Why does God leave no tracks?

[Davian]

If you think that Shakespeare is absent from Macbeth's world then it is not surprising to me that you do not see the presence of God in our world.

If the "presence of God" is that weak upon our world, it can simply be explained as projection on your part.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The gospels are the contemporary accounts of the miracles.

Or so it is claimed.
And there are also inconsistencies between them.

He had others to do it? Who cares who wrote about him...

People who care about the importance of who or what the source is.
Anybody can write anything down and it doesn't necessarily reflect what is true.

How do you know no one else wrote anything down?

We don't. We can only know if somebody wrote something down.
And we don't have the evidence to suggest that that is the case.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for a document like that to survive 2000 years?

Seeing how people went through great lengths, succesfully in preserving things of far less importance, I'ld expect something as important as this would be preserved with double that effort.

In fact, being an all powerful god and all, one could also ask the question why this god didn't have everything recorded in an undestructable document.

That is speculation. No one knows when they were written.

Historians might disagree.

 

[cloudyday2]

Macbeth to King Duncan: "Why doesn't Shakespeare leave any tracks?"

But that is the point. The plays written by Shakespeare have a message and a plot and drama and so forth. If the characters in one of Shakespeare's plays would stop and look at the big picture, then they should see evidence for Shakespeare's existence in the all of those things. If God existed and revealed his personality to men, then men should be able to predict the sorts of things that God would do in the world and prove or disprove God.

 

[expos4ever]

Nope, they didn't care. The Jews were given the decision on Jesus and they said to crucify. Rome didn't care either way.

I am quite confident they did care, at least to the extent that Jesus was seen, and rightly so, as a threat to the general peace and good order. Rome was known to not tolerate those who would disturb the status quo. And Jesus certainly was creating quite a ruckus in Palestine.

 

[ewq1938]

I am quite confident they did care, at least to the extent that Jesus was seen, and rightly so, as a threat to the general peace and good order. Rome was known to not tolerate those who would disturb the status quo. And Jesus certainly was creating quite a ruckus in Palestine.

It was the Jews making all the ruckus and they were the ones that were able to get Rome to execute Jesus. Pilate found Jesus guilty of nothing and washed his hands of the matter removing any guilt of this upon him which means Rome is not responsible.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Israel is blamed for Christ's crucifixion.

 

[expos4ever]

Pilate found Jesus guilty of nothing and washed his hands of the matter removing any guilt of this upon him which means Rome is not responsible.

Surely you are not saying that the act of washing his hands absolved Rome of responsibility? Or that the Romans were not at least somewhat motivated to kill Jesus?

I suggest that the hand-washing was self-rationalizing theater: Pilate did not have to hand Jesus over for crucifixion and, his theatrics notwithstanding, his decision to do so clearly places some responsibility for Jesus' death on Rome.

 

[expos4ever]

The problem is that science can never find God's tracks. I ask myself if there is some inherent aspect of God that makes it impossible for Him to leave tracks. I ask myself if God can actually do anything meaningful without leaving tracks.

Are you assuming that the scientific method is the only methods whereby we can legitimately search for "tracks""? I am not sure exactly what you mean by "science". For my part, the scientific method entails developing models of reality that make falsifiable predictions. On that view, the claim that Washington was the first President cannot be validated by "science". But surely you believe this claim about Washington, right?

I suggest it is reasonable to consider "historical" tracks as well as tracks that can be discovered by "science". Yes, the claims of Christianity are startling and difficult to believe off the bat. But, it is at least possible that believing those claims might be the best explanation for the events that followed the life of Jesus. Obviously, if you are going to claim that it is a priori impossible for someone to be resurrected from death, you are clearly not going to accept the Christian worldview. But, I suggest, it is not the path of open-minded inquiry to assume this.

 

[ewq1938]

Surely you are not saying that the act of washing his hands absolved Rome of responsibility? Or that the Romans were not at least somewhat motivated to kill Jesus?

As I said and as scripture shows, Rome had no interest in Christ. It was only the Jews being so up in arms against Jesus that caused the crucifixion and indeed Israel is blamed for it as I showed.

I suggest that the hand-washing was self-rationalizing theater: Pilate did not have to hand Jesus over for crucifixion and, his theatrics notwithstanding, his decision to do so clearly places some responsibility for Jesus' death on Rome.

Doesn't match up with what is in the scriptures though.


The scripture doesn't say, " Therefore let all ROME know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

 

[expos4ever]

As I said and as scripture shows, Rome had no interest in Christ.

All you have shown is that Pilate washed his hands - that can easily be explained as an act of rationalization - an attempt to pretend that he bore no responsibility.

It was only the Jews being so up in arms against Jesus that caused the crucifixion and indeed Israel is blamed for it as I showed.

I agree that the Jewish leadership bore some responsibility for the Crucifixion - perhaps most of it. But you have not really made a case that Rome did not also bear responsibility. On the contrary, it is well-known that Rome did not tolerate trouble-makers. And Jesus certainly fits that bill. So there is every reason to suspect that the Romans were all too happy to be rid of Him (and therefore, play a role in that coming to pass.

The scripture doesn't say, " Therefore let all ROME know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

How is this support for your position? The fact that the person who made this statement sees the Jews as substantially responsible does not mean that he (the speaker) does not acknowledge that Rome had a part to play. I could equally well point out that the Scripture doesn't say:

Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye alone to the exclusion of any other guilty parties have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

In fact, we know for a fact that it was the Romans who actually carried out the crucifixion. So you cannot use the Acts text (in its actual form of course) as a kind of literal statement of complete truth since we know that it was the Romans, and the Jews, who actually carried out the crucifixion.

So this Acts text really does not support the position that the Jewish leadership bore sole responsibility for Jesus' death.

 

[ewq1938]

All you have shown is that Pilate washed his hands - that can easily be explained as an act of rationalization - an attempt to pretend that he bore no responsibility.

It's important that Rome found Christ not guilty and left the decision up to the Jews.

I agree that the Jewish leadership bore some responsibility for the Crucifixion - perhaps most of it. But you have not really made a case that Rome did not also bear responsibility.

I have actually but you don't agree. Scripture itself lays the guilt upon the Jews, not the Romans.

On the contrary, it is well-known that Rome did not tolerate trouble-makers. And Jesus certainly fits that bill.

He doesn't fit the bill. Christ caused no issue for the Romans. Only the Jews were causing all the trouble.

How is this support for your position? The fact that the person who made this statement sees the Jews as substantially responsible does not mean that he (the speaker) does not acknowledge that Rome had a part to play.

The speaker, viathe Holy Spirit, blames the Jews for the crucifixion. That's very important.

I could equally well point out that the Scripture doesn't say:

In fact, we know for a fact that it was the Romans who actually carried out the crucifixion. So you cannot use the Acts text (in its actual form of course) as a kind of literal statement of complete truth since we know that it was the Romans, and the Jews, who actually carried out the crucifixion.

They don't receive the blame for it though and that is what is most important.

So this Acts text really does not support the position that the Jewish leadership bore sole responsibility for Jesus' death.

And I disagree. It certainly does. I can also add this:

Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

He forgave the Romans.

 

[expos4ever]

I have actually but you don't agree. Scripture itself lays the guilt upon the Jews, not the Romans.

Where? All you have shown is that Pilate washed his hands (hardly a legitimate grounds for getting off the hook) and that the Jews were also responsible.

Again, the scripture where Peter (?) in Acts says the Jews crucified Christ cannot be taken literally (in the sense of apportioning blame to the Jews to the exclusion of the Romans) since we KNOW that the Romans nailed him to the cross, and therefore clearly bear some responsibility.

Even if Scriptures does not explicitly declare Rome's guilt, it is impossible to sensibly deny this. For a government to allow a man to be put to death for illegitimate reasons renders that government morally responsible.

Do you deny this?

If the American government caved to pressure by some group to put someone to death - and the American government has reasons to believe the person was innocent - how could the American government not bear at least some responsibility?

 

[cloudyday2]

Are you assuming that the scientific method is the only methods whereby we can legitimately search for "tracks""? I am not sure exactly what you mean by "science". For my part, the scientific method entails developing models of reality that make falsifiable predictions. On that view, the claim that Washington was the first President cannot be validated by "science". But surely you believe this claim about Washington, right?

I suggest it is reasonable to consider "historical" tracks as well as tracks that can be discovered by "science". Yes, the claims of Christianity are startling and difficult to believe off the bat. But, it is at least possible that believing those claims might be the best explanation for the events that followed the life of Jesus. Obviously, if you are going to claim that it is a priori impossible for someone to be resurrected from death, you are clearly not going to accept the Christian worldview. But, I suggest, it is not the path of open-minded inquiry to assume this.

The falsifiable prediction stuff comes from Popper and that definition only allows a scientist to prove something false. In actuality we know that scientists usually seek to prove something true. To do this science relies on induction (statistics, etc.). The results of scientific experiments are confidence intervals. That is my understanding. I'm not a scientist or a philosopher or anything like that. It's fun to think about these issues though.

Also, there is nothing about studying the past that makes science impossible. An archaeologist can set up an experiment and then discover "new" data by digging it out of the ground. The key is that the person designing the experiment cannot know about the data that is later used in the experiment.

 

[ewq1938]

Even if Scriptures does not explicitly declare Rome's guilt, it is impossible to sensibly deny this. For a government to allow a man to be put to death for illegitimate reasons renders that government morally responsible.

Do you deny this?

It's irrelevant. Jesus wanted the Roman's forgiven. They didn't know what they are doing which equals ignorance and ignorance of the law results in no sin. The Jews are said to be the ones guilty of the crucifixion as they knew they were doing wrong. Case is closed as far as scripture is concerned. Your own personal speculations about whether a government is morally responsible isn't reflected in the scriptures so it's moot.

 

[expos4ever]

It's irrelevant. Jesus wanted the Roman's forgiven.

There is simply no question here, scripture or no scripture.

Fact: The Romans actively crucified Jesus - they were not forced by the Jews to do so.

Therefore, they clearly bear at least some responsibility for the crucifixion.

Do you deny this? Please do not evade the question - it is clear and meaningful.

How do you know that Jesus when request forgiveness for those who crucified Him, He only was asking on behalf of the Romans? If you answer "because it was the Romans who nailed Him to the cross", you are effectively conceding the obvious - that the Romans bear some responsibility for the crucifixion.

I suggest you are in an impossible position. No rational person can deny that a government that actively participates in the execution of a man in the absence of reasonable evidence of guilt bears at least some moral culpability.

 

[ewq1938]

There is simply no question here, scripture or no scripture.

Fact: The Romans actively crucified Jesus - they were not forced by the Jews to do so.

Yes they were forced by the Jews because they wanted to placate them rather than face an uprising or rebellion, which was something that was in the minds of the Jews and did happen within a generation.

Therefore, they clearly bear at least some responsibility for the crucifixion.

Nope. Christ said they didn't know what they were doing and wanted them forgiven. They are no more guilty of Christ's death than a knife is guilty of someone's death.

Do you deny this? Please do not evade the question - it is clear and meaningful.

So is my responses, clearly denying this and giving evidence in support. Do you deny the Roman's were excused from any guilt?

How do you know that Jesus when request forgiveness for those who crucified Him, He only was asking on behalf of the Romans?

Context shows he is speaking about the Roman's who crucified him then cast lots for his clothes.

I suggest you are in an impossible position. No rational person can deny that a government that actively participates in the execution of a man in the absence of reasonable evidence of guilt bears at least some moral culpability.

You are ignoring the other things which excuse their guilt, and the verse that states the ones who are guilty.
The scriptural evidence supports my point of view in two ways: excusing the Romans, and placing the crucifixion on the Jews.

Act 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Israel (Jews) is blamed for Christ's crucifixion.

Mat 27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
Mat 27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

The Jews accept the blame and guilt of Christ's crucifixion!

Luk 23:33 And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.
Luk 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

The Roman's are excused from guilt due to ignorance and forgiven.

 

[expos4ever]

Yes they were forced by the Jews because they wanted to placate them rather than face an uprising or rebellion, which was something that was in the minds of the Jews and did happen within a generation.

How can you possibly suggest the Jews forced the Romans to do anything? - The Romans had vast military might. The Romans did not want rebellion so they took the course that would minimize that risk: placating the demands of the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus. But they clearly were not forced to do anything! They freely chose to do what was in their own best interests.

 

[expos4ever]

Nope. Christ said they didn't know what they were doing and wanted them forgiven. They are no more guilty of Christ's death than a knife is guilty of someone's death.

You appear to a have an agenda here. When Jesus asks God to forgive "them" for they don't know what they do, you have precisely zero evidence that the scope of application of this request was limited to the Romans.

In fact, by the terms of your own position - which entails blaming the Jews to the exclusion of the Romans - it is the Jews who are substantially responsible for the crucifixion and it is therefore the Jews who would be in the position of needing to be forgiven.

 

[expos4ever]

Context shows he is speaking about the Roman's who crucified him then cast lots for his clothes.

Obviously not! How can you possibly say this? The fact that some soldiers were casting lots does not mean that Jesus' request was directed at the Romans only. It is clearly at least plausible that Jesus is asking for forgiveness for all those involved in his death, not just the Romans. You seem bent on blaming it all on the Jews, so you claim that just because a few Romans were nearby casting lots they are the ones Jesus is seeking to forgive. Who the "them" is cannot be established based on physical proximity alone! Surely you must acknowledge this.

 

[ewq1938]

Obviously not! How can you possibly say this? The fact that some soldiers were casting lots does not mean that Jesus' request was directed at the Romans only. It is clearly at least plausible that Jesus is asking for forgiveness for all those involved in his death, not just the Romans.

Except context has only them present and being spoken of so including others would be incorrect.

You seem bent on blaming it all on the Jews

Not I, scripture blames the Jews and there is no "bent" involved.

, so you claim that just because a few Romans were nearby casting lots they are the ones Jesus is seeking to forgive. Who the "them" is cannot be established based on physical proximity alone! Surely you must acknowledge this.

He is talking about the ones who crucified him and were casting lots. They didn't know what they were doing but the Jews did know what they were doing. The Jews accepted the blame. You are ignoring all the evidence and are just stating your own unsupported opinion.

It's a fact Pilate refused to accept any blame. It's a fact the Jews accepted the blame. It's a fact Jesus forgave the Romans due to ignorance. It's a fact scripture states the Jews (Israel) are responsible for the crucifixion. I have provided all the scriptures to back those statements.

 

[ewq1938]

How can you possibly suggest the Jews forced the Romans to do anything? - The Romans had vast military might. The Romans did not want rebellion so they took the course that would minimize that risk: placating the demands of the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus. But they clearly were not forced to do anything! They freely chose to do what was in their own best interests.

You are contradicting yourself:

"The Romans did not want rebellion so they took the course that would minimize that risk: placating the demands of the Jewish leaders to kill Jesus."

That's how the Jews forced them to do what they wanted.