The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity
- Thread starter JayHoover
- Start date
Sozo, come on. Don't play dumb here.
You said: "If Jesus had not been raised, we wouldn't even be here having this conversation."
Now, that seems to imply that Jesus' existence is confirmed just by the fact that people discuss him. Maybe that was your point, maybe not. But just talking about something or someone certainly doesn't validate existence for anything.
I don't think these examples are analogous at all.
Especially Jim Jones and Koresh.
A couple of thoughts on this. First, I think the categorization of something as a "lie" might bear examining. I can think of a huge movement, National Socialism, that pretty much fits the description of people believing a lie, and that lie being not only the thing that got them into trouble in the first place, but also led to them (the perpetrators of the lie) dying in painful ways: Poison, torture, suicide, etc. One could also make the case for Communism in both Russia and China. Both systems were lies for power, the lies were known to be lies by the perpetrators, and in the end, many of those perpetrators wound up victims of their own lies.
Secondarily, it's the word lie that could be creating the issue here. What if the people do not believe they believe a lie? Christianity started small -- it was not a "large group of people in on a lie" -- it was a small group of people who may have been very devoted to their Rabbi of the time-- in this case, Yeshua.
Now I did a search on OT prophecy regarding specifically resurrection. According to this Christian ministry website:
http://www.probe.org/docs/e-otprophecies.html
it seems that there is a question as to there being any direct prophecy of the messiah rising from the dead. While the page is too long to quote directly, the ministry does make this conclusion:
"None of these texts are specifically Messianic. I do not think there are any specific predictions of Jesus' resurrection in the OT. This, I think, is partly why Jesus' disciples had such a difficult time understanding His own predictions of His resurrection. They did not have a category for a dying and rising Messiah (i.e. raised to glory, never to die again) within world history. They only knew of a general resurrection at the end of time.
If this is the case (and I happen to agree that it is -- there are no direct prophecies stating that the messiah must rise from the dead), then it is possible that this small group, devastated by the loss of their leader, told he would resurrect, might grow the legend. Anyway, the point is that it's not impossible that there are alternate explanations to the story itself.
Okay, that aside, I'm looking forward to more replies. Thanks!
OK... Jay now its your turn....
A time machine is invented. You step into it, and select a period of time just before and just after what we consider BCE and CE. You select a place: Palestine, in and around Jerusalem.
You can stop and go as you choose, so you sit in this machine (which is invisible to others) and you scan for events. You also have a Hebrew / Latin / Aramaic translator onboard so you can both witness events and understand them in context.
This is what you learn:
There are numerous messiahs running around, yet one of them, a certain erstwhile carpenter from Nazareth named Yeshua, is gaining particular reknown. However, before He can get too powerful, He is arrested, crucified as was the order of the day, and dies. His body is placed in a gaurded stone tomb covered by a large stone. On the third day He rises from the grave and appears to thousands of people (including you).
You learn His followers that this "Jesus" is actually the Son of God and has come here to take on the sin of the world and to give everlastiing life to any that choose to accept Him and His work on the cross.
That's the scenario. The question is, in the light of such a scenario, what would you as a atheist do?
Thanks for answering.
A time machine is invented. You step into it, and select a period of time just before and just after what we consider BCE and CE. You select a place: Palestine, in and around Jerusalem.
You can stop and go as you choose, so you sit in this machine (which is invisible to others) and you scan for events. You also have a Hebrew / Latin / Aramaic translator onboard so you can both witness events and understand them in context.
This is what you learn:
There are numerous messiahs running around, yet one of them, a certain erstwhile carpenter from Nazareth named Yeshua, is gaining particular reknown. However, before He can get too powerful, He is arrested, crucified as was the order of the day, and dies. His body is placed in a gaurded stone tomb covered by a large stone. On the third day He rises from the grave and appears to thousands of people (including you).
You learn His followers that this "Jesus" is actually the Son of God and has come here to take on the sin of the world and to give everlastiing life to any that choose to accept Him and His work on the cross.
That's the scenario. The question is, in the light of such a scenario, what would you as a atheist do?
Thanks for answering.
Re: The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity
If I were to see conclusive proof that your scenario were true, then I would no longer be a Christian.
I would be pretty much as I was 10 years ago, except that I would still believe in God. And I would look for the promised Messiah.
If I were to see conclusive proof that your scenario were true, then I would no longer be a Christian.
I would be pretty much as I was 10 years ago, except that I would still believe in God. And I would look for the promised Messiah.
There's a key varient in your reversal of the question I want to point out. In my scenario, you are from today and you use the time machine to see events -- but you already know the general overview of the story.
In your variation, I'm "learning from his followers Jesus is the messiah, etc." -- that implies I went back in time ignorant of the NT story.
I think I'd be skeptical in any event. At the time, there wasn't much known about medicine and given what is known about crucifixion, it was a very long, protracted death. While it's possible that given his injuries Jesus might have died in a (relatively) swift few hours, it wasn't generally the case: Crucifixion usually took a few days at least.
So even if I were to witness the actual events precisely as they are related in the NT, I would still say there is ample likelihood that Jesus did not die, but instead was in a coma or near death, etc.
The reversing of the scenario doesn't work quite as well because there are alternate explanations to death and resurrection in a time when people who died weren't checked as exhaustively as they are today. The scenario where you go back in time an see events completely contrary to what you were led to believe is really the crux of the thread.
OTOH, to tighten up your own scenario for you, if Jesus was severely beaten and ripped apart and lanced with a sword and so on (i.e., "The Passion"), and then appeared to me just a couple of days later in an effectively completely healed persona (yet still retained holes and the gash in his side), that would be pretty compelling evidence that something very uncommon was afoot.
In the end, for me, it's really about verifiable evidence.
Like I said... those examples are not analogous.
Just as I thought.
Not my point.
Well, more than that, granite1010. Mormons themselves were hounded out of every state, which is why they eventually made it to Utah.
Anyway, I think there are numerous examples of this same dynamic. I am still uncomfortable with the word "lie" however -- these people often sincerely believe what they believe, and many are willing to die for it (and kjill for it as well). Who, for instance, could possibly imagine anyone falling for that Heaven's Gate lunatic?
Yet... plenty did. Today, you cannot simply be killed because you have a belief that differs from the majority (at least, in civilized free countries you can't), but over the centuries, and yes, including even here, once upon a time you could very well be killed because your belief was . The threat didn't seem to stop people from believing nonetheless.
Here is the deal...Originally posted by JayHoover
I'm glad I was able to meet your expectation for honesty in my reply.
When you made your original post we were all smart enough to get your point and answer you honestly. Yet when I reversed it and asked you your own question you nit-picked parts and pieces of the question and obfuscated your way out of answering the question. Ultimately... all I was asking you was the same thing you asked me except in reverse.
You were in essence asking me what I would do if I found out for a fact that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. I was merely asking you what you would do if you found out for a fact that Jesus DID indeed raise from the dead.
This was an interesting thread until you turned out to be a weasel.
Again.. you and granite fail to get the point. Dying for a belief (even a false one) is completely different than dying for a lie that you devised.
Hmmm, that was uncalled for.
It wasn't my intention to nit-pick -- but the scenarios were very different. And I did answer just as honestly -- the fact that the disciples would tell me he was the son of god and so on is pretty immaterial to me -- what I would care about is the evidence of resurrection. Testimony only goes so far, and even if I were a witness to these events, it wouldn't mean I would automatically believe. Obviously there were skeptics then-- else everyone would have believed.
The point of the thread is not whether I would witness these events and immediately topple to the idea that they must be supernatural (they needn't have been-- there are rational explanations for people "coming back from the dead"-- only back then, this would not have been considered possible) -- the point of the thread was to ask how believers witnessing events that were different from what they were led to believe would impact their worldview.
So turning this around really didn't have any relevancy, though I know you believe it would. I tried to help your example by adding to it -- in fact, I can do it again: If I took the machine and went into the tomb and waited for three days and a blinding glow appeared and Yeshua rose, etc-- that too would be compelling information and might sway me.
Let me cut to the chase for you: If I were to find out for certain that the NT related facts exactly as they were -- of course I would believe. I don't know any atheist who wouldn't believe, if there were verifiable evidence.
SOTK
New member
:thumb:
This is what makes it so difficult to have intelligent discussions with atheists and/or agnostics. You all want us to apply your sense of reason or logic (your perpsective) to the existence of God but seemingly refuse to apply or consider our perspective. I sometimes wonder why atheists and/or agnostics even bother. Other than a few posters here at TOL who are admitted atheists or agnostics, the majority of you waste your time. It's the same old argument(s) time and time again. You expect us to play at your game, but refuse to play ours. So, again, why bother?