Questions for Holy Week: A Disprovable God?

The story of Jesus to which billions of people cling is strange one indeed.  Not so much strange because of its drama or its miracles.  No, what’s strange is that it purports to be a story of God or, at least, a story from God.  That the story is to be from God is strange to me because of a seriously flaw that is central to it: it, or at least its key element, is disprovable.


With one single occurrence, a lone wandering shepherd or a massive archaeological excavation, Christian faith could be nearly entirely undermined.  It would not just be shaken, as it may be upon discovery of new and contradictory sacred texts, for instance.  No, the discovery of the clearly and accurately marked contents of a robbed grave would turn Christianity on its head.  If the physical remains of Jesus were discovered, the story of his bodily resurrection would be demonstrated quite clearly to be untrue.  And because such bodily resurrection is so central to the idea that a man who was killed was not merely a messiah, but actually God, the whole of Christian practice would need to be reconsidered.


It is certainly not likely that a set of first century remains clearly identifiable as the historical Jesus will ever be found.  But the point is that it is possible.  And as result, it is possible that a profoundly central belief in Christian practice can be proven to be untrue.  That is strange to me.  It is one of the problems with a corporeal god, and It doesn’t seem divine in origin. 


One might point out that Jesus’ bodily resurrection cannot be proven.  And I would agree that that fact is important to consider.  However, it is not important in ascribing any truth to the story.  On the contrary, the fact that Jesus’ bodily resurrection cannot be proved only adds to the strangeness of the story as being about and of God.  There are certainly a number of beliefs that cannot be proven – like, for instance, the existence of God.  But it is important to realize that those beliefs also cannot be disproven.  That’s what makes them beliefs or items of faith.  Those crazy leaps of faith we all take – from “there is no god” to “we are all reincarnated” – are precisely that, purely elements of faith.  The story of Jesus though is not so purely an element of faith; it can be disproven.


So why believe it?  Is it taking the easy way out because if you are wrong to believe it you at least have a chance of finding out?  Where’s the faith in that?  And, maybe more importantly, why would an all-powerful (etc. etc.) God decide to switch from a position that was purely one of faith to one that is only half faith?  It seems to be a position of weakness, one that has downside without corresponding upside.  I suppose that could be a key to the story.  But in any case, it is certainly strange to me.




(I was watching a program about the life of Jesus last night and this concept dawned on me for the first time.)


Filed under Grant

3 responses to “Questions for Holy Week: A Disprovable God?

  1. czfinke

    As someone who believes in what little remnants of the Christian faith I have been able to hold onto, I think this is an excellent point that opens up a question of faith that has changed my life, though is often not well taken by many.

    The historicity of Christ and Christ’s god-ness or lack there of are not of value to me personally. What is of value, what I believe in is pretty much what Christ has to say about being alive, and a person, and loving. It will be a pleasant surprise to find, afterwords, that Christ and the whole God in the sky thing is real, and one I’m not holding my breath for. But should it not be real, should an old set of ragged bones be found, and should those be definitively linked to Christ, what matters that to me? My belief in the values of Christ has very, very little bearing on the non-fictional aspect of Christ existing somewhere. In fact, those bones might even make me more excited about Christ.

  2. blraatikka

    Czfinke– your last comment makes little sense to me: how could the invalidation of a large part of what Jesus said and did somehow provide extra validation for some of the other things he said and did?

  3. czfinke

    If the invalidated parts are that he was the son of god and that he rose from the dead, etc., I personally don’t see how that would make the moral lesson of a story changed, such as the sermon on the mount. But I don’t think we can come to terms on this, because I don’t believe in a historical Christ as son of god any more than I do a character in a story that is called Christ. To say that one part of a story invalidates the other part of the story doesn’t make sense to me. It would be like saying that Alyosha really did not really join a monastery in Brothers K. and therefore his relationship with Dmitri cannot be trusted. They are both parts of the story.
    I don’t mean to sound rude; I’m just trying to make sense of my remark.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s