Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Here are a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ:

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.
2. The only people that could have a motive for making up his resurrection were the apostles, most of whom died rather horrible deaths rather than deny that resurrection. While I know that people will die for what they believe in, if the apostles knew that Christ was not risen, why did they die for what they knew to be a lie?
3. His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands and referred to by Paul within 3 years of the event in front of crowds of people. If it didn't happen, why don't we have record of objections to Paul's statements?
4. Jesus was a nobody who appeared on the scene for 3 years and was then killed as a criminal, just like thousands of others were killed by the Romans in the same manner. Yet within a few years of his death, a religion in his name based almost exclusively on his resurrection had spread throughout the Roman empire. What was different about this man to all those others who claimed to be the Messiah?
5. The Jewish rulers were scared witless of revolutionary movements and would do anything to head one off at the pass. The Romans took challenges to their authority about as seriously as any group of people in history. Given that there were people running all over the place saying they had seen the risen Christ, if it wasn't true, why not just torture a few into denial of the fact and kill the movement in its tracks? Pliny the Younger re-counted doing just that a hundred years or so later and was astonished to see how many Christians went to their deaths rather than deny what they also knew to be true.

Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="Tired of the Nonsense"

If Edward Gibbon included stories of flying reindeer and flying reanimated corpses in his writings as if they were genuine history, then we might reasonably be suspicious. My point was that the early historians who wrote about the early Christians simply recorded what they heard or were told by others. For example, Minucius Felix, a third century Latin apologist, gave this account of Christian debauchery which he claims to have derived from Marcus Cornelius Fontero (100-166 c.e.), a Latin rhetor and tutor of Marcus Aurelius.

"A young baby is covered over with flour, the object being to deceive the unwary. It is then served before the person to be admitted into the rites. The recruit is urged to inflict blows onto it--they appear to be harmless because of the covering of flour. Thus the baby was killed with wounds that remain unseen and concealed. It is the blood of this infant--I shudder to mention it--it is the blood of this infant that they lick with thirsty lips; these are the limbs they distribute eagerly; this is the victim by which they seal their covenant...."' [The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix, 9.5-6].

Actually what you said was that because Josephus lived a generation after Jesus Christ, his history is suspect, which is a very odd view of what constitutes valid history. If Marcus Minucius' testimony was affirmed by a great many others as the Gospels are, then it would have validity. It isn't, and doesn't. Your standard that anything written about Christianity is suspect because it must be effectively Christian propaganda is an indication of your philosophical leanings, not rational analysis.

Certainly an "elevated" standard of proof is not an untoward expectation given the absurd nature of what is claimed.

I agree. That is why an absence of specific denials of the Gospel stories from those with a self interest in their denial renders the Gospels unchallenged. Except by people who simply do not wish to accept them. Which you are entitled to. What you are not entitled to is to suggest that your rejection is based on reason, because you clearly apply a standard to the proof required for Christian history that I doubt you apply to any other type of history.

Beginning entirely alone but for his wife, over a twenty two year period Mohammad conquered an empire and established the religion of Islam. Does anything about this suggest that something extraordinary was going on, or is it simply an interesting fact of history?

No, I consider to the establishment of Islam to be quite extraordinary, but why is the subject of another thread. Incidentally, Mohammed was entirely along except for his wife. Oh yeah, and his army.

Since Jesus left no written record of his own we have no record who he said he was. Only the words placed in to his mouth by others after his death. But the truth is whatever it is, and ultimately it is the only thing that really matters. Anything else is just tall tales and misrepresentations. Not that there isn't some entertainment value to be found in tall tales and misrepresentations. Humans do love good stories, especially when they are infused with thrilling and unusual events.

On this basis, all biography is invalid unless it is autobiography. Your analysis is again solely a function of your bias, which is to say, not to be taken seriously. I suggest you examine some of the scholarship on the veracity of the Gospels before drawing conclusions. After all, we have around 24,000 copies of the Gospels from the period to examine, compared to around 4 copies of the Odyssey. Unless, of course, your conclusions have nothing to do with reasoned examination. In which case, you are entitled to them.

Many people considered Alexander to be a God during his lifetime and after wards. But in the light of reason we can "see the difference."

And if he had performed miracles during his lifetime, appeared on the scene exactly as prophesied for a thousand years and was resurrected, he might have been god. He didn't, wasn't and isn't.

Acts specifically depicts Paul as becoming suddenly blind and incapacitated.

So might you be if Christ appeared to you after his death with a mission for you that entailed abandoning your livelihood, your family, your friends, and your religion so you could wander the earth having rocks thrown at you. What Acts does not say is that Paul was delusional, which is your characterization. Again, you have your biases, but I am not required to take them seriously, am I?

What do the Jewish priests tell Pilot that they are afraid the disciples intend to do? Take the body and spread the rumor that Jesus has risen from the grave. And what happened? The body of Jesus turned up missing and then some five weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and begin to spread the story of the risen Jesus.

Indeed they did. So they posted guards to prevent that from happening. The Romans were very efficient at such things, which is perhaps why their leadership on the world stage lasted 700 years. Yet, according to your theory, these guards were what, drugged, co-opted, what? In the morning these guards, who under normal Roman practices would be promptly killed, were guarding an empty tomb. You refer to this witnessed event as flying corpses in the sky, which is an uncivil, disrespectful and nasty way of ridiculing the faith of billions. but of course that is your intent, now isn't it? Your belief in a theory that explains away what was witnessed by hundreds seems far less plausible.

But only after, according to them, the "risen" Jesus flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. So from the beginning the "risen man" was not presented to the public. Only rumors of his return from the dead.

Quite the contrary. The resurrected Christ appeared to Peter, James, the other disciples, almost all of whom died rather than deny what they saw. He also appeared to hundreds of others, which I presume would the public you say he wasn't "presented" to.

Here is a historical example, if you like.

"When, about 190, the Roman proconsul Antonius persecuted Christianity in Asia Minor, hundreds of Montanists, eager for paradise, crowded before his tribunal and asked for martyrdom. He could not accommodate them all; some he executed; but most of them he dismissed with the words: "Miserable creatures! If you wish to die are there not ropes and precipices?" The Church banned Montanism as a heresy, and in the sixth century Justinian ordered the extinction of the sect. Some Montanists gathered in their churches, set fire to them, and let themselves be burned alive." ("The story of Civilization," vol 3, "Caesar and Christ," by Will Durant, Chapt 23, Page 605).

These were people who considered themselves to be fully Christian for reasons which made sense to them and who died willingly for their beliefs, and yet even the Catholic church eventually branded them as heretics. These were the sorts of Christians who were being thrown to the lions, since the Romans couldn't tell one person who claimed to be a Christian from another. Paul went through a life changing experience and changed his belief structure almost entirely as a result, for reasons that apparently made sense to him. The same might well be said for you. You believe in the truth of a claim which by any rational measure is absurd strictly as a matter of ancient hearsay.

I have no idea what your point is here, other than suggesting that I must be delusional to believe as I do. I guess the same would go for Newton, C.S. Lewis and quite a few others. Guess I am in good company.

Jesus really never has to return at all then, does he? All that is important is for each generation to convince the next generation that of course, he will someday, even though he never does. Which is exactly what we have observed to be occurring for the last 2,000 years now. We don't observe anyone who lived 2,000 years ago walking among us though do we?

Why yes we do, although I am pretty sure you will remain "in the dark" so to speak.

I acknowledge that I am perfectly capable of sarcasm, which I happen to view as a useful tool for making a point but which is generally frowned on here in this particular forum. Ironically no sarcasm was intended in this case at all. I was asking a perfectly straightforward question. Do you honestly consider the story of a flying reanimated corpse to be an entirely reasonable conclusion?

I understand sarcasm. What I also recognize is tiny fist shaking from a frustrated atheist. You are entitled to your bile, my brother, but don't ask me to take it seriously or treat it with respect.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If Edward Gibbon included stories of flying reindeer and flying reanimated corpses in his writings as if they were genuine history, then we might reasonably be suspicious. My point was that the early historians who wrote about the early Christians simply recorded what they heard or were told by others. For example, Minucius Felix, a third century Latin apologist, gave this account of Christian debauchery which he claims to have derived from Marcus Cornelius Fontero (100-166 c.e.), a Latin rhetor and tutor of Marcus Aurelius.

"A young baby is covered over with flour, the object being to deceive the unwary. It is then served before the person to be admitted into the rites. The recruit is urged to inflict blows onto it--they appear to be harmless because of the covering of flour. Thus the baby was killed with wounds that remain unseen and concealed. It is the blood of this infant--I shudder to mention it--it is the blood of this infant that they lick with thirsty lips; these are the limbs they distribute eagerly; this is the victim by which they seal their covenant...."' [The Octavius of Marcus Minucius Felix, 9.5-6].

Actually what you said was that because Josephus lived a generation after Jesus Christ, his history is suspect, which is a very odd view of what constitutes valid history. If Marcus Minucius' testimony was affirmed by a great many others as the Gospels are, then it would have validity. It isn't, and doesn't. Your standard that anything written about Christianity is suspect because it must be effectively Christian propaganda is an indication of your philosophical leanings, not rational analysis.

Josephus' credibility as a historian has been called into question by a good many more people than I. Of course there are his infamous references to Jesus, which have almost universally been disregarded today as later Christian forgeries. But even the accuracy of his some of his non-Christian history has been rather strenuously questioned. The Masada controversy for example. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bibli ... zar_55.htm
Unfortunately Josephus is the only source of information for much of this crucial period in history. My original point was that non-Christian historians writing in the late first and second century were simply reacting to Christians and Christian claims. No one is seriously questioning that there were Christians by the late first century, and we know pretty well what they were claiming from their own writings. You're attempting to make the case that because of the vagaries and limitations of ancient historical sources we should give all the ancient accounts equal weight of validity. But that is preposterous, as the above account of Christian cannibalism shows.

Certainly an "elevated" standard of proof is not an untoward expectation given the absurd nature of what is claimed.

I agree. That is why an absence of specific denials of the Gospel stories from those with a self interest in their denial renders the Gospels unchallenged. Except by people who simply do not wish to accept them. Which you are entitled to. What you are not entitled to is to suggest that your rejection is based on reason, because you clearly apply a standard to the proof required for Christian history that I doubt you apply to any other type of history.

The absence of ANY reference to the story of the execution and resurrection of Jesus until many years later is in fact very telling. There is no record of a reaction at all of any kind from anyone at the time the events were supposed to have occurred, or for years to come. It's almost as if virtually no one knew that anything important or unusual had occurred which need to be reacted to. I do feel perfectly entitled to reject an unsupported and insupportable story of hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, based on reason and common sense. Exactly the same may be said for the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus. Such stories are entirely beyond the scope of reason and can only be supported as a matter of unreasoning faith.

Beginning entirely alone but for his wife, over a twenty two year period Mohammad conquered an empire and established the religion of Islam. Does anything about this suggest that something extraordinary was going on, or is it simply an interesting fact of history?

No, I consider to the establishment of Islam to be quite extraordinary, but why is the subject of another thread. Incidentally, Mohammed was entirely along except for his wife. Oh yeah, and his army.

Notice that I said " beginning entirely alone except for his wife." Mohammad did eventually raise an army of thousands. I don't believe that I could accomplish such a feat in a lifetime of trying, much less in twenty years. Could you? Something extraordinary occurred. Was it an act of Allah, or just an interesting fact of history?

Since Jesus left no written record of his own we have no record who he said he was. Only the words placed in to his mouth by others after his death. But the truth is whatever it is, and ultimately it is the only thing that really matters. Anything else is just tall tales and misrepresentations. Not that there isn't some entertainment value to be found in tall tales and misrepresentations. Humans do love good stories, especially when they are infused with thrilling and unusual events.

On this basis, all biography is invalid unless it is autobiography. Your analysis is again solely a function of your bias, which is to say, not to be taken seriously. I suggest you examine some of the scholarship on the veracity of the Gospels before drawing conclusions. After all, we have around 24,000 copies of the Gospels from the period to examine, compared to around 4 copies of the Odyssey. Unless, of course, your conclusions have nothing to do with reasoned examination. In which case, you are entitled to them.

Can you name another ancient historical figure who has such long passages of verbatim dialog attributed to him? And these occurring in works written many decades after his death. Take a look at the long conversation that Jesus had with God while in Gethsemane. Jesus is depicted as having gone off entirely on his own to commune with God and yet somehow we are provided with a verbatim account of his private soliloquy. This is not history; this is story telling, pure an simple.

Many people considered Alexander to be a God during his lifetime and after wards. But in the light of reason we can "see the difference."

And if he had performed miracles during his lifetime, appeared on the scene exactly as prophesied for a thousand years and was resurrected, he might have been god. He didn't, wasn't and isn't.

No, he wasn't. But many believed it of him all the same. Belief is like that. It's not required to be true.

Acts specifically depicts Paul as becoming suddenly blind and incapacitated.

So might you be if Christ appeared to you after his death with a mission for you that entailed abandoning your livelihood, your family, your friends, and your religion so you could wander the earth having rocks thrown at you. What Acts does not say is that Paul was delusional, which is your characterization. Again, you have your biases, but I am not required to take them seriously, am I?

No, Acts does not say that Paul was delusional. It says that Paul, during a period when he was blind and incapacitated, unable to eat or drink for three days, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, believed after his recovery that he had been visited by the years dead Jesus. That is what Acts says.

What do the Jewish priests tell Pilot that they are afraid the disciples intend to do? Take the body and spread the rumor that Jesus has risen from the grave. And what happened? The body of Jesus turned up missing and then some five weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and begin to spread the story of the risen Jesus.

Indeed they did. So they posted guards to prevent that from happening. The Romans were very efficient at such things, which is perhaps why their leadership on the world stage lasted 700 years.

What does Pilate say?

Matthew 27:65 "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."

"You have a watch," Pilate tells them. Go ahead and make it as secure as you can. He gives the priests permission to guard the tomb USING THEIR OWN MEN. We see this very clearly in the next passage. [66] "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." The priests sealed the stone and the priests SET THE WATCH. Not a Roman guard. They used their own men. Not that the identity of the guard matters much, I suppose. But it is interesting to watch Christians consistently attempting to aggrandize the story above and beyond what the text actually says. And in fact the whole story of the guard at the tomb is suspicious since it is entirely left out of all of the other Gospels. This is particularly hard to understand given it's overwhelming significance. Without the story of the guard, it's clear that the obvious solution to the question of the empty tomb is that SOMEONE MOVED THE BODY. Were the other Gospel authors somehow unaware of the Guard? This position is rather hard to defend, especially for the author of Gospel Luke. Since the author of Gospel Luke chose to incorporate passages taken directly from Gospel Matthew into his narrative, clearly the author of Gospel Luke KNEW Gospel Matthew. So the author of Gospel Luke PURPOSELY omitted the story of the guard from his Gospel. It's almost as if he didn't believe it himself.

But let's put this puzzling omission question aside for the moment and simply deal with the guard as detailed in Gospel Matthew. Matthew 27:

[57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Joseph of Arimathaea was a DISCIPLE of Jesus. Gospel John also mentions another disciple, Nicodemus, as being involved. So who had control of the body of Jesus that Friday afternoon, delivered unto them directly from the cross by the Roman governor? His disciples!

And when do the Priests come to get permission from Pilate to place a guard at the tomb? Matthew 27:


[62] "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,.

The guard was placed at the tomb sometime THE NEXT DAY.

Yet, according to your theory, these guards were what, drugged, co-opted, what? In the morning these guards, who under normal Roman practices would be promptly killed, were guarding an empty tomb.

Exactly! They were guarding AN EMPTY TOMB. Why? BECAUSE THE BODY WAS ALREADY GONE! How do I know that? All four Gospels say so! The tomb was empty Sunday morning. They were guarding an empty tomb. How did that happen? Well they didn't open the tomb and check it when they took possession of it, DID THEY? The disciples had already done what the priests had feared. They had already moved the body.

The most probable solution to the problem of a missing corpse is clearly that SOMEBODY MOVED IT. The least probable solution is that the corpse wandered off under it's own power. So if the empty tomb can reasonably be shown to have been an act of the living, there is no reason at all to suppose that it was a result of an act of the dead. Are there suspects, based on information taken from the Gospels who had the motive, means and opportunity to have relocated the body of Jesus? YES! As for motive, Matthew 27:64 tells us implicitly that the priests believed that the disciples planned to "steal" the body of Jesus for the very purpose of spreading the story that Jesus had been resurrected. Did the disciples have the means to move the body? YES! The disciples of Jesus had taken possession of the body of Jesus the day before, on Friday. The disciples therefore not only had the means to move the body, they HAD THE BODY, given to them by the Roman governor. Did the disciples have the opportunity to move the body? YES! They didn't have to steal it, it was theirs to do with as they saw fit. The entire question of the resurrection can be settled by the simple recognition that the body had already been removed when the tomb was sealed on Saturday. The obvious solution to the question of a missing corpse is that the disappearance is the result of an action taken by the living, rather than an action taken by the corpse. The DISCIPLES removed the body. The DISCIPLES did so, in part at least, for the purpose of being able to glorify their fallen leader by spreading the rumor that he had risen from the dead. Just as the priests feared. The DISCIPLES are responsible for the story of the risen Christ which would ultimately, some decades later, be written down as the Gospels. Because you see, in reality there is no real reason to suppose that all of these things occurred as a result of actions taken by the corpse.

You refer to this witnessed event as flying corpses in the sky, which is an uncivil, disrespectful and nasty way of ridiculing the faith of billions. but of course that is your intent, now isn't it? Your belief in a theory that explains away what was witnessed by hundreds seems far less plausible.

If you are willing to agree that the corpse of Jesus DID NOT become reanimated, I am willing to agree with you. If on the other hand you do believe that it DID become reanimated, then don't charge me with ridiculing the notion. I'm not the one who is promoting it as both true and perfectly rational

How do you feel about the Hindu faith and their thousands of Gods? One has the head of an elephant. Ridiculous or potentially true? Is it disrespectful to disbelieve Hinduism? Hinduism is 4,000 years old after all. Yet if it is untrue, then all of those billions who have believed in it all of these centuries were simply wrong, weren't they? That's just the way it is. And again, not my fault.

But only after, according to them, the "risen" Jesus flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. So from the beginning the "risen man" was not presented to the public. Only rumors of his return from the dead.

Quite the contrary. The resurrected Christ appeared to Peter, James, the other disciples, almost all of whom died rather than deny what they saw. He also appeared to hundreds of others, which I presume would the public you say he wasn't "presented" to.

In fact Jesus only appeared to his disciples, according to his disciples. It would have been useful to have provided the resurrected Jesus to the populace one would think. But he had already flown away by that time, according to the disciples.

Jesus really never has to return at all then, does he? All that is important is for each generation to convince the next generation that of course, he will someday, even though he never does. Which is exactly what we have observed to be occurring for the last 2,000 years now. We don't observe anyone who lived 2,000 years ago walking among us though do we?

Why yes we do, although I am pretty sure you will remain "in the dark" so to speak.

My aunt, who was 90 when she passed away a few years ago, kept up a running conversation with Jesus for years. For the rest of us, even her own children, the Jesus she was talking to was much like the six foot tall invisible rabbit named Harvey in the James Stewart movie of the same name. None of the rest of us could see him at all. Is this the Jesus who walks amongst us you are referring to?

I acknowledge that I am perfectly capable of sarcasm, which I happen to view as a useful tool for making a point but which is generally frowned on here in this particular forum. Ironically no sarcasm was intended in this case at all. I was asking a perfectly straightforward question. Do you honestly consider the story of a flying reanimated corpse to be an entirely reasonable conclusion?

I understand sarcasm. What I also recognize is tiny fist shaking from a frustrated atheist. You are entitled to your bile, my brother, but don't ask me to take it seriously or treat it with respect.

In your last post you accused me of "bluster." Now it's "bile." And yet I have been entirely civil. Your frustration at the way this discussion has been playing out is obvious. And yet I feel no frustration at all. Why is that, do you suppose?

[Starboard Tack]

Actually what you said was that because Josephus lived a generation after Jesus Christ, his history is suspect, which is a very odd view of what constitutes valid history. If Marcus Minucius' testimony was affirmed by a great many others as the Gospels are, then it would have validity. It isn't, and doesn't. Your standard that anything written about Christianity is suspect because it must be effectively Christian propaganda is an indication of your philosophical leanings, not rational analysis.

Josephus' credibility as a historian has been called into question by a good many more people than I. Of course there are his infamous references to Jesus, which have almost universally been disregarded today as later Christian forgeries. But even the accuracy of his some of his non-Christian history has been rather strenuously questioned. The Masada controversy for example. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bibli ... zar_55.htm
Unfortunately Josephus is the only source of information for much of this crucial period in history. My original point was that non-Christian historians writing in the late first and second century were simply reacting to Christians and Christian claims. No one is seriously questioning that there were Christians by the late first century, and we know pretty well what they were claiming from their own writings. You're attempting to make the case that because of the vagaries and limitations of ancient historical sources we should give all the ancient accounts equal weight of validity. But that is preposterous, as the above account of Christian cannibalism shows.

Tacitus says the same thing, so the account is about as verified as you're going to find in ancient histories. There is language regarding Christ in one of Josephus' accounts that everyone recognizes as a later addition. The balance identifying the man and noting his execution and that he was called the Christ is not in dispute, and is also referenced in Josephus' "Antiquities." I am not saying that ancient accounts should be given special treatment, but that ancient history recounting Jesus Christ should not be given special skepticism, just because it is about a subject you choose to disbelieve in.

The absence of ANY reference to the story of the execution and resurrection of Jesus until many years later is in fact very telling. There is no record of a reaction at all of any kind from anyone at the time the events were supposed to have occurred, or for years to come. It's almost as if virtually no one knew that anything important or unusual had occurred which need to be reacted to. I do feel perfectly entitled to reject an unsupported and insupportable story of hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, based on reason and common sense. Exactly the same may be said for the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus. Such stories are entirely beyond the scope of reason and can only be supported as a matter of unreasoning faith.

Many years later? You mean the 17 years dated from 1 Corinthians, or Tacitus and Josephus' within 100 years? Again, if this is the standard you wish to use, it is a special standard you are applying to Christian history that makes a mockery of the concept of historical research in the first place and that no reasonable person would apply to any other history.

You say that nothing "unusual or important had occurred." Yet thousands and thousands of people converted to this new religion as a result of what they knew or thought was true. So many people that the religion had spread throughout the Roman world by the time the first independent history had been written. Sound like something occurred that was unusual, or every other false messiah wandering around then with a small rabble of followers would have spawned similar movements. The resurrection is a matter of logic and reasoning, which you reject. That's fine, but your position is philosophical and based on an a priori rejection of any reality outside your small vision. Maybe you're right. But if you're wrong, you'll be the last one to find out because you reject at the outset an explanation for a great deal of personal testimony. This is the burden most atheists bear - it is the logical fallacy of circular cause and effect. You decide that God does not exist because you find the consequences of his existence to be absurd, therefore the notion that God exists is absurd.

Notice that I said " beginning entirely alone except for his wife." Mohammad did eventually raise an army of thousands. I don't believe that I could accomplish such a feat in a lifetime of trying, much less in twenty years. Could you? Something extraordinary occurred. Was it an act of Allah, or just an interesting fact of history?

Alexander the Great had conquered the world by the time he was 25. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by the time he was 30. Mohammed was a great man. The only true prophet of God? Well, I would like some proof, please. For example, there are no records of Mohammed performing miracles attested to by anyone, unlike Jesus Christ. With Mohammed, I have nothing to test on that score because no claim was made. With Christ I do, and have ample historic evidence that he was who he said he was. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I can entertain that possibility, while apparently you cannot entertain its opposite. But that is a result of the logical fallacy noted above, from which your entire argument stems. When an argument is based on a fallacy, the balance of the argument is moot.

Can you name another ancient historical figure who has such long passages of verbatim dialog attributed to him? And these occurring in works written many decades after his death. Take a look at the long conversation that Jesus had with God while in Gethsemane. Jesus is depicted as having gone off entirely on his own to commune with God and yet somehow we are provided with a verbatim account of his private soliloquy. This is not history; this is story telling, pure an simple.

Can you name another ancient historical figure who claimed to be God, fulfilled all prophecies about what he would look like, be like, live, die, etc. who attracted a following that believed he was god so wrote down every word they could remember? Why no story telling from their followers? No? Well, I guess I'm not surprised.

No, Acts does not say that Paul was delusional. It says that Paul, during a period when he was blind and incapacitated, unable to eat or drink for three days, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, believed after his recovery that he had been visited by the years dead Jesus. That is what Acts says.

That is true. It is you who said he was delusional, not Acts, so thank you for the admission.

What does Pilate say?

Matthew 27:65 "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."

"You have a watch," Pilate tells them. Go ahead and make it as secure as you can. He gives the priests permission to guard the tomb USING THEIR OWN MEN. We see this very clearly in the next passage. [66] "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." The priests sealed the stone and the priests SET THE WATCH. Not a Roman guard. They used their own men. Not that the identity of the guard matters much, I suppose. But it is interesting to watch Christians consistently attempting to aggrandize the story above and beyond what the text actually says. And in fact the whole story of the guard at the tomb is suspicious since it is entirely left out of all of the other Gospels. This is particularly hard to understand given it's overwhelming significance. Without the story of the guard, it's clear that the obvious solution to the question of the empty tomb is that SOMEONE MOVED THE BODY. Were the other Gospel authors somehow unaware of the Guard? This position is rather hard to defend, especially for the author of Gospel Luke. Since the author of Gospel Luke chose to incorporate passages taken directly from Gospel Matthew into his narrative, clearly the author of Gospel Luke KNEW Gospel Matthew. So the author of Gospel Luke PURPOSELY omitted the story of the guard from his Gospel. It's almost as if he didn't believe it himself.

If you are going to quote Scripture, you should do so accurately. Here is the passage you have 'interpreted:'

62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 Sir, they said, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, After three days I will rise again. 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.

65 Take a guard, Pilate answered. Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how. 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

Pilate commanded Roman guards, and those are the guards he gave to the priests to post.

Some have tried to point out that differences between the gospel accounts shows they are cooked up. In fact, it is the differences to open minds that suggests greater reliability. If they were cooked up, why aren't they consistent? Because human accounts of events always have variances when they are truthfully presented. It is only when the witnesses get together to collude on a story that the kind of 1 to 1 correspondence you are demanding is found.

But let's put this puzzling omission question aside for the moment and simply deal with the guard as detailed in Gospel Matthew. Matthew 27:

[57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Joseph of Arimathaea was a DISCIPLE of Jesus. Gospel John also mentions another disciple, Nicodemus, as being involved. So who had control of the body of Jesus that Friday afternoon, delivered unto them directly from the cross by the Roman governor? His disciples!

Hmm, a conspiracy, you think? Joseph and Nicodemus were members of the Sanhedrin, so this conspiracy would be by members of the ruling clique, whose lives would be made miserable if the Jesus cult caught on, doing what they could do to make sure it caught on? Really?

And when do the Priests come to get permission from Pilate to place a guard at the tomb? Matthew 27:


[62] "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,.

The guard was placed at the tomb sometime THE NEXT DAY.

More conspiracy I guess. However, Matthew 27:66 also says that "they made the grave secure." You reckon they didn't check to see if someone had spirited the body away during the night? Really? So members of the Sanhedrin who were convinced that Jesus was the Christ spirited him away, or the Romans were asleep, or the disheartened rabble running in 5 directions after their leader had been crucified spirited him away? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and far be it from me to convince you otherwise, but you really do seem to be straining to come up with an argument that hasn't been made 10,000 times before and refuted 10,000 times before by simple logic or history.

How do you feel about the Hindu faith and their thousands of Gods? One has the head of an elephant. Ridiculous or potentially true? Is it disrespectful to disbelieve Hinduism? Hinduism is 4,000 years old after all. Yet if it is untrue, then all of those billions who have believed in it all of these centuries were simply wrong, weren't they? That's just the way it is. And again, not my fault.

If the universe was 4.3 billion years old and cyclical as described in the Hindu texts, I might look into it. However, since I know that ancient humans can't be 100 feet tall as described in the bhagavad gita, and since the universe isn't 4.3 bn years old, I'm not going to accept the rest on faith.

In fact Jesus only appeared to his disciples, according to his disciples. It would have been useful to have provided the resurrected Jesus to the populace one would think. But he had already flown away by that time, according to the disciples.

So when Paul wrote: that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born you reckon that the hundreds of people Paul references that were witnessed and still alive just shrugged their shoulders and kept mum that it was all a lie? For what? What was their payoff for believing in something they knew was false? Again, your interpretation stretches credulity.

My aunt, who was 90 when she passed away a few years ago, kept up a running conversation with Jesus for years. For the rest of us, even her own children, the Jesus she was talking to was much like the six foot tall invisible rabbit named Harvey in the James Stewart movie of the same name. None of the rest of us could see him at all. Is this the Jesus who walks amongst us you are referring to?

While I can't comment on what your Ma saw, or didn't see. However one of two things are true. The causal agent (unseen) outside space and time that brought all into existence exists is a personal entity or it isn't. If God exists, then yes, your Ma could well have spoken to him. It could also be the dark matter and energy (unseen) doesn't exist as well. Or, that the graviton (unseen) will be found to be fantasy, or the Higgs boson (unseen) will turn out not to exist. However the fact that YOU can't see them does not convince me they don't exist.

In your last post you accused me of "bluster." Now it's "bile." And yet I have been entirely civil. Your frustration at the way this discussion has been playing out is obvious. And yet I feel no frustration at all. Why is that, do you suppose?

I'm offended by your mocking tone. I understand you don't believe in God. But like far too many atheists, your disbelief is shaky enough that you find comfort in ridiculing the beliefs of those who disagree with you. What you should understand is that it is not I, and billions of Christians that you ridicule, but your Creator. Find comfort if you will in your disbelief that the Creator exists. But your belief or disbelief will have no impact on his existence, nor the unworthiness of your ridicule.

[brotherhoodofmen]

To those who are interested, here is another reference that confirms the resurrection of Jesus. Part IV of the Urantia Book is devoted to the restatement of the life and teachings of Jesus. It clarifies and gives more details to the 4 gospels of the Bible. It even includes Jesus missing years in the Bible. Heres the link: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Urant ... /Paper_122

[McCulloch]

To those who are interested, here is another reference that confirms the resurrection of Jesus. Part IV of the Urantia Book is devoted to the restatement of the life and teachings of Jesus. It clarifies and gives more details to the 4 gospels of the Bible. It even includes Jesus missing years in the Bible. Heres the link: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Urant ... /Paper_122

Somehow this does not quite do it for me. A book produced in Chicago sometime between 1924 and 1955 of unknown or speculative authorship hardly qualifies as a reliable primary source for events in the first century middle east.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Josephus' credibility as a historian has been called into question by a good many more people than I. Of course there are his infamous references to Jesus, which have almost universally been disregarded today as later Christian forgeries. But even the accuracy of his some of his non-Christian history has been rather strenuously questioned. The Masada controversy for example. http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bibli ... zar_55.htm
Unfortunately Josephus is the only source of information for much of this crucial period in history. My original point was that non-Christian historians writing in the late first and second century were simply reacting to Christians and Christian claims. No one is seriously questioning that there were Christians by the late first century, and we know pretty well what they were claiming from their own writings. You're attempting to make the case that because of the vagaries and limitations of ancient historical sources we should give all the ancient accounts equal weight of validity. But that is preposterous, as the above account of Christian cannibalism shows.

]

Tacitus says the same thing, so the account is about as verified as you're going to find in ancient histories. There is language regarding Christ in one of Josephus' accounts that everyone recognizes as a later addition. The balance identifying the man and noting his execution and that he was called the Christ is not in dispute, and is also referenced in Josephus' "Antiquities." I am not saying that ancient accounts should be given special treatment, but that ancient history recounting Jesus Christ should not be given special skepticism, just because it is about a subject you choose to disbelieve in.

As you have already pointed out, Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the Resurrection. You are attempting to make the case that the Resurrection is as true and verifiable as any event in history. Can you point to a single instance anywhere ELSE in the historical record of the last 5,000 years where an accepted fact of history is predicated on the occurrence of a miraculous event? You are IN FACT "saying that ancient accounts should be given special treatment," and that Christian claims be given a waver from normal standards of evaluation. Jesus was resurrected from the dead and eventually flew away up into the sky according to the accounts that you are attempting to portray as perfectly valid and reliable facts of history. And of course this story absolutely MUST be regarded with "special skepticism," given that it is a totally absurd claim by any normal standard of consideration. I'm sorry if my pointing out the absurd nature of the claims associated with your particular ancient superstitious beliefs offends you, but I am not responsible for the fact that they are nonsense by any normal standard of reason. Of course they are! And of course I have every intention of CONTINUING to point that fact out to you.

The absence of ANY reference to the story of the execution and resurrection of Jesus until many years later is in fact very telling. There is no record of a reaction at all of any kind from anyone at the time the events were supposed to have occurred, or for years to come. It's almost as if virtually no one knew that anything important or unusual had occurred which need to be reacted to. I do feel perfectly entitled to reject an unsupported and insupportable story of hordes of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering the streets of Jerusalem, based on reason and common sense. Exactly the same may be said for the story of the flying reanimated corpse of Jesus. Such stories are entirely beyond the scope of reason and can only be supported as a matter of unreasoning faith.

Many years later? You mean the 17 years dated from 1 Corinthians, or Tacitus and Josephus' within 100 years? Again, if this is the standard you wish to use, it is a special standard you are applying to Christian history that makes a mockery of the concept of historical research in the first place and that no reasonable person would apply to any other history.

Herod the Great, who is specifically mentioned as being King of Israel when Jesus was born, died in 4 BC. This means that Jesus was born in 5 BC or perhaps 6 BC. If Jesus was 33 at the time of his death, as Christian scholars maintain, then his execution occurred somewhere in the years 27 to 30 AD. "The epistle (1 Corinthians) was written from Ephesus (16:8), a city on the west coast of today's Turkey, about 180 miles by sea from Corinth. According to Acts of the Apostles, Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17), then spent approximately three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 19:10, 20:31). The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians

This would mean that 1 Corinthians was written between 23 years (at it's earliest) and 30 years (at it's latest) after the death of Jesus, although the year 55 is generally favored for the writing of 1 Corinthians. Roughly a quarter of a century after the death of Jesus, as I indicated. Not 17 years. During all of those 23 to 30 years there is no indication of "hundreds or perhaps thousands" of eyewitnesses furiously proclaiming that they had seen a resurrected dead man, or the hordes of resurrected dead people roaming Jerusalem for that matter. There is only silence until Paul, who wasn't there, wrote about the resurrection for the first time.

You say that nothing "unusual or important had occurred." Yet thousands and thousands of people converted to this new religion as a result of what they knew or thought was true. So many people that the religion had spread throughout the Roman world by the time the first independent history had been written. Sound like something occurred that was unusual, or every other false messiah wandering around then with a small rabble of followers would have spawned similar movements. The resurrection is a matter of logic and reasoning, which you reject. That's fine, but your position is philosophical and based on an a priori rejection of any reality outside your small vision. Maybe you're right. But if you're wrong, you'll be the last one to find out because you reject at the outset an explanation for a great deal of personal testimony. This is the burden most atheists bear - it is the logical fallacy of circular cause and effect. You decide that God does not exist because you find the consequences of his existence to be absurd, therefore the notion that God exists is absurd.

Around 1830 Joseph Smith put his face into a top hat and began to translate the unreadable words he saw on written some golden tablets that the angel Moroni had led him to find but which no one else was ever allowed to see. The words of Joseph Smith were then written down by a friend as he spoke them and eventually became the Book of Mormon. And today only 180 years later there are some 15 million believing Mormons. Where did they all come from? Did something "unusual or important occur?"

:
Notice that I said " beginning entirely alone except for his wife." Mohammad did eventually raise an army of thousands. I don't believe that I could accomplish such a feat in a lifetime of trying, much less in twenty years. Could you? Something extraordinary occurred. Was it an act of Allah, or just an interesting fact of history?

Alexander the Great had conquered the world by the time he was 25. Bill Gates became the richest man in the world by the time he was 30. Mohammed was a great man. The only true prophet of God? Well, I would like some proof, please. For example, there are no records of Mohammed performing miracles attested to by anyone, unlike Jesus Christ. With Mohammed, I have nothing to test on that score because no claim was made. With Christ I do, and have ample historic evidence that he was who he said he was. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I can entertain that possibility, while apparently you cannot entertain its opposite. But that is a result of the logical fallacy noted above, from which your entire argument stems. When an argument is based on a fallacy, the balance of the argument is moot.

Around 610 AD the angel Jibril gave Mohammad a revelation directly from God. Mohammad was required by the angel to memorize exactly what he was told, and this was to become the Quran. In the Quran is found this passage. "That they said (in boast) 'We have killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah";-- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:--" (Koran, Su 4:157). So we know for a fact that Jesus was never even crucified much less resurrected from the dead, because God said so. If Jesus WAS crucified and resurrected from the dead, then the Quran is WRONG, and so is the basis for the entire belief of Islam. If the Quran is not inerrant, being derived directly from God, then Islam is a false religion. On the other hand, if Jesus was NOT crucified and resurrected from the dead, then the entire basis for Christianity is wrong, and Christianity is a false religion. Given this contradiction both sides cannot be right. One way or another billions of people are simply wrong about their most devout beliefs. Of course it's still theoretically possible that BOTH sides are fulla bulla, isn't it?

:
Can you name another ancient historical figure who has such long passages of verbatim dialog attributed to him? And these occurring in works written many decades after his death. Take a look at the long conversation that Jesus had with God while in Gethsemane. Jesus is depicted as having gone off entirely on his own to commune with God and yet somehow we are provided with a verbatim account of his private soliloquy. This is not history; this is story telling, pure an simple..

Can you name another ancient historical figure who claimed to be God, fulfilled all prophecies about what he would look like, be like, live, die, etc. who attracted a following that believed he was god so wrote down every word they could remember? Why no story telling from their followers? No? Well, I guess I'm not surprised..

Actually Jesus never claimed to be God at all, even in the words put into his mouth by others. That would have been open blasphemy. He was variously quoted as referring to himself as "the son of man," which of course we all are, literally. And as "the son of God." But then, aren't we all "sons of God" spiritually, created in His image?

No, Acts does not say that Paul was delusional. It says that Paul, during a period when he was blind and incapacitated, unable to eat or drink for three days, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, believed after his recovery that he had been visited by the years dead Jesus. That is what Acts says..

That is true. It is you who said he was delusional, not Acts, so thank you for the admission..

"Delusional: having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions. Maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/delusional+

Believing that one is having or has had a conversation with a dead person is the very definition of "delusional." It's the very sort of thing the word was formulated to describe.

What does Pilate say?

Matthew 27:65 "Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can."

"You have a watch," Pilate tells them. Go ahead and make it as secure as you can. He gives the priests permission to guard the tomb USING THEIR OWN MEN. We see this very clearly in the next passage. [66] "So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch." The priests sealed the stone and the priests SET THE WATCH. Not a Roman guard. They used their own men. Not that the identity of the guard matters much, I suppose. But it is interesting to watch Christians consistently attempting to aggrandize the story above and beyond what the text actually says. And in fact the whole story of the guard at the tomb is suspicious since it is entirely left out of all of the other Gospels. This is particularly hard to understand given it's overwhelming significance. Without the story of the guard, it's clear that the obvious solution to the question of the empty tomb is that SOMEONE MOVED THE BODY. Were the other Gospel authors somehow unaware of the Guard? This position is rather hard to defend, especially for the author of Gospel Luke. Since the author of Gospel Luke chose to incorporate passages taken directly from Gospel Matthew into his narrative, clearly the author of Gospel Luke KNEW Gospel Matthew. So the author of Gospel Luke PURPOSELY omitted the story of the guard from his Gospel. It's almost as if he didn't believe it himself.

If you are going to quote Scripture, you should do so accurately. Here is the passage you have 'interpreted:'

62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 Sir, they said, we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, After three days I will rise again. 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.

65 Take a guard, Pilate answered. Go, make the tomb as secure as you know how. 66 So they went and made the tomb secure by putting a seal on the stone and posting the guard.

The source I quoted from was the On-line Bible, KJV. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/kjv/kjv ... te=4380943

But here are some other quotes of the same passage from different publishers if that helps you to understand it.

65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a guard: go, make it [as] sure as ye can. (ASV)
65 Pilate saith to them: You have a guard. Go, guard it as you know. (Douay-Rheims Bible)
65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard of soldiers. Go, make it as secure as you can." (English Standard Version)
65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard ; go, make it as secure as you know how." (New American Standard)
65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can." (Revised Standard Version)

How about these? Direct Greek-to-English Interlinear translations.

65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way , make it as sure as ye can .
e~fh {V-IXI-3S} aujtoi'? {P-DPM} oJ {T-NSM} Pila'to?, {N-NSM} ~ecete {V-PAI-2P} koustwdivan: {N-ASF} uJpavgete {V-PAM-2P} ajsfalivsasqe {V-ADM-2P} wJ? {ADV} oi~date. {V-RAI-2P}

65 Pilate said to them, "You have a guard ; go, make it as secure as you know how."
e~fh {V-IXI-3S} aujtoi'? {P-DPM} oJ {T-NSM} Pila'to?, {N-NSM} ~ecete {V-PAI-2P} koustwdivan: {N-ASF} uJpavgete {V-PAM-2P} ajsfalivsasqe {V-ADM-2P} wJ? {ADV} oi~date. {V-RAI-2P}

Pilate commanded Roman guards, and those are the guards he gave to the priests to post.

Pilate may have commanded Roman guards, but Roman guards were not who he sent to the tomb. He had already washed his hands of the whole Jesus affair, if you will recall. In verse 66 The Priests the priests are depicted as going out to the tomb and SETTING THE GUARD. Later the guard is depicted as being paid and promised protection from Pilate by the priests to spread the story that they had been asleep while on guard duty. This would have been absurd for Roman guards. Sleeping while on guard duty was a capital crime in the Roman army, punishable by being beaten to death, and the priests would have had no power to protect Roman soldiers from Roman military law. It was a matter of discipline and morale, and the Romans built their empire on the discipline and morale of their armies. The governor himself had no say in military discipline, which was the responsibility of the commander of the army. More telling however, is if the guard were made up of Roman soldiers, WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD THE PRIESTS CARE TO PROTECT THEM. The tomb was opened, their official seals were broken. The priests should have been furious, and demanded their execution, had they been Romans. This story only begins to make sense if the guards were the priests OWN MEN; members of the temple police.

Some have tried to point out that differences between the gospel accounts shows they are cooked up. In fact, it is the differences to open minds that suggests greater reliability. If they were cooked up, why aren't they consistent? Because human accounts of events always have variances when they are truthfully presented. It is only when the witnesses get together to collude on a story that the kind of 1 to 1 correspondence you are demanding is found.

For the other Gospel writers to have knowingly omitted the entire story of the guard at the tomb is more than mere "variance." It can only have been purposeful. And very, very telling.

But let's put this puzzling omission question aside for the moment and simply deal with the guard as detailed in Gospel Matthew. Matthew 27:

[57] When the even was come, there came a rich man of Arimathaea, named Joseph, who also himself was Jesus' disciple:
[58] He went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered.

Joseph of Arimathaea was a DISCIPLE of Jesus. Gospel John also mentions another disciple, Nicodemus, as being involved. So who had control of the body of Jesus that Friday afternoon, delivered unto them directly from the cross by the Roman governor? His disciples!

Hmm, a conspiracy, you think? Joseph and Nicodemus were members of the Sanhedrin, so this conspiracy would be by members of the ruling clique, whose lives would be made miserable if the Jesus cult caught on, doing what they could do to make sure it caught on? Really?

Well the priests thought so, didn't they? The prospect of a conspiracy was exactly what brought then to Pilate on that Passover Sabbath. And they were the ones there at the time after all.

And when do the Priests come to get permission from Pilate to place a guard at the tomb?

Matthew 27:
[62] "Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,.

The guard was placed at the tomb sometime THE NEXT DAY.

More conspiracy I guess. However, Matthew 27:66 also says that "they made the grave secure." You reckon they didn't check to see if someone had spirited the body away during the night? Really? So members of the Sanhedrin who were convinced that Jesus was the Christ spirited him away, or the Romans were asleep, or the disheartened rabble running in 5 directions after their leader had been crucified spirited him away? You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and far be it from me to convince you otherwise, but you really do seem to be straining to come up with an argument that hasn't been made 10,000 times before and refuted 10,000 times before by simple logic or history.

Same conspiracy. But yes, the priests made the tomb sure by setting a guard or watch, and by sealing the tomb, which they did by using cords fastened with sealing wax or clay, and embossed with an official seal. But they didn't open the tomb to inspect it for the body of Jesus. And surely they would have done that, had it not been a high holy day, Passover-Sabbath. They were prevented by Jewish law from exposing a body on the holy day, so they did the next best thing. They sealed the tomb until later when they would be free to come back and check it. And when would that be? The next day. SUNDAY!
And what do were know about that next day, that Sunday? The tomb was found to be empty.

How do you feel about the Hindu faith and their thousands of Gods? One has the head of an elephant. Ridiculous or potentially true? Is it disrespectful to disbelieve Hinduism? Hinduism is 4,000 years old after all. Yet if it is untrue, then all of those billions who have believed in it all of these centuries were simply wrong, weren't they? That's just the way it is. And again, not my fault.

If the universe was 4.3 billion years old and cyclical as described in the Hindu texts, I might look into it. However, since I know that ancient humans can't be 100 feet tall as described in the bhagavad gita, and since the universe isn't 4.3 bn years old, I'm not going to accept the rest on faith.

In ancient times there was not the same concept of the universe that we have today with our mighty telescopes. The term that was generally used was "the world." And in fact "the world" is just about 4.3 billion years old.

Deut.3

5. [11] For only Og king of Bashan remained of the remnant of giants; behold, his bedstead was a bedstead of iron; is it not in Rabbath of the children of Ammon? nine cubits was the length thereof, and four cubits the breadth of it, after the cubit of a man.
6. [13] And the rest of Gilead, and all Bashan, being the kingdom of Og, gave I unto the half tribe of Manasseh; all the region of Argob, with all Bashan, which was called the land of giants.

"The earliest attested standard measure is from the Old Kingdom pyramids of Egypt and was called the royal cubit (mahe). The royal cubit was 523 to 529 mm (20.6 to 20.8 in) in length." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubits

Og's bed was about 182 inches long, which meant that Og the giant was upwards of 15 feet tall. It says so in the OT.

In fact Jesus only appeared to his disciples, according to his disciples. It would have been useful to have provided the resurrected Jesus to the populace one would think. But he had already flown away by that time, according to the disciples..

So when Paul wrote: that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born you reckon that the hundreds of people Paul references that were witnessed and still alive just shrugged their shoulders and kept mum that it was all a lie? For what? What was their payoff for believing in something they knew was false? Again, your interpretation stretches credulity.

We don't have all of those testimonies do we?. We have Paul's testimony. But Paul himself never met Jesus, alive or resurrected. Is there any reason to doubt Paul's story? Well, is a resurrected dead man perfectly believable?

My aunt, who was 90 when she passed away a few years ago, kept up a running conversation with Jesus for years. For the rest of us, even her own children, the Jesus she was talking to was much like the six foot tall invisible rabbit named Harvey in the James Stewart movie of the same name. None of the rest of us could see him at all. Is this the Jesus who walks amongst us you are referring to?

While I can't comment on what your Ma saw, or didn't see. However one of two things are true. The causal agent (unseen) outside space and time that brought all into existence exists is a personal entity or it isn't. If God exists, then yes, your Ma could well have spoken to him. It could also be the dark matter and energy (unseen) doesn't exist as well. Or, that the graviton (unseen) will be found to be fantasy, or the Higgs boson (unseen) will turn out not to exist. However the fact that YOU can't see them does not convince me they don't exist.

If a boson ever speaks to me, I will let you know.

In your last post you accused me of "bluster." Now it's "bile." And yet I have been entirely civil. Your frustration at the way this discussion has been playing out is obvious. And yet I feel no frustration at all. Why is that, do you suppose?

I'm offended by your mocking tone. I understand you don't believe in God. But like far too many atheists, your disbelief is shaky enough that you find comfort in ridiculing the beliefs of those who disagree with you. What you should understand is that it is not I, and billions of Christians that you ridicule, but your Creator. Find comfort if you will in your disbelief that the Creator exists. But your belief or disbelief will have no impact on his existence, nor the unworthiness of your ridicule.

I am not responsible for your emotional state. If being contradicted displeases you I can only suggest that you learn to get over it.

[Mithrae]

I've been following with interest the points made on both sides of this topic. Is belief in the resurrection reasonable? From the perspective that a miraculous event should necessarily be viewed with considerable scepticism - eloquently expressed as 'flying reanimated corpses' - Tired has pointed out some important problems with the biblical inerrantist position and raised room for doubt on the issue in general. Responding to Tired's objections, Starboard seems to have covered most of the common apologist bases rather well with some other points thrown in.

If I might make a suggestion, I suspect that the discussion is going to end up rather circular without some kind of agreement regarding reliability of sources. For example in post 6 Tired cast serious doubt on the credibility of the gospel of Matthew:

• Hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering about the city of Jerusalem according to Matthew 27:52-53. One would that THAT would have caught someone's attention. But no, no mention of this little event at the time either. In fact only the author of Gospel Matthew, written many decades later, mentions it at all.

Yet in his next post, Tired used the gospel of Matthew as a source for his argument:

• What do the Jewish priests tell Pilot that they are afraid the disciples intend to do? Take the body and spread the rumor that Jesus has risen from the grave. And what happened? The body of Jesus turned up missing...

This obviously required Starboard to mention the soldiers guarding the tomb, offering Tired the opportunity to comment how it's "interesting to watch Christians consistently attempting to aggrandize the story above and beyond what the text actually says" (incidentally I think the story does suggest Roman soldiers, though the whole argument is futile IMO). While Tired might be correct in pointing out inconsistencies in Starboard's approach to analogous non-Christian examples, such obvious and direct inconsistency in the approach to Christian material can only serve to confuse the issue.


Since the question is whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable (rather than incontrovertible), might I suggest the following as reasonable primary sources:

The gospel of John apparently was indeed written by the disciple John. The gospel of Mark was plausibly written by Peter's interpreter (as per Papias) and, given that his mother was supposedly a key figure in the very early church (Acts 12:11-12), the strange incident mentioned in Mark 14:51-52 might best be explained as referring to Mark himself - though Papias shows that he wasn't a long-time companion of Jesus. And while there's no record of Paul ever meeting Jesus in person, we know that he was in Jerusalem a few years after Jesus' death; as a devout Jew there's every probability that he was in Jerusalem during the Passover on which Jesus was crucified also. With or without that guess, as a Jewish contemporary of Jesus he obviously had more background knowledge available than we do, and according to both his own and others' accounts was initially an opponent of the Christ movement before his conversion. This, as well as being our earliest extant written source regarding Jesus, makes him an important figure in any Jesus discussion.

[Goat]

I've been following with interest the points made on both sides of this topic. Is belief in the resurrection reasonable? From the perspective that a miraculous event should necessarily be viewed with considerable scepticism - eloquently expressed as 'flying reanimated corpses' - Tired has pointed out some important problems with the biblical inerrantist position and raised room for doubt on the issue in general. Responding to Tired's objections, Starboard seems to have covered most of the common apologist bases rather well with some other points thrown in.

If I might make a suggestion, I suspect that the discussion is going to end up rather circular without some kind of agreement regarding reliability of sources. For example in post 6 Tired cast serious doubt on the credibility of the gospel of Matthew:

• Hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering about the city of Jerusalem according to Matthew 27:52-53. One would that THAT would have caught someone's attention. But no, no mention of this little event at the time either. In fact only the author of Gospel Matthew, written many decades later, mentions it at all.

Yet in his next post, Tired used the gospel of Matthew as a source for his argument:

• What do the Jewish priests tell Pilot that they are afraid the disciples intend to do? Take the body and spread the rumor that Jesus has risen from the grave. And what happened? The body of Jesus turned up missing...

This obviously required Starboard to mention the soldiers guarding the tomb, offering Tired the opportunity to comment how it's "interesting to watch Christians consistently attempting to aggrandize the story above and beyond what the text actually says" (incidentally I think the story does suggest Roman soldiers, though the whole argument is futile IMO). While Tired might be correct in pointing out inconsistencies in Starboard's approach to analogous non-Christian examples, such obvious and direct inconsistency in the approach to Christian material can only serve to confuse the issue.


Since the question is whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable (rather than incontrovertible), might I suggest the following as reasonable primary sources:

The gospel of John apparently was indeed written by the disciple John. The gospel of Mark was plausibly written by Peter's interpreter (as per Papias) and, given that his mother was supposedly a key figure in the very early church (Acts 12:11-12), the strange incident mentioned in Mark 14:51-52 might best be explained as referring to Mark himself - though Papias shows that he wasn't a long-time companion of Jesus. And while there's no record of Paul ever meeting Jesus in person, we know that he was in Jerusalem a few years after Jesus' death; as a devout Jew there's every probability that he was in Jerusalem during the Passover on which Jesus was crucified also. With or without that guess, as a Jewish contemporary of Jesus he obviously had more background knowledge available than we do, and according to both his own and others' accounts was initially an opponent of the Christ movement before his conversion. This, as well as being our earliest extant written source regarding Jesus, makes him an important figure in any Jesus discussion.

It seems to me that the historical evidence about when the Gospel of John was written, and the internal evidence about it sort of counters the concept that the GOJ was written by the apostle John.

[Mithrae]

Since the question is whether belief in the resurrection is reasonable (rather than incontrovertible), might I suggest the following as reasonable primary sources:

The gospel of John apparently was indeed written by the disciple John.

It seems to me that the historical evidence about when the Gospel of John was written, and the internal evidence about it sort of counters the concept that the GOJ was written by the apostle John.

I agree that Johannine authorship isn't incontrovertible, but it's certainly reasonable - and indeed, pending further replies in that thread, I can only stand by the conclusion I've reached that there's actually quite a solid balance of evidence favouring it.

[brotherhoodofmen]

McCulloch wrote:

Somehow this does not quite do it for me. A book produced in Chicago sometime between 1924 and 1955 of unknown or speculative authorship hardly qualifies as a reliable primary source for events in the first century middle east.

You might just want try to read the papers that deals with the problem in question. A quite portion of part IV is devoted to what transpired during the death and resurrection of Jesus. You might want to start with Paper 183 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Urant ... /Paper_183 which deals with the betrayal and arrest of Jesus to Paper 189 http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Urant ... /Paper_189 which deals with his resurrection. I have followed your discussions and I am just flabbergasted that if you just read these papers, all these questions and problems you have might be cleared and answered. I could post some excerpts but I would rather have you read and discover it for yourself. This is also for anyone else who might be interested. Pardon my insistence, I am just trying to share what I discovered.