Originally posted by Aeson
Just wondering why you would claim these events were exceedingly likely to have happened?
The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai (Horeb) and for Christians, the Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Ultimately, any person faced with the biblical text has to come to terms with these events. You can either deny them (but you would be rejecting exceedingly likely events), reject their efficacy and importance, or you can accept them and become a Christian in doing so (or if you only accept the former, become a Jew).
Just wondering why you would claim these events were exceedingly likely to have happened?
The National Revelation of God at Mount Sinai
The most convincing argument in my mind on this point is based on the nature of the claim. No other religion that I am aware of claims that God revealed himself to the entirety of their nation as Judaism does. I think there is a simple reason for this fact: it has never occurred to any other nation and trying to propagate such a claim (if it was a lie) upon an entire people that had alledgedly experienced this event would gain shortshrift. Imagine, if you were told that Congress declared that Elvis Presley was really alive because everybody in the U.S.A. has seen him. I'm guessing more than a few people would oppose this measure. But, in the case of the Jewish people of that time, there is no evidenced that they doubted their historical encounter with God. Most other religions, i.e. Islam, are based upon the revelations of God to one man. One's belief therefore rests in whether or not you trust the testimony of that one man. In the case of Judaism, one's belief would rest on whether or not you trust the testimony of an entire nation. I'll take the latter over the former any day.
Other arguments which you may find more convincing then this one are sociological and anthropological in nature. There is the simple historical fact of a people whose religious life, traditions and fortunes changed drastically. From slaves in Egypt to possessors of land in Canaan. From monolatry (at best) and polytheism (at worst) to strict monotheism (a decidedly original concept in the ANE). A culture, somehow, someway, changed so drastically that it is difficult to account for it if it is not rooted in an encounter with God at Sinai. Particularly given the substance of the change (i.e. we can explain rapid change in Britain in 19th century as a result of industrialization because of the substance of the change. The nature of the Hebrew/Israelite change presupposes some sort of encounter with a god.)
There are more reasons and sources but I'll stop here for now.
The Crucifixition and Resurrection of Jesus
First, Jesus is a real historical figure. There is simply no question on this fact. No historical figure in world history has more extant textual evidence to his existence than Jesus. Deny Jesus' existence and you might as well deny all your world history. There are references to Jesus not only in Christian literature (canonical and non-canonical) but also he is polemicized in the Talmud (where interestingly he is described as a miracle-worker, though his miracles are ascribed to Satan); he is mentioned in the Koran and other Muslim literature (where his miracles are sometimes even more incredulous than reported in the Gospels); he is mentioned in the work of Jewish/Roman historian Josephus; he is mentioned in Roman literature. Each of these sources takes for granted his existence and his crucifixition.
Second, on Jesus' resurrection, there is again an enormous body of literature that testifies to the event. Though granted, and as one would expect, it is all Christian. (People who don't believe in Jesus' resurrection are simply not going to report the evidence that it occurred.) In addition to the literature, we have the unexplained evolution of Christianity. Judaism had many sects during this period and many would-be messiahs who were followed. Yet, whenever the leaders of these sects died, so did the sects themselves. The bible reports quite interestingly that the disciples were dismayed and scattered after the death of Jesus (if they were making this up, why not report that they stayed firm in their convictions? That they trusted Jesus could never be killed? The Gospels routinely make the disciples look bad). Yet, for some reason, something changes the disciples so that they opt to challenge the Jewish and Roman authorities with their conviction that Jesus was resurrected. They even did so to the point of death. Ah, you may say, many people die for religious convictions? But, I think if you examine the possible motives and the consequences of why people die for religious convictions, you'll see how different and abnormal the early Christians were. Not to degrade Islam, but its martyrs die as much for social and political reasons as for religious ones. Also despite the increasing problem that the Jews and Romans perceived Christianity was becoming, they never produced his body despite the fact that it was in their charge and protection. It may be an argument from silence but geez its a pretty convincing one! I've explained this reasoning in a very colloquial way but it is actually rooted in strong sociological and anthropological logic and theory. Further sociological and anthropological reasons again make it likely that the Jesus event occurred.
But, notwithstanding, I do not expect that most people would be persuaded by any evidence of this nature simply because the events are too manifestly unique and require too much of a person to accept them. People are persuaded with this type of evidence on all sorts of other issues but they are issues that hold no personal significance for them. This issue, however, would radically change a person's worldview and people simply don't swap their worldview for another one on the basis of this type of evidence. It's insufficient and I completely understand that. I think the Fourth Gospel acknowledges this fact when it declares, "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe" (Jn 20:29b). Also, for some reason, I believe that God has made it so that faith is not unreasonable but it is ALWAYS necessary. I'm not sure why he did this and I often question the justice of it. But, we also have the testimony of other Christians. Some Christians have believed without seeing. Others, however, have experienced Jesus in very personal ways: actual appearances, visions, discourse, etc. (I, for one, would be an agnostic or atheists if I had not been born into a Christian family--I believe in Jesus because I trust the experiences of family members). But, ultimately, even this is not enough for many people; they rationalize it away by appealing to seemingly comparable phenomenon in other religious movements and amongst Elvis Presley fans. Some just need Jesus to present himself to them. However, some would not even believe (or at least would not serve) if given that grace. The nature of human evil is that humans are alienated from and so either deny or hate their creator. Not even he can change that without compromising his holiness (and thereby making himself something other than he is; put another way, Not even he can change that because then he would not be God; it's a logical impossibility).
Comment