How Do I Know If There's A God?

[Socrates]

I think it is reasonable to assume that Christ Himself thought that He was the Word of God. Messianism and the idea of the Logos was a part of the religious culture of the time. None of the ideas in Christianity were made out of whole-cloth. Philo posited the Logos as the first-born of God. The Logos acted as an intermediary being between God and the World. The genetic similarity between Philo and Christian thought is unmistakable. 

 

Somehow I missed this.

 

The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death.

 

This was the final reason the Jewish authorities condemned Jesus to death - for making statements claiming equality with God, the great "I AM."  This event is recorded in all four Gospels.

And Christ did not retract or explain away HIs statements, but chose to be killed instead.

 

If Jesus was merely a man who was deluded into thinking He was the Only-Begotten Son of the Most-high God, His delusions certainly put him at odds with accepted beliefs of the society He grew up an lived in, and ultimately led to His painful death.  

If Christ was delusional then, His delusions must have been serious indeed!  (And yet somehow He was able to convince many other apparently sane people to follow his delusions.)

 

 

Of course this begs the question, if you believe Jesus Christ to not be Our Lord and Savior, but merely a tragically deluded egomaniac, why identify yourself as "Catholic" in your profile?

You're not even Christian.

[Socrates]

This I will agree with.

 

The record of Christ and the early Church is actually very strong compared with that of most events of the ancient world (for many ancient events, the only written records we have were written many generations after the events themselves.)  By standards of ancient writings, the four Gospels were newsflashes.

 

The only reason the recorded events of the life of Christ are so controversial is the miraculous, supernatural content - which obviously conflicts with the beliefs of atheists and other unbelievers.

[4588686]

Somehow I missed this.

 

The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death.

 

This was the final reason the Jewish authorities condemned Jesus to death - for making statements claiming equality with God, the great "I AM."  This event is recorded in all four Gospels.

And Christ did not retract or explain away HIs statements, but chose to be killed instead.

 

If Jesus was merely a man who was deluded into thinking He was the Only-Begotten Son of the Most-high God, His delusions certainly put him at odds with accepted beliefs of the society He grew up an lived in, and ultimately led to His painful death.  

If Christ was delusional then, His delusions must have been serious indeed!  (And yet somehow He was able to convince many other apparently sane people to follow his delusions.)

 

 

Of course this begs the question, if you believe Jesus Christ to not be Our Lord and Savior, but merely a tragically deluded egomaniac, why identify yourself as "Catholic" in your profile?

You're not even Christian.

 

 

Right.  You totally missed his point.  

 

 

Also, just as an aside to your sweeping, unnuanced historical claims:
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

Edited May 9, 2014 by Hasan

[4588686]

Oh, hey there, Philo, I guess that society 2,000 years ago was also really complicated.  Hmmmmm....

[Socrates]

Right.  You totally missed his point.  

 

 

Also, just as an aside to your sweeping, unnuanced historical claims:
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

 

 

Okay, perhaps you can explain what his point was that I apparently missed.  Or better yet, let Comrade John explain for himself what his point was.  (Not sure why you feel compelled to reply to all my responses to other posters.)

 

In any case, it is clear you totally missed my point.

 

 

And thanks for the Wiki link, though I'm not sure how it's supposed to refute anything I said.  The Church has always recognized the contributions of philosophy towards better understanding of theological truths (albeit imperfectly), and the philosophy of the Logos has contributed towards understanding of the Blessed Trinity.  No one denies that.

 

I'm not sure how much of this philosophy Jesus would have come in contact with as a small-town carpenter, but that's largely beside the point.

Just because one believes in the existence of the Divine Logos, it does not follow that it is in any way rational for one to believe himself to be the Divine Logos.

 

John's post (particularly the first sentence) implied that believing oneself to personally be the Only Begotten Son of God, or the eternal Divine Logos, was a perfectly rational, normal thought for a devout first-century Jew, while in truth it would be quite the opposite.

 

In the religion and society of Jesus' time and place, any identification of a human being with God was considered damnable blasphemy.

 

If I were to claim that I was personally the Only Son of God, or the Divine Logos incarnate, you would think I was nucking futs,and rightly so.

Such a claim would be no less outrageous and crazy in first-century Judea.

Probably more so, as I while might get sent to psychiatrist for such claims, Jesus faced painful execution.

 

The claim would be utter egomanical lunacy - unless, of course, Jesus Christ actually was in fact who He claimed to be.

 

The "liar, lunatic, or Lord" dilemma remains totally valid.

[Anomaly]

Just as possible that the mythology grew along with and after this human's few years. An leader speaking from the grave can't be killed again. An appealing transcendent message to people's under occupation. You can oppress and kill me in this life, but I'll be in glory in the next life. What's not to like if you have no hope in this world. And the madness grew.
People believe reverend Moon is a messiah, Jim Jones, David Koresh, they'll be beamed up on a comet, or we have an inner alien. Many swear by it and sacrifice their family, fortune, and lives. Lucky happenstance, the right social context and politics, and were off to the history books that are written by the winners. Hidden golden tablets , a divinely inspired council, enduring words of common sense with believers striving for lofty goals, not necessarily with evil intent but with the best motives...
It's human nature to want to believe in something, to make bearable the difficult and incomprehensible. We've evolved into being able to imagine and ponder the intangible. That doesn't make our dreams and desires concrete realities, golden tablets, Kaptu, imams in wells, gods with hammers, or Underdog.

[4588686]

 

And thanks for the Wiki link, though I'm not sure how it's supposed to refute anything I said.  

 

 

My point, as I said in that post and in numerous previous posts, is that your sweeping, unnuanced claims are:

 

1-Incorrect

2-The key to why this argument is so dumb.

 

For example you make this sweeping, completely unnuanced historical claim:

 

"The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death."

 

Oh, hey, look at this first century Jew espousing theological views far more nuanced (and influenced by surrounding cultures) than your proclamations would allow:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo#Ancestry.2C_family_and_early_life

[Socrates]

Just as possible that the mythology grew along with and after this human's few years. An leader speaking from the grave can't be killed again. An appealing transcendent message to people's under occupation. You can oppress and kill me in this life, but I'll be in glory in the next life. What's not to like if you have no hope in this world. And the madness grew.
People believe reverend Moon is a messiah, Jim Jones, David Koresh, they'll be beamed up on a comet, or we have an inner alien. Many swear by it and sacrifice their family, fortune, and lives. Lucky happenstance, the right social context and politics, and were off to the history books that are written by the winners. Hidden golden tablets , a divinely inspired council, enduring words of common sense with believers striving for lofty goals, not necessarily with evil intent but with the best motives...
It's human nature to want to believe in something, to make bearable the difficult and incomprehensible. We've evolved into being able to imagine and ponder the intangible. That doesn't make our dreams and desires concrete realities, golden tablets, Kaptu, imams in wells, gods with hammers, or Underdog.

 

So you choose the "lunatic" option (or perhaps "liar") - at least with regards to Jesus' Apostles.

 

So, according to you, Jesus's Apostles were just crazy cult leaders a la Jim Jones and David Koresh.

Thanks for sharing.

[Socrates]

My point, as I said in that post and in numerous previous posts, is that your sweeping, unnuanced claims are:

 

1-Incorrect

2-The key to why this argument is so dumb.

 

For example you make this sweeping, completely unnuanced historical claim:

 

"The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death."

 

Oh, hey, look at this first century Jew espousing theological views far more nuanced (and influenced by surrounding cultures) than your proclamations would allow:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo#Ancestry.2C_family_and_early_life

 

Apparently you think there is something about the life or thought of Philo of Alexandria that deals a crushing blow to my arguments, as you keep copy-pasting links to Wikipedia articles about him.

 

Since I'm a dunce, perhaps you can spell out exactly what it is about him that you think refutes my claims and enlighten us all, as I'm not seeing anything at all in there that refutes or contradicts anything I said.

 

As far as I can see, Philo never claimed to be divine, nor claimed any other man to divine, nor did anyone claim him to be divine.  Neither did Philo live in Judea.  However, the article does talk about Philo and the other Jews of his community refusing to honor the Roman Caesar as a god, or build statues or temples to him - which confirms my point about the Jews refusing to recognize any man as divine, and regarding such claims as blasphemy (as is also recorded in the Gospels regarding the reaction of the Chief Priest to Christ's claims).

[Anomaly]

So you choose the "lunatic" option (or perhaps "liar") - at least with regards to Jesus' Apostles.

So, according to you, Jesus's Apostles were just crazy cult leaders a la Jim Jones and David Koresh.
Thanks for sharing.

Apostles were probably misguided but committed believers caught up in the whole thing. Doesn't mean they were lunatics. Travolta isn't a drooling idiot but he's giving much of his money time and effort to Scientology, as is many others. Their commitment to such an absurd institution doesn't make it a reality.

There is no tangible proof a God exists. His existence is just as logical or illogical as non existence. As believers are want to say, Fairh is solely a gift from God, so if you can't believe, obviously you are in the majority that aren't God's chosen. Kinda like the Emporer's New Clothes with violence.

[Era Might]

Epiphanies of gods were a standard part of religion in the ancient world. It was something pagans and Christians shared, a belief in the interactions of gods and men, often in the guise of humans. For a group of Christians to see Christ on the road to Emmaus was entirely believable, just as a pagan might receive an oracle from Apollo. Homer wrote a whole book about gods interacting with men, and we consider that part of the foundation of Western Civilization. It doesn't make him or us lunatics. We live in a world of electric lights and technology, which has destroyed the possibility of a human culture where human and divine mix (unless someone is hocking a grilled cheese image of the Virgin Mary on eBay).

 

As far as Christ not fitting in to the religious expectations of his time, that's true of most great religious figures. If they fit in with everyone else, nobody would care. That's what makes a good story. Nobody would care about Buddha if he fit in with the people of his time. Nobody would care about Muhammad if his message was, "I'm like everyone else, keep doing what you're doing."

Edited May 14, 2014 by Era Might

[4588686]

Apparently you think there is something about the life or thought of Philo of Alexandria that deals a crushing blow to my arguments, as you keep copy-pasting links to Wikipedia articles about him.

 

Since I'm a dunce, perhaps you can spell out exactly what it is about him that you think refutes my claims and enlighten us all, as I'm not seeing anything at all in there that refutes or contradicts anything I said.

 

As far as I can see, Philo never claimed to be divine, nor claimed any other man to divine, nor did anyone claim him to be divine.  Neither did Philo live in Judea.  However, the article does talk about Philo and the other Jews of his community refusing to honor the Roman Caesar as a god, or build statues or temples to him - which confirms my point about the Jews refusing to recognize any man as divine, and regarding such claims as blasphemy (as is also recorded in the Gospels regarding the reaction of the Chief Priest to Christ's claims).

 

 

I'm really not sure at this point what about my assertion is unclear.  If you would like a specific example of how Philo's Hellenized Judaism shows that there was more nuance in Jewish philosophy and thought at the time than you're very black and white, unnuanced assertions about what first century Jews believed would allow, then here is an example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_view_of_God#Relation_of_the_Logos_to_God

 

"Philo's conception of the Logos is directly related to the Middle Platonic view of God as unmoved and utterly transcendent. As such, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world—through whom the world is created and sustained."

Edited May 15, 2014 by Hasan

[Socrates]

Apostles were probably misguided but committed believers caught up in the whole thing. Doesn't mean they were lunatics. Travolta isn't a drooling idiot but he's giving much of his money time and effort to Scientology, as is many others. Their commitment to such an absurd institution doesn't make it a reality.

 

If the Apostles were merely misguided but sincere in their beliefs, this begs the question of who was fooling them into believing.

 

Do you claim Jesus Christ Himself duped His Apostles into believing lies in order for them to give up all to follow Him?

This would make Him a liar.  (Or at best a lunatic, if you assert He wrongly but sincerely believed Himself to be the Son of God, and Savior.)

 

Since so much of early Christian witness was based on Christ's literal resurrection from the dead, if He did not in fact die and was resurrected, there was a lot of blatant lies and deception going on.  

If this was all just a story, the Jews could have simply produced his dead body from the tomb, and put an end to all that nonsense.

(Or else, we're forced to believe elaborate conspiracy theories about stealing the body, paying off the soldiers guarding the tomb to lie, etc. - hardly the work of misguided but sincere believers, but rather of clever and deceitful conmen, who were nonetheless all willing to die rather than expose their con.)

 

(And yes, John Travolta is an idiot, the willing dupe of conman L. Ron Hubbard's followers - who are laughing all the way to the bank.)

 

 

There is no tangible proof a God exists. His existence is just as logical or illogical as non existence.

 

 

Your opinion.  We disagree, though its needless to rehash that whole debate again.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Socrates

[Socrates]

I'm really not sure at this point what about my assertion is unclear.  If you would like a specific example of how Philo's Hellenized Judaism shows that there was more nuance in Jewish philosophy and thought at the time than you're very black and white, unnuanced assertions about what first century Jews believed would allow, then here is an example:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo's_view_of_God#Relation_of_the_Logos_to_God

 

"Philo's conception of the Logos is directly related to the Middle Platonic view of God as unmoved and utterly transcendent. As such, the Logos becomes the aspect of the divine that operates in the world—through whom the world is created and sustained."

 

I never claimed there was no nuance in ancient Jewish thought, so you can stop attacking strawmen.

 

Again, Philos never claimed to be the Divine Logos, nor that any other human being was.

You have not provided anything at all to prove that a man believing oneself to be Divine was rational, or an accepted opinion among devout Jews.  Rather it was considered a crime of blasphemy - one that cost Jesus His life.

 

But I'm through repeating myself.  You have no argument here at all - merely calling my statements stupid and copy-pasting irrelevant articles from Wikipedia.  Seems even your own low standards of "debate" have fallen.

[Socrates]

[double post]

Edited May 15, 2014 by Socrates