good reasons to have at least a bit of doubt, or even a lot?

So we must accept the accounts in the NT as truthful which leaves one with a choice. To accept the accounts as truthful or to deny them. But to deny their truthfulness, one needs to prove that they are false.

I think there is too much doubt to accept them as reliable ... so far. I also think its fair to ask for more evidence (hence my request for an alternative to the Bible).

To ask one to prove that the texts are false is as difficult as proving they are true, possibly more so. We don't have the means to do so reliably (either way), because so much evidence has disappeared.

Your desire is for God to create a Gospel account 2.5

That would be wonderful.

but this is unreasonable. First of all, it would require God to sacrifice His Son at each stage of major detachment of the message receiving cultures from the message giving one. Surly you see the absurdity in that solution.

No not at all. He is asking me to dedicate my one and only life to him. I think its perfectly reasonable to ask him to show himself. I don't actually yet get why the sacrificing of his son was even decided upon, so I would rather expect another means of super natural display.

Perhaps you want God to reenter the human experience and proclaim the truthfulness of Jesus’ death and resurrection, but any supernatural occurrence would be met with attacks by the scientific centers that are run by atheists and antitheists. There is no amount of supernatural evidence that would convince unregenerate mankind that the resurrection did take place and that sin is covered by Jesus death.

A God appearing to each individual across the world in their own image at thee same time, sitting down and explaining everything in our own language, and then doing so every decade, would be very difficult to explain away.

I am sure many other examples could be conjured up. At the very least it would turn true Christian believers into the majority on this planet, rather than the minority.

 

[Gumph]

No, I'm afraid not. First of all, God has left more than mere "clues." The record of Scripture is most certainly more than just a "clue." And the philosophical arguments I mentioned are more than clues as well. They offer logically-airtight arguments in favor of God's existence and as such are as solid ground for asserting His existence as anything empirical.

We can go on about the semantics around "clues". The point is he has not stood up in front of us physically and explained the rules and requirements. Instead he has chosen a seemingly odd way to show himself and in doing so left much doubt and confusion.

Not sure I agree on those air-tight God arguments. At best they explain that a God of sort must exist, but the God is very broadly defined, and for Christianity it seems, we must return to the Bible to be shown that its the Christian God who is the answer.

Well, the treasure isn't a mystery, it's a Person: God Himself. And the "map" to Him is through faith in Christ as your Saviour and Lord. Not particularly complicated, actually.

A treasure a can't see, touch, hear or use any device to experience. To me that's a mystery.

You may understand what "faith in Christ" means and requires, but when you compare that with a list of instructions or a picture of where something can be found, its frightfully complicated for me.

 

[yesyoushould]

I don't deny we exist. Its the existence of a current Deity that I am suspicious of.

Even God said He is rejected by the world.

I don't see anything wrong with speaking of Biblical scriptures that say evil rules the world and those of the world hate God.

 

[yesyoushould]

Even the gospels say that the world isn't the kingdom of God.

John 18:36


To be a friend of the world, the murder, the violence, the hatred, the lying, the deceit, the greed, isn't of God. In fact, all that are burdened by those things are for God.

 

[Gumph]

Another summary analogy if I may, which I hope conveys how and why I keep using the word "doubt".

Imagine if you will, that a friend of mine comes running up to me and says: "Gumph! I have the answer, I know the way, come look and see for yourself". He hands me some letters written by some folk who lived in the area a generation ago. These letters tell of the most wonderful supernatural miracles performed by their leader. They explain that he claimed to be the creator of our world. They have all since left to take a journey to the central Sahara, where they are to be finally enlightened. Some of their children remain in the neighbourhood and they seem to be really great, content people. They encourage all who ask to visit the Sahara. They have left these letters to encourage others to follow. These letters are verified to be actually written by the folk who lived here. The places mentioned in the letters still exist. Certain parts of the letters can be verified, such as the fact that there was really a lunar eclipse during one of the events as mentioned in the letters.

What may I ask would be a reasonable reaction for me? Should I laugh it off? Should I investigate further, if so how? Should I pack my bags and head for the Sahara? can you see how much doubt exists around this scenario.

I realise I'm running the risk of offending some people here and that my analogy has its fair share of holes, but it gives an indication as to how far out some of Christianity's claims can appear at first. Yes, its simplistic but its not meant to trivialise. I'm hoping you can maybe point out some factors that make the Bible so different from these letters.

I'll even start:

1) These letters don't have 2 billion people claiming to follow and believe in them.
2) ?

 

[golgotha61]

It didn't really seem to deal with how reliable the original text is though. Did I miss the appropriate lines perhaps?

The question of your acceptance of the metaphysical comes into play here. The Christian believes that God imbued His authority through the author, even if the source was oral, into the text as it was transferred into the text.

Remembering that the cultures, during the time of God's revelation, were hearing dominate, the chief authoritative milieu was the spoken word. Since the scribes were professionals in transcription and the culture placed a great deal of importance on that profession, the accuracy of the transmission from the oral form of a narrative to the textual form was done with great care so as not to violate the oral authority.

Doesn't that allow for something that has a presently rational explanation to be attributed to a super natural cause?

If we specifically look at what the Bible describes as an occurrence of God's work, it is simply in keeping with the ANE understanding of their worldview. All that occurred in the world was the work of the gods. It was no different for Israel, they were a product of their cognitive environment, just as we are today.

There are descriptions of events in the Bible that we may be able to attribute to an explanation through modern scientific application. However, great care must be taken. There are events in the Bible that are considered to be miraculous by Christians that the scientific world would rather apply its methodology to and redefine as a natural occurrence.

Here is the problem with this. Let's view the material world and the metaphysical world as a layer cake with the material on the bottom and the metaphysical on top (apropos don't you think?). Now enters the scientist who wants to define the occurrences in the bottom layer of the cake; no problem, he can test the material world for falsification and be within the authority of science. But, when he tries to apply tests of falsification that were used in the bottom layer to the top layer, the authority of science does not apply here. Science can define how something happened but it cannot define the purpose of the event.

That was problem one. The next problem is probably more common and that is the accuracy of the interpretation of the narrative that contains the occurrence. It has been my experience that issues with Scripture violating science is as much an interpretation issue as an authority issue.

This kind of reinforces my nagging worry that this is an unnecessarily difficult task. Intention, interpretation, these are words that concern me. They create doubt, they create varying outcomes, they create confusion.

The salvation message is clear and uncomplicated and that is the central theme of the Bible as a whole. These other areas that you have focused on are areas of deeper understanding of the ancient world and how God interacted with its inhabitants. In reality, a complete understanding of ever OT text and every NT text means nothing, but a lack of understanding of salvation and its simplicity is eternal in scope.

Billions of people are now required to rely on an intellectual minority who study this complicated scripture, and then present the results to us. I get lied to every day, and although that of course does not mean that this is a lie, surely you can understand why so much scepticism exist.

No, salvation is the eternal message and that message is simple and clearly presented in God's Word. All that is needed is for this Word to reach those billions of people and to let them read it or hear for themselves, there are still hearing dominated cultures, and that is my job and yours if you decide to accept the challenge.

 

[golgotha61]

Simply because a body went missing and no one can explain why, doesn't necessarily mean it rose from the dead. Yes, "what if" scenarios can be regarded as improbable, but surely never as impossible?

I am afraid that the within the culture and the political climate in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's ministry, does make those "what if" scenarios impossible without some verifiable evidence to support them. Like I said before, there are no scholars that will support these improbabilities. So, if one wants to "doubt" based on these scenarios, it is a matter of choice and not evidence.

Let me try a different angle of questioning. If God wanted to show beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was divine, why did he not make the resurrection a grand spectacle for thousands to witness?

The answer is in Scripture itself. In Luke 16, Jesus gives a parable that addresses the very request you have just made. Lazarus was a Jew who decided to ignore the law and he ended up dead and separated from God. However, he was concerned that his family would end up in the same place of separation that he was in and he asked Abraham to send messengers to his family to convince them of the authenticity of the Scriptures.

Abraham gave Lazarus the answer that you were given: you don't need a separate witness because you have the Moses and the prophets. This was the answer to Lazarus and if one were to contextualize that message to apply to you, it would be this: you don't need a "grand spectacle" you have the the Gospels and the Epistles.

Then Lazarus asked Abraham to send one back from the dead to witness to his family and again the answer was "no." The reason this time was because that even if "one were to return from the dead" it would not convince them that the Scipture/Moses and the Prophets was authentic.

We have all that is needed and the onus is now on us. God has accomplished enough for the true seeker to know and understand what is required for a relationship with Him. There is no more responsibility to place on God, it is all on each person to accept what is given in the Biblical narratives.

- Oral tradition is not 100% reliable

The oral tradition is part of what is covered in the reference material that I gave above. And according to the scholars in that material, oral tradition is more reliable than the text because of the cognitive environment in which these traditions resided.

- We don't know details of the original witnesses and the original writers.

Sure we do. We know more details about these folks than any other ancient group in the world. There are over 5 thousand manuscripts that detail these authors and their narratives and this can not be said about any other group of ancient authors, and their works, in the history of mankind.

Some say that the gospels are not necessarily from individuals.

This is irrelevant to the canonicity of the Biblical books. We can go into this but this is tied to the hearing dominant culture and that fact that the oral message was the authority in this culture and that the literate population was extremely thin.

- What did they see, but not record?

Again, this is irrelevant to the authority contained in what we already have. I don't think that more manuscripts would satisfy you, and I think you know that already. We have more text containing the NT narratives, than any other ancient corpus relevant to one man and his life than any other in history.

To ask one to prove that the texts are false is as difficult as proving they are true, possibly more so. We don't have the means to do so reliably (either way), because so much evidence has disappeared.

The fact that it is difficult to falsify the Biblical record is irrelevant to the argument. In fact, I would think that the level of difficulty would signify how authentic the records are and would logically reduce the doubt level. If evidence has disappeared, how do you know that? You can not measure what no long exists. And the argument goes back to the irrelevance of the plethoric nature of the texts defining their authority and inspiration.

 

[golgotha61]

Another summary analogy if I may, which I hope conveys how and why I keep using the word "doubt".

Imagine if you will, that a friend of mine comes running up to me and says: "Gumph! I have the answer, I know the way, come look and see for yourself". He hands me some letters written by some folk who lived in the area a generation ago. These letters tell of the most wonderful supernatural miracles performed by their leader. They explain that he claimed to be the creator of our world. They have all since left to take a journey to the central Sahara, where they are to be finally enlightened. Some of their children remain in the neighbourhood and they seem to be really great, content people. They encourage all who ask to visit the Sahara. They have left these letters to encourage others to follow. These letters are verified to be actually written by the folk who lived here. The places mentioned in the letters still exist. Certain parts of the letters can be verified, such as the fact that there was really a lunar eclipse during one of the events as mentioned in the letters.

What may I ask would be a reasonable reaction for me? Should I laugh it off? Should I investigate further, if so how? Should I pack my bags and head for the Sahara? can you see how much doubt exists around this scenario.

I realise I'm running the risk of offending some people here and that my analogy has its fair share of holes, but it gives an indication as to how far out some of Christianity's claims can appear at first. Yes, its simplistic but its not meant to trivialise. I'm hoping you can maybe point out some factors that make the Bible so different from these letters.

I'll even start:

1) These letters don't have 2 billion people claiming to follow and believe in them.
2) ?

I see no resurrection narratives in your scenario and this is the pillar of the Gospel message.

I have already covered this in the truth formulation that I gave in post #22: 1. Logical consistency.
2. Empirical adequacy.
3. Experiential relevance.

At this point what I see is a willful doubt and not one of authentic inquiry into truth.

 

[aiki]

I'm hoping you can maybe point out some factors that make the Bible so different from these letters.

I'll even start:

1) These letters don't have 2 billion people claiming to follow and believe in them.
2) ? __________________

The Bible has the mark of the divine upon it for the following reasons:

1.) In spite of being written in three different languages (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic), over a span of some 1500 years, by forty different writers from widely varying walks of life, the Bible remains thematically unified.
2.) Fulfilled prophecy.
3.) Archaeological/historical accuracy.
4.) Survivability/popularity.
5.) Effect upon individuals and cultures.
6.) Personal testimony to the life-changing power of its truth.
7.) Explanatory power/correspondence to reality.

Except for point two, none of these points is, in and of itself, a knock-down argument in favor of the divine origin of the Bible. Cumulatively, however, these points (and others I have not mentioned) serve to present a powerful case to the honest, open seeker for truth of the supernatural character of Scripture.

Selah.

 

[Gumph]

The question of your acceptance of the metaphysical comes into play here. The Christian believes that God imbued His authority through the author, even if the source was oral, into the text as it was transferred into the text.

I think this could be the crux of the matter here. On what grounds to they hold this belief? Its something I find problematic.

... the accuracy of the transmission from the oral form of a narrative to the textual form was done with great care so as not to violate the oral authority.

Even if this was true, the original oral interpretation is nothing more than the testimony of a few men. Even if great care was taken over everything, the scriptures remain simply statements / testimony / writings / opinions from men of the time.

I suspect it takes the afore mentioned faith that these were words inspired by God. That's a huge leap of faith IMO.

The salvation message is clear and uncomplicated and that is the central theme of the Bible as a whole.

Hmmmm. Not sure about this. I probably couldn't say what it, but thats unfair as I'm sure most of you could. It remains a very demanding text and it would be so much simpler if there was a second source (other than the Bible) to verify this whole system and process.

 

[Gumph]

I am afraid that the within the culture and the political climate in Jerusalem at the time of Christ's ministry, does make those "what if" scenarios impossible without some verifiable evidence to support them. Like I said before, there are no scholars that will support these improbabilities. So, if one wants to "doubt" based on these scenarios, it is a matter of choice and not evidence.

Phew, I find that a brave comment. You are writing off something as impossible that may merely be improbable.

A question around this event then: How is the jump made from "body is missing" to "it rose from the dead"?

This was the answer to Lazarus and if one were to contextualize that message to apply to you, it would be this: you don't need a "grand spectacle" you have the the Gospels and the Epistles.

Surely a message as important as this does need a grand spectacle. Not only that, it should be repeated. This acceptance is at the heart of my problem. I cannot understand why so many find it acceptable to rely on a single source of information supposedly delivered in a single situation (life).

Then Lazarus asked Abraham to send one back from the dead to witness to his family and again the answer was "no." The reason this time was because that even if "one were to return from the dead" it would not convince them that the Scipture/Moses and the Prophets was authentic.

Personally, if I had a parent return from the dead and spend the day with me, explaining how this all worked, that would go a long way to convincing me. I thinks there are a lot of Lazaruses out here, and their request seems most reasonable in my eyes.

There is no more responsibility to place on God, it is all on each person to accept what is given in the Biblical narratives.

This does seem to be the case. It seems to be boiling down to what threshold each of us has for acceptable provisional evidence.

Again, this is irrelevant to the authority contained in what we already have. I don't think that more manuscripts would satisfy you, and I think you know that already.

No most likely not. Its the ones that may have been lost, stolen and destroyed over time which may be crucial, and once again cast doubt over this method of delivering such an important message.

If evidence has disappeared, how do you know that? You can not measure what no long exists.

I don't "know" that, but is it not reasonable to suspect that over 2000 years, it is just possible that there have been people who felt the need to destroy documents, and some being lost in natural disasters and wars? Its simply this creation of doubt that is the issue.

Perhaps this level of doubt is acceptable to you. Personally I think a second verifiable source, would be a very fair request.

 

[Gumph]

At this point what I see is a willful doubt and not one of authentic inquiry into truth.

You may be right. I cannot deny that there is lots of doubt. I like to think that its not wilful, other than being from a natural sceptic (of just about anything).

I am wondering why the Christian truth is not much more obvious to all, and not just to Christians.

 

[Receiver]

...
I am wondering why the Christian truth is not much more obvious to all, and not just to Christians.

What is "the Christian truth"?

A statement?
A claim?
A philosophy?

Is this what God's plan and desire for man is?

No, it's a LIFE.
People that did as Jesus said at the start and went to see for themselves found it. He even gave signs (miracles) to help people.

The Pharisees who stood afar off and tried to fit him in to their preconcenptions, then judged and rejected him when he didn't fit.

These people missed "the day of their visitation", time is short, the door is open now, none of us knows what is "round the corner".

 

[Gumph]

However you choose to define it, it seems to be something that is obvious to some and totally unclear to others. I wonder why this is necessarily so.

 

[Receiver]

However you choose to define it, it seems to be something that is obvious to some and totally unclear to others. I wonder why this is necessarily so.

"At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes." (Matt. 11:25)

A "babe" fully accepts their need to receive from God, they will find a way to get to him, a more self-reliant, "sophisticated" person will seek to inderstand God on their own terms, not his.

You need to "come and see".

"The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here." (Matt. 12:42)

 

[aiki]

However you choose to define it, it seems to be something that is obvious to some and totally unclear to others. I wonder why this is necessarily so.

2 Corinthians 4:3-6
3 But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
4whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them.
5 For we do not preach ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your bondservants for Jesus' sake.
6 For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

Jeremiah 29:13
13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.

John 3:19-20
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

John 6:43-45
43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, "Do not murmur among yourselves.
44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
45 It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught by God.' Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Matthew 7:7-8
7 "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
8 For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Selah.