Proving God
I happened upon (as so often is the case) a "letter to the editor" in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer which objected to the newspaper giving time to the "Christian Myth" in their newspaper - specifically referencing the very same series of articles which I noted HERE.
Now, I usually do not make it a point to engage in theological debates with atheists. As a former atheist and hopefully someone who has a bit of maturity and perhaps even a tiny shred of experiential wisdom, I can say that such conversations/debates/arguments are rarely fruitful. However, I am one who works in the realm of science, seeking and generating cold hard facts day in and day out. And, oddly as it sounds, I believe in the Christian message despite what Mr. Templeton says with regard to our Paschal proclamation not having "the tiniest shred of evidence" for it actually being true.
As one interested in cold hard facts, I would offer a couple of points to Mr. Templeton with regard to some of his claims. Specifically with regard to this:
there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence that anyone there at the time claimed he did. [rise from the dead]
Mr. Templeton asserts that the first claim of a resurrection of Jesus wasn't made until more than 20 years later by Paul of Tarsus I might ask how he knows that this is the "first" claim? It might be the earliest dated manuscript that makes this claim, but that is not at all the same as saying that it is the first claim - along with all that seems to imply about the early Christian faith.
Furthermore, I am perplexed by his next assertion: The Gospel accounts were written generations later by men who were probably not even born during the period they wrote about. They didn't even know what year Jesus died, and we still don't...we have no writings from Jesus or anyone who ever saw him
Now, I am confused...if they were written generations later (how does Templeton know this?), then why the second assertion that the authors were "probably not even born during the period they wrote about" [emphasis mine]. These two points seem mutually exclusive of each other, so which is it? Probably or Definately? Well, the fact is, Mr. Templeton does not know...neither do I.
To say with absolute certainty that the Gospels were written generations later or to even say that they were written by people who probably did not live during the time of the events described is as much a statement of faith as is the Christian Paschal proclamation - perhaps one takes more faith than the other, but they both lack clear and convincing evidence. I would contend that Mr. Templeton is unable to prove either of his seemingly contradictory points.
Furthermore, the Gospel writers DID date their manuscripts in the common method of the day, for example: "In the time of Herod king of Judea..." and "during the time of King Herod..." and "took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria." If the extant manuscripts we have today were to say "Jesus was born in 6 A.D." then Mr. Templeton would have a very good argument that they were written "generations later."
Now I am sure the PI will have received a number of letters whuch will try and argue with Mr. Templeton in the realm of textual criticism. They will no doubt cite the overall impressive number of manuscripts and fragments that make the New Testament among some of the best datable ancient works in the world and that most reputable scholars do not seriously doubt a 1st century authorship...but I've no interest or time in treading that road.
I cannot prove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ...at least not in a single letter to the editor of a local newspaper, nor even in a single conversation. There are somethings in this world that require more than words to fully express and fully appreciate them. I liken trying to argue about the existance of God with a stranger, to trying to argue with a potential spouse that you love him or her with a lengthy letter full of bullet points and graphs. In end love is something that must be experienced and lived.
A Saint of my Church by the name of Seraphim of Sarov once said: "Acquire a peaceful spirit, and around you thousands will be saved." Which in my mind speaks volumes.
I've no wish to argue with Mr. Templeton, but merely to point out that sometimes atheist's need faith too and sometimes masquerade mythology as history.
- Get link
- Other Apps
Comments
You should! Very good response.
Sigh
The main problem in Alexander research, as B. Bosworth succinctly states in his concise introduction, is the "dearth of contemporary sources" (1): we have to rely mainly on derivative writings of the centuries after Alexander's death. Following the communis opinio this material falls into two branches, Arrian and the so-called Vulgata, the latter consisting of Diodorus, Curtius, Justin, and -- inter alia -- the Metz Epitome, an anonymous text from late antiquity, once preserved in a lone now lost 10th century manuscript. What makes interpretation of these secondary sources so difficult is that they did not simply follow or transcribe one primary author but deliberately mixed and distorted their sources, adapted or modified them for literary purposes, misunderstood them -- or a combination of these. The case gets even worse if we bear in mind that the surviving fragments of our lost primary Alexander historians -- Onesicritus, Nearchus, Aristobulus, Cleitarchus among others -- are also paraphrases by secondary writers. Hard evidence is scarce, and dating and interpreting the inscriptions, coins, papyri, and archeological discoveries that have emerged in recent years is as controversial as ever. So obviously the thoughts and solutions offered in the volume under review 'cannot claim to seek universal truth'
By contrast, the availability of multiple manuscripts of scripture, together with quotes of scripture from the Early Fathers who were within living memory of the Apostles provides a sounder basis for believing in the details of the story of Jesus than believing the details of the story of Alexander the Great!