- It is 97 per cent certain that God raised Jesus Christ
from the dead - based on sheer logic and mathematics, not faith - according
to Oxford professor Richard Swinburne.
-
- "New Testament scholars say the only evidence is
witnesses in the four gospels. That's only 5 per cent of the evidence,"
Professor Swinburne, one of the world's leading philosophers of religion,
said last night.
-
- "We can't judge the question of the resurrection
unless we ask first whether there's reason to suppose there is a God, second
if we have reason to suppose he would become incarnate and third, if he
did, whether he would live the sort of life Jesus did."
-
- Professor Swinburne, in Melbourne to give several seminars
and a public lecture at the Australian Catholic University last night,
said the mathematics showed a probability of 97 per cent.
-
- This conclusion was reached after a complex series of
calculations. In simplified terms, it began with a single proposition:
the probability was one in two that God exists.
-
- Next, if God exists, the probability was one in two that
he became incarnate. Further, there was a one in 10 probability that the
gospels would report the life and resurrection of Jesus in the form they
do.
-
- Finally, the clincher: the probability that we would
have all this evidence if it wasn't true was one in 1000.
-
- He argued that any evidence for the existence of God
was an argument for the resurrection, and any evidence against the existence
of God was an argument against the resurrection.
-
- "Does he have reason to become incarnate? Yes, to
make atonement, identify with our suffering and to teach us things, "
Professor Swinburne said.
-
- Even Jesus' life is not enough proof, he said. God's
signature was needed, which the resurrection was, showing his approval
of Jesus' teaching.
-
- The mathematical equations appear in the professor's
book, The Resurrection of God Incarnate (OUP, 2003).
-
- http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/07/18/11
21538921893.html?from=top5&oneclick=true
-
-
- Comment
- From Jim Mortellaro
- 7-20-5
-
- This is not the first time a scientist has come to a
conclusion regarding a Deity. In the case of Dr. Swinburn, his argument
is for the reality of Jesus' being the Son of God. His Boolean argument
(or so it appears to be) states that the possibility of their being a Deity
is 50/50. Proceeding from that point, his mathematics continues to his
conclusion. If one begins by accepting the probability of a Deity as 50%
true, this does not deny the Christ living as the incarnate Son of God,
nor does it preclude His dying on the cross for the reasons stated, since
one accepts the existence of God as the starting point.
-
- What is more interesting is the conclusion arrived at
by the noted astrophysicist, Dr. Steven Hawking. Toward the conclusion
of his landmark book, A Brief Moment in Time, Hawking arrives at the conclusion
that their is a Creator. How he gets there eludes me at this moment, however
a quick read will demonstrate his conclusions toward the end of his book.
-
- Whether or not one agrees with conclusions made by Hawking,
Swinburn, Einstein and others, matters little. What matters is that there
are scientists, mathematicians, astrophysicists and others who conclude
similarly. Along with the apologetic argument that virtually all known
peoples believe in a deity or deities, one may ascertain another conclusion.
-
- Whether one be an educated scientist or an aboriginal
native, there is nothing which is more evident in the history of man, than
that of the belief in God. Religions create their own rules and direction
to salvation. That aside, most people believe there is salvation for living
a decent life. Sometimes we succeed in that endeavor, sometimes we don't.
In the long run, what really matters is the manner in which we treat our
brothers, even our enemies.
-
- In conclusion, Mr. So and So, and even you Mr. Jones
... I'll forgive you if you forgive me. And if not, I've God on my side.
Do you?
-
- Jim Mortellaro
- http://www.mortyscabin.net/
-
-
- Comment
Alton Raines
7-20-5
-
- The "be a good person and go to heaven" model
sounds reasonable, but unfortunately it cannot be. Why? Because no matter
how good any human being tries to be, he or she can never achieve the holiness
of God; he or she remains unholy. The human weakness to sin would then
be continued into a perfect heavenly kingdom, making it imperfect... it
would be polluted, just as this world is. A little leaven leavens the whole
lump, as scripture states. And no amount of religious service or sacrifice
or good works can make us perfect or generate in us new (much less eternal)
life. A Holy and perfect God will not abide with unholy, imperfect, sinful
humanity. We are sinners. And the wages of sin is death, separating us
from life and even from God. Not just death of the body, but eternal spiritual
death. Thus, we are dead and in need of a completely new birth, a new life.
And since we are ourselves utterly helpless in this condition, there is
only one who can save, and that is God Himself -- who, in the person of
Jesus Christ, lived that perfectly sinless, perfectly faithful and obedient
life (For he entered the world without a sinful nature, and "was tempted
in all things, yet without sin") and took upon himself the due penalty
of our sins at the cross, making perfect atonement, once for all. It is
therefore by grace through faith that one is saved, not of works, lest
any man should boast (Ephesians 2:8-9). We must be born again, Jesus said
-- in both the supernatural revolution of mind and spirit through faith,
and in the resurrection of the body to eternal life with Him, at his coming.
-
- "And we know that all things work together for good
to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover
whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them
he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified."
(Romans 8:28)
-
-
- Comment
- Jim Mortellaro
- 7-21-5
-
- "The "be a good person and go to heaven"
model sounds reasonable, but unfortunately it cannot be. Why? Because no
matter how good any human being tries to be, he or she can never achieve
the holiness of God; he or she remains unholy."
-
- Hold on there, Hoss. Let's begin at the beginning. That
which animates the flesh is the spirit, the soul, which in the belief of
many Christians is in the image and likeness of God. The spirit or soul
is a part of the Great Spirit of God. It ain't the soul which is imperfect,
it's the wholeness of body animated (given life) by the soul.
-
- On leaving the body at death, the spirit is not judged,
the entire entity which was you is judged. Based on that which you were
given in genes and environment, etc., the soul and the body is that which
is judged. How did you perform in this life, given what you were given?
-
- I also believe in reincarnation. Perhaps that is what
Jesus meant when he said, "Unless a man be born again, he cannot ...
(see God)."
-
- On that basis and more, I disagree. Although admittedly,
it is unusual for me to disagree with you, Mr. Raines, in this case I do.
And it is, of course, a matter of one's own belief system. So in the long
run, you may be right after all.
-
- However we must both drop dead in order to find out.
I for one, am as yet, unwilling to suffer that final indignity. Not at
the moment. And in spite of those who wish it on me.
-
- "Thank you to all who wished me well. All the rest
can go to ... etc ."
-
- Jim Mortellaro
- http://www.mortyscabin.net/
-
-
-
- Comment
- From Tygerkittn
- 7-23-5
-
- Alton Raines is right! People who don't want to accept
God's rules and live in obedience to Him make up all sorts of things to
justify it, such as "God wouldn't be so mean, He can't expect me to
follow all those rules. I just have to be nice most of the time and do
good things."
-
- But God put us here to winnow out the chaff from the
wheat, He is looking for those willing to submit to His will and accept
His terms instead of making up their own. God isn't "politically correct."
People who break the commandments that they find inconvenient and justify
it to themselves are creating their own version of God, that's the modern
version of idolatry.
-
- People also think that because God hasn't struck anyone
down lately He's not paying attention, but as Erwin Lutzer says, God has
merely changed His way of dealing with us as we've matured, as in a child
may steal candy from a store and his parents would spank him and punish
him severely, but if he steals candy when he's thirteen they might change
their tactics and ground him or send him to his room, and if he steals
and gets caught when he's 19 or 20 they might not do anything to him since
he has a court date coming up. Well, we've ALL got court dates coming up,
and we're going to be judged, and we're going to find out God WAS paying
attention all along. So you can say "I'm probably going to heaven
because I'm nice to everyone" but that's just something you made up.
Try reading the Bible and see what God says about it. It might just save
your eternal life.
-
-
- Comment
- From Bill Gieskieng
7-22-5
Thanks largely to Rense.com I do realize that one of the avowed aims of
the "Illuminati" is to destroy Christianity. Despite my hesitation
in seeming to advocate or advance such a NWO agenda I am compelled to say
that I suspect this to be one of the most flawed and circular so-called
proof of the Biblical account ever! With the "given" pre-suppositions
used to construct the argument lending some of the qualities of a tautology
how could it turn out otherwise no matter how sophisticated the formulation?
-
- According to historical records there were something
on the order of fifteen crucified saviors antecedent to the account of
Jesus. They fulfilled virtually the same scenario found in the story of
Jesus and what's more, in many cases -such as Krishna--there was a remarkably
similar supporting casts of extras ... and what should catch one's attention
is that some have names with a remarkable phonetic resonance to their later
parallel as found in the bible..
-
- Question: Why didn't the professor's calculations include
the other similar saviors and their accounts? Should we suspect that he
is prejudiced in favor of Christianity?
-
- There is a similar thread common to all of the savior
stories that are traceable back to roots originating in Astro-Theology.
This implausible "coincidence" should make one wonder. A bunch.
-
- There are many books available covering various aspects
of this mystery...including one that is actually entitled "The Jesus
Mystery" Another fine effort is found in Earl Doherty's "Jesus
Puzzle." One might do well with Acharya S.'s "The Christ Conspiracy"
and followed by her more specifically detailed work, "The Suns of
God".
-
- I want to emphasize that I am by no means an atheist
even if no longer an orthodox Christian. I do hold to a spiritual reality
that might be described as the "Christ Consciousness" ... but
in my opinion the biblical account is so FLAWED that it should be approached
with supernatural suspicion -- even by professors with such impressive
credentials as Dr. Swinburne.
-
- For a solid pursuit of the "god question" one
can Google the late Dr. Charles Hartshorne and check out the logical construction
he used to examine the various concepts of god. (26+) Note: a colleague
hailed Hartshorne as "The Einstein of Religious Thought" That
at least tempt one to take a look! And Please compare his work and findings
with that of the Oxford Don here is question.
-
- One further note: True, Stephen Hawking gives credence
to the idea that there is indeed evidence in the Cosmos of intelligent
design. Furthermore the Atheistic Philosopher, Antony Flew - long a thorn
in many sensitive theologian's side - has recently adopted the logical
necessity of such a cosmic intelligence.
-
- But in no way does either one's concession equate to
their endorsement of Christianity!
-
- One last comment. Much of what we construct in our efforts
to describe God's nature depends ever so much on where we start from. The
"Aristotelian" structured God of the scriptures is not THE necessarily
de-facto starting point!
-
- still struggling to understand. Best to all!
Bill Gieskieng
-
-
- Comment
From Will Simmons
7-23-5
-
- I think the professors method is a bit whacky and mathematically
contrived, and much prefer the kind of evidence for the God of the Bible
and of Christ one can find through scientists such as Dr. Hugh Ross (www.reasons.org).
Any serious student of theology -- and certainly any agnostic -- should
take the time to fully examine the evidence reasons/Ross has (and continues
to) put together to demonstrate that the only plausable and evidenced Creator
is in fact the Biblical one.
-
|
