"A Moral Dilemma"

Societies are constructed via a set of moral values or expectations that is largely accepted among the majority. However, this construction is strained when those moral values weaken as the majority and the social construct begins to change. This can happen when the moral grounding or source for moral values begin to change. For instance, if a previous set of moral values was originally grounded in a religious context, but the society moves from that religious context to a more secular, the moral construct will feel the strain. The two sources produce different moral values. Some old values will begin to be challenged by new concepts of thought which in turn affects the mind's perception of reality and moral obligations.  The old values begin to erode and become misunderstood or skewed. As these systems merge, some values will overlap, but it is certain others will be challenged. In this post I will attempt to address two areas of thought that have been posed to me lately. One being the Christian influence that appears not to be so grounded and the other concerning the nature of God. They are related concepts so we will put them both into one post.

Examples would be something as subtle as one's well-being. Someone might state, "My body is tired, I need to take a day off to decompress." A Christian construct in society might answer, "If you leaned on God more, you wouldn't get so tired." This is sometimes seen as spiritual bypassing. It ignores the problems by offering a spiritual solution. However, spiritualizing is not actually a correct Christian response. Though it is good to lean on God more in difficult times, is not to suggest not doing so is the cause of the difficulty. Mark 6:30, And the apostles gather themselves together unto Jesus; and they told him all things, whatsoever they had done, and whatsoever they had taught. 
    31, And he saith unto them, Come ye yourselves apart into a desert place, and rest a while. For there were many coming and going, and they had no leisure so much as to eat. 
    32, And they went away in the boat to a desert place apart. Jesus did not spiritual bypass the difficulty, but acknowledged the concern recognizing the need for rest. 

Another example could be someone who feels sad being told, "You don't need to be sad, God has given you so much." It is true God has given us so much, but that is not to say we should not feel sad. In John 11:33, When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping who came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled, 
    34, and said, Where have ye laid him? They say unto him, Lord, come and see. 
    35, Jesus wept. A crucial part of our human experience is our ability to feel sadness and express it openly. These moral constructs from the Christian foundation become skewed and then challenged by other moral constructs that appear more reasonable. Now to the larger question. 

Moral perceptions differ between religious and secular foundations. Some see the God of the Bible as a monster while others see the God of the Bible as a gracious kind redeemer. The two views basically come from different starting points for their moral compass. 

1st Samuel 15:2, Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt. 
    3, Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.   

   
When reading such scripture it has been as asked, "How does someone not see God as a monster?" First it must be understood that the human mind does not approach such a question with a clean slate. It views all moral issues through a foundational lens. I have been accused of seeing everything through God goggles. That accusation was not meant to be a positive thing, but it was an accurate assessment. I do see the world around me through the redemptive lens of the New Testament. Without that lens I would see the world very differently, my moral perception is seen through that lens. 

How does someone not see the God of the Bible as a monster? The problem of course comes with the command in those verses to kill everyone and everything. The men might all be guilty, but the women? The child and the suckling? The Ox and sheep, camel and ass certainly didn't have any guilt. Everyone should recognize the moral depravity of killing the innocent. So how does God become exempt from this moral dilemma? To many he doesn't, therefore, they view him as the monster anyone would be, who committed such acts. However, if you look through a different lens you see things differently. 

The Christian reasons outside these two verses and takes the larger view of Biblical revelation into consideration. He understands from the Biblical perspective we are all condemned already. What happens to the women and children in the event described in these two verse is a result of the overall judgment upon this world. Yes, in this verse women and children were to die, but it is judgment not deferred. Because of judgment upon this world they are all going to die, it's just a matter of when. If they did not die in this event, and many didn't because the command was not followed faithfully, they would die from some other cause because the human race is under judgment. Romans 6:23, For the wages of sin is death; but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. The Christian has this as the foundation for his moral compass, therefore, is able to see God as gracious for offering the Gospel to free us from this condemnation.

Without this lens, this scripture is seen from a human perspective. A human judge could never condemn an innocent child to death and call it justice. And he would certainly be correct in that assessment. But that comes from a naturalistic world view only, which would exclude any divine judgment, it's simply not on their slate. 

Perception changes with the lens, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that killed man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass, were framed as necessary actions to end World War II swiftly. Proponents argued that the bombings prevented a planned invasion of Japan, which was expected to result in massive casualties on both sides. Estimates suggested that an invasion could lead to hundreds of thousands of American and Japanese deaths. The bombings were seen as a way to avoid this prolonged conflict. The U.S. government, including President Harry Truman, justified the decision (saw it a morally acceptable) by stating that it was aimed at saving both American and Japanese lives.

Despite the justifications, many critics argue that the bombings were fundamentally immoral. They contend that targeting civilian populations constitutes a war crime and that the bombings were unnecessary for achieving Japan's surrender. This viewpoint highlights the ethical dilemmas faced when considering the use of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, the event happened, how you view it morally depends on which lens you are looking through. Now lets look at the verses again and examine the lens the Christian looks through. Were any of those women and children truly innocent? Not from the divine perspective, they were all already condemned. John 3:17, For God sent not the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him. 
    18, He that believeth on him is not judged: he that believeth not hath been judged already, because he hath not believed on the name of the only begotten Son of God. 

God is not a monster because Eze 18:31, Cast away from you all your transgressions, wherein ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel? 
    32, For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord Jehovah: wherefore turn yourselves, and live.  

God is not executing judgment because he takes pleasure in it. Through the Christian lens, all Gods' judgment are executed through divine righteousness and judgment. This righteousness and justice abides in perfection. 

God’s holiness in relation to man means that God is morally pure and set apart without sin and humans are not naturally fit to stand in His presence. 

 He is uniquely righteous, sometimes referred to as his “otherness” and cannot approve of evil. 

Humans fall short of God’s standards, so approach to God must deal with sin. People can’t come on their own merit; they need God to make them acceptable (e.g., through repentance and, in the Christian view, Christ’s atoning work). 

 Not a single person has ever merited acceptance nor could they. Take the most morally righteous group of people on earth today, put them on a planet all by themselves and have them produce a society. That society would be plagued with the same moral failures we have always been plagued with. This is not compatible with God's holiness, therefore his judgment in the verses in question cannot bring a moral judgment upon him. 

The naturalist looks at this verse from a natural understanding of goodness, therefore will never understand or accept this concept. He sees man's morality as evolutionary and developing or changing as man evolves in his understanding. What is moral today may not be moral tomorrow, it changes with man because he is the source of his on morality. 

It has been asked, "How someone in a Third World country can find a graceful God?" I assume that is asked because of the suffering that is seen in those countries. They can't without the Gospel. They may have a conception of some type of god they believe exist and worship it. They will try to please it by whatever means they may devise in their mind that might appease it. They may perceive all their suffering is a result of some displeasure they have accrued or sin they have committed. This god is to be feared because he is powerful and angry. But he not a God of grace. They can know nothing of a God of grace outside the Gospel. The Gospel simply means "good news". 

What is that good news? You can stop trying to please an angry God. What ever moral dilemma you may find yourself in, 1 Cor. 15:1, Now I make known unto you brethren, the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye received, wherein also ye stand, 2, by which also ye are saved, if ye hold fast the word which I preached unto you, except ye believed in vain. 3, For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4, and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; 

If you believe that, it is call faith, through which you are saved by grace. You can put on your God goggles and rest in your hope in Christ. You can know you are no longer under judgment and rest in your hope of salvation. It does not change the fact you still live in a cursed world under judgment, but your hope is no longer in this world, but the world to come. 

You can also put on the naturalist goggles and believe only what you can see in this natural world, because that's all that exist. This sees the concept of God as a myth, the need for any kind of redemption as a myth, the concept of sin and its consequences a myth. It sees the human conscience a product of moral evolution developing in man, the ideal he is accountable to anything higher than this evolution is a myth. He in essence is the master of his own morality, anything higher is a myth. It is amazing, but which goggles you are looking through really does make that much difference. Either way, if you are reading this, you must put on one or the other. The question is which one do you want to look through? 

David

"The Roman Record, or lack thereof"

I have recently been confronted with the statement, “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus and his miracles, his trial, or his execution by historians or other people. Romans are known for keeping immaculate records for even minor events and relatively insignificant people. The overwhelming lack of evidence of those things give significant support that those things never happened.”

We will examine my friends' suggestion by breaking it down into the three major statements he has put forward. We will do so first by addressing what he said against the actual facts available to us. 

1st statement: “There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus and his Miracles, his trail, or his execution by historians or other people.” 

Facts:  This is factually correct. We don't have any surviving Roman, Jewish, or other non-Christian documents from that exact time mentioning him. (written during Jesus' lifetime, ~30–33 AD) However, this would not be something unusual for the following reasons.

a. Jesus was a lower-class itinerant preacher in a remote Roman province (Judea). From the Roman viewpoint, he was insignificant, not an emperor, general, or major political threat. The Romans crucified many people in Judea; it was routine crowd control. Minor executions rarely generated surviving central records. 

b. Record-keeping was not “immaculate” in the way modern people imagine. Provincial documents were often on perishable materials, and much was lost due to wars (especially the Jewish-Roman War of 66–73 AD), fires, decay, and time.

c. Even Pontius Pilate (the governor) has almost no surviving contemporary records, only one inscription. If the governor himself is barely documented, a single executed preacher wouldn't be either.

d. Most people who lived in the ancient world left zero contemporary written records. Literacy was limited, and writing was expensive and not used for everyday local events.

The absence of contemporary Roman paperwork is exactly what we'd expect. It doesn't prove the events didn't happen; it reflects the limits of ancient evidence. Had these records actually existed, there's no reason to expect they would have survived.

 2nd statement: “Romans are known for keeping immaculate records for even minor events and relatively insignificant people.” 

Facts: This is a common myth, Romans were bureaucratic and kept records (taxes, military, legal), but not “immaculate” detailed archives of every local trial or execution.

a. Crucifixions were routine in provinces like Judea. They didn't generate permanent central archives for minor cases.

b. Pontius Pilate (the governor who ordered the execution) ruled Judea for 10 years. We have almost zero contemporary Roman records about him, just one damaged stone inscription (the Pilate Stone, discovered 1961) confirming his title and existence. No trial logs, no execution lists, nothing about his daily activities.

c. Wars (especially the Jewish-Roman War 66–73 AD) and time destroyed most provincial documents. We lack extensive Roman administrative papyri from Judea.

If we applied the statements standard consistently, we'd have to doubt the existence of many 1st-century figures. Historians don't do that.

3rd Statement:  “The overwhelming lack of evidence of those things give significant support that those things never happened.”

Facts: Historians use the available evidence, not the absence of evidence to explore historical events. There is strong consensus among historians (including atheists and agnostics like Bart Ehrman) that:

a.  Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

b.  He was baptized by John the Baptist.

c.  He was crucified under Pontius Pilate around 30–33 AD.

This is all based upon multiple independent early sources (Christian and non-Christian). The fact of “criterion of embarrassment” early Christians wouldn't invent a crucified Messiah (crucifixion was shameful), and rapid spread of the movement despite persecution.

Non-Christian corroboration (written within decades, not centuries) are Tacitus (~115 AD, Roman historian): Christus executed under Pilate during Tiberius, and Josephus (~93 AD, Jewish historian): Two references (one partially authentic, one widely accepted as referring to Jesus' brother James). Notes execution under Pilate. There are a number of others listed in previous post. 

The statement we are examining applies an unrealistic standard. We don't have detailed Roman records for thousands of other 1st-century figures either, yet we accept their existence based on the available evidence. The case for the historical Jesus (existence, crucifixion) is actually quite strong by ancient historical standards, stronger than for many other figures from that era. The resurrection remains a central Christian belief supported by the rapid rise of the early church, the willingness of the apostles to die for their testimony, and Christians for New Testament documents. But the “no Roman file = didn't happen" argument doesn't hold up.

How would one approach the question reasonably? Jesus was an itinerant Jewish preacher who operated for probably 1–3 years in rural Galilee and then Jerusalem. From the Roman perspective, he was one of dozens (maybe hundreds) of local religious agitators in a chronically troublesome province. Judea was small, volatile, and not strategically central.

 The Romans crucified thousands of people in the region. It was a standard punishment for rebels, bandits, or anyone seen as disturbing the peace. Pilate alone almost certainly signed off on many such executions. A single Jewish troublemaker who gathered a following for a short time and was executed before Passover would not stand out in Roman eyes as something that required special documentation sent back to Rome.

“Contemporary” in the strictest sense (written the exact year it happened, 30–33 AD) is an extremely high bar for almost anyone in the ancient world who wasn't an emperor, general, or major senator. Most people from that era, even local kings, philosophers, or governors, have zero contemporary written mentions that survived. 

Expecting detailed Roman bureaucratic records for a minor provincial execution is applying modern standards to an ancient society with fragile record-keeping, lots of wars, and perishable materials. Most ancient history doesn't work that way. We routinely accept the existence and basic activities of people with far less evidence than we have for Jesus.

Scholars across the spectrum, Christian and non-Christian, overwhelmingly agree that the historical Jesus (a real person who was crucified under Pilate) is well-established. The debate is mostly about the details and the theological claims built around him. The lack of contemporary Roman paperwork isn't suspicious, it's exactly what we'd expect for someone in his position. If every minor crucifixion in Judea had generated surviving contemporary records, we'd be drowning in them. 

As a comparison, the earliest surviving manuscript witness that mentions Pontius Pilate is from Josephus. The oldest substantial surviving Greek manuscripts of these works date to the 10th–11th centuries AD. Think about that, this is a copy of a manuscript that was copied a thousand years after the fact. That's the earliest we have. There are about 120 extant Greek manuscripts of his works.

Philo of Alexandria also discusses Pilate, but this manuscript was also dated to have been copied around a thousand years after the fact. For Philo, we have a few dozen extant copies.

Tacitus also mentions Pilate in Annals 15.44, but that copy is also dated to have been written around a thousand years after the fact. Of Tacitus, we have only one manuscript.

But what about New Testament manuscripts? We have over 10,000 manuscripts counting the Greek and Latin alone. Here is just a sample of what is available to us today. 

The oldest extant New Testament manuscript fragment is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which dates to the early second century, around 100-150 CE. It contains parts of the Gospel of John and is housed at the John Rylands University Library in Manchester, UK. 

This little piece of papyrus is near 2,000 years old, it is a piece of a copy made around 100 years after the fact, not a 1,000 years after the fact as the Roman manuscripts. The Greek reading on the Papyrus is, “John 18:31 Pilate therefore said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” Therefore, the Jews said to him, “It is illegal for us to put anyone to death,” 32 that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he spoke, signifying by what kind of death he should die. 33 Pilate therefore entered again into the Pretorium, called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?”
 

37 Pilate therefore said to him, “Are you a king then?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this reason I have been born, and for this reason I[1] have come into the world, that I should testify to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.” 38 Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” When he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, “I find no basis for a charge against him.” 

When attempting to extrapolate 2,000-year-old history, defining the events with absolute accuracy is impossible. The best we can do it put together as best we can from what little has survived. When it comes to New Testament manuscripts however, we have an overwhelming collection of written evidences. But the atheist and agnostic disregard it all because it is religious in nature. But, religious or secular, it is all written evidence from a particular time in history. Regardless of how you look at it, the available evidence we have from both spectrums and in comparison to other historical characters demonstrate the unreasonableness of the statement in question. 

David