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.

[Flail]

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.

I think McCulloch has nailed the unreasonableness of believing the resurrection story as anything other than allegory or myth; and I would add that I don't think such a belief is rational either. I don't think, absent dogma, indoctrination and a passion for believing, that the resurrection story is one that any rational person could accept as actually having happened.

Logic, reason and common sense work strongly against the unsubstantiated and ancient notion that: an all powerful male supernatural being entered the womb of a virginal teenager while she was betrothed to another at the beginning of the first century; impregnated the poor girl; followed by her birthing 'God as man', a man who then, some thirty years subsequent, died and then 'un-died'. There is just no basis for it in fact or reason, other than from mostly anonymous stories in an old book of collected religious propaganda and verse; such, IMO, is hardly the stuff of 'Gods.'

[Starboard Tack]

Adamoriens wrote:

Also, I think that many religious beliefs (and I'm trying to say this without malice) can seem ridiculous when presented without the usual methods of persuasion and conversion.

IMO, 'religious believing' is an emotional event which has more to do with stage setting, music, the massing of the like-minded and the stage directions of preaching than with anything actual/factual.

In my OP about desire and belief I attempt to explore this idea: that a belief in the BibleGod requires a desire, a passion, a 'wanting to believe' as a pre-condition; and that any cold, rational, logical approach to the Bible will never produce a literal belief in the dogma that surrounds it; which of course is why we have churches and preachers and organists and gaudy, stained-glass Cathedrals; and that by requiring emotional desires and passions as a pre-condition to acceptance we create an unreliable and untrustworthy motive for belief.

That statement could only be made by someone with a philosophically driven "pre-condition to acceptance" of a universe without meaning. Clearly you have very little understanding of the breadth and depth of the reasons why people are religious, much less Christians. Yours is a cartoon version of faith, befitting a child and not someone who has lived as long as you have.

A cold, rational, logical approach to the Bible would cause marvel in the reader as the early conditions of creation are poetically described in Genesis. Relying solely on a logical and rational reading of Scripture, Nahmanides was able to deduce the following simply from reading that Bible at a time before the invention of calculus, the telescope, agreement that we do not live in a geocentric world, and when a trip of 1000 miles on the back of a donkey was the trip of a lifetime (1250 AD):

..."At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed".

From the same rational reading of the Bible I see numerous references to God "stretching out the heavens", using a Hebrew verb indicating continuous and on-going expansion, mimicking our understanding of cosmic expansion 2800 years before man had a clue about the nature or even the existence of the expansion of space.

From the same rational reading of the Bible I find as good a description of Maxwell's second law of thermodynamics as one could hope to find written 1700 years before Maxwell postulated his laws: (Romans 8)

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God".

A mind incapable of reading the Bible and not noting in wonder, even if skeptical wonder, the prophetic nature of the work is a mind without spiritual imagination, much less intellectual curiosity. A mind capable of ridiculing faithful people, including a large number of intellectual giants who find relevance and truth in Scripture is a very small mind indeed.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 171:

That statement could only be made by someone with a philosophically driven "pre-condition to acceptance" of a universe without meaning.

Can Starboard Tack show this is a universe with meaning?

What would such meaning be? 42?

Clearly you have very little understanding of the breadth and depth of the reasons why people are religious, much less Christians.

I agree that many religious folks have given their position much thoughtful analysis.

Yours is a cartoon version of faith...

I propose if this expression of faith, in the form of religious texts, weren't so "cartoony" to begin with, perhaps this confusion wouldn't occur.

A cold, rational, logical approach to the Bible would cause marvel in the reader as the early conditions of creation are poetically described in Genesis.

Argument from incredulity.

I find reading the Bible to be among the most boring endeavors I ever attempted - but that's just me.

Nahmanides was able to deduce the following simply from reading that Bible at a time before the invention of calculus, the telescope, agreement that we do not live in a geocentric world, and when a trip of 1000 miles on the back of a donkey was the trip of a lifetime (1250 AD)
...

That's interesting as heck, and I 'preciate ya for it.

Let's open it up for discussion here.

From the same rational reading of the Bible I see numerous references to God "stretching out the heavens", using a Hebrew verb indicating continuous and on-going expansion, mimicking our understanding of cosmic expansion 2800 years before man had a clue about the nature or even the existence of the expansion of space.

I just see it as a mere expression of awe - where "stretching out" is a rather mundane term given significance only by the religious. Again, that's just me.

From the same rational reading of the Bible I find as good a description of Maxwell's second law of thermodynamics as one could hope to find written 1700 years before Maxwell postulated his laws: (Romans 8)

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God".

Now ya lost me. I see nothing in the above to indicate knowledge of the 2nd LoT.

A mind incapable of reading the Bible and not noting in wonder, even if skeptical wonder, the prophetic nature of the work is a mind without spiritual imagination, much less intellectual curiosity.

Meh. It could be we find it be just so much drivel.

A mind capable of ridiculing faithful people, including a large number of intellectual giants who find relevance and truth in Scripture is a very small mind indeed.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is not one who does good.

And of course bible folks don't do some "small minded" thinking of their own.

[Flail]

Adamoriens wrote:

Also, I think that many religious beliefs (and I'm trying to say this without malice) can seem ridiculous when presented without the usual methods of persuasion and conversion.

IMO, 'religious believing' is an emotional event which has more to do with stage setting, music, the massing of the like-minded and the stage directions of preaching than with anything actual/factual.

In my OP about desire and belief I attempt to explore this idea: that a belief in the BibleGod requires a desire, a passion, a 'wanting to believe' as a pre-condition; and that any cold, rational, logical approach to the Bible will never produce a literal belief in the dogma that surrounds it; which of course is why we have churches and preachers and organists and gaudy, stained-glass Cathedrals; and that by requiring emotional desires and passions as a pre-condition to acceptance we create an unreliable and untrustworthy motive for belief.

That statement could only be made by someone with a philosophically driven "pre-condition to acceptance" of a universe without meaning. Clearly you have very little understanding of the breadth and depth of the reasons why people are religious, much less Christians. Yours is a cartoon version of faith, befitting a child and not someone who has lived as long as you have.

A cold, rational, logical approach to the Bible would cause marvel in the reader as the early conditions of creation are poetically described in Genesis. Relying solely on a logical and rational reading of Scripture, Nahmanides was able to deduce the following simply from reading that Bible at a time before the invention of calculus, the telescope, agreement that we do not live in a geocentric world, and when a trip of 1000 miles on the back of a donkey was the trip of a lifetime (1250 AD):

..."At the briefest instant following creation all the matter of the universe was concentrated in a very small place, no larger than a grain of mustard. The matter at this time was very thin, so intangible, that it did not have real substance. It did have, however, a potential to gain substance and form and to become tangible matter. From the initial concentration of this intangible substance in its minute location, the substance expanded, expanding the universe as it did so. As the expansion progressed, a change in the substance occurred. This initially thin noncorporeal substance took on the tangible aspects of matter as we know it. From this initial act of creation, from this etherieally thin pseudosubstance, everything that has existed, or will ever exist, was, is, and will be formed".

From the same rational reading of the Bible I see numerous references to God "stretching out the heavens", using a Hebrew verb indicating continuous and on-going expansion, mimicking our understanding of cosmic expansion 2800 years before man had a clue about the nature or even the existence of the expansion of space.

From the same rational reading of the Bible I find as good a description of Maxwell's second law of thermodynamics as one could hope to find written 1700 years before Maxwell postulated his laws: (Romans 8)

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God".

A mind incapable of reading the Bible and not noting in wonder, even if skeptical wonder, the prophetic nature of the work is a mind without spiritual imagination, much less intellectual curiosity. A mind capable of ridiculing faithful people, including a large number of intellectual giants who find relevance and truth in Scripture is a very small mind indeed.

Although I don't believe we have ever met, I do 'get' how you could presume to know my mind and my level of maturity from merely reading a few of my thoughts and ideas. But that is beside the point and makes no debate point whatever. Frankly sir, your opinion of me is none of my business.

I much admire what faiths of all stripes have given to mankind and we would be a much lesser race of beings without our religious philosophies and traditions. I find much of the Bible and related teachings and ceremony to be both uplifting and inspirational for rational adults. I keep my well worn copy of the Bible at hand and refer to it often.

My arguments have nothing to do with approaching the wonders and philosophies of Christianity or Islam or Judaism etc with a mature and rational mind which can grasp the deeper and more nuanced meanings available in faith. My arguments do however, go to the very acquisition of particular fundamentalist beliefs foisted upon young and immature minds as dogma and indoctrination which require an unthinking acceptance of ideas both unfounded and easily misinterpreted, especially when those minds are ramped by emotion.

In our practices, both my spouse, a therapist, and I, a trial attorney, have experienced innumerable instances of religious abuse toward children and others while suffering grievous circumstances, and whose fundamentalist Christian indoctrinators operated under the very 'circumstances of the splendor' of which you speak, but which they and their indoctrinators clearly misappropriated by using dogma and emotion. Such scriptural dogmatism often engenders all manner of horrible manifestations for the young and the weak minded including intolerance and even hatred, not to mention psychological damage and narrow mindedness that can be irreparable.

[Mithrae]

Some people would say that mid-second century historical attribution of a late-first century document is not quite the same as "fact by declaration," your mockery notwithstanding.

No mockery intended. I have been told my entire life by Christians that, of course the author of Gospel John was the apostle John, there can be no doubt, all in accordance with God's plan, praise the Lord. Since it was all part of God's plan from the beginning, no further evidence is required. And the "mid-second century historical attribution of a late-first century document," that you mention, Papias, does not name the author of Gospel John as the apostle John at all, as you well know. But before we jump to the identities of the authors of the Gospels, why don't you first answer the question above, which is after all central to the entire thread.

As I suggested in my first post, discussing whether something is 'reasonable' or not depends largely on the quality of evidence available. Probable or reasonable suggestions regarding the nature of our sources of information for the alleged resurrection - identities of gospel writers - should be the first concern. Of course a philosophical objection to the very nature of the event as a 'supernatural' thing also has validity, but as I said in that post that just leads to a circular exchange of Christian vs. atheist presuppositions.

The mid-second century attributions of the gospel to John come from the gnostics Heracleon and the Valentinians (Ptolemaeus), not Papias. Not far above that post Goat quoted my summary of the pro and con evidence/arguments which lead me to conclude that a very solid balance of evidence favours Johannine authorship.

Is that the full extent of your evidence for the claim that it's "simply reactions to the existence of Christians"?

This is a good point in fact. Instead of simply inserting yourself into an established discussion that has been progressing for two weeks now, if you had actually READ through the progression of the discussion, then you would not be asking questions such as "Is that the full extent of your evidence." If reading two weeks worth of posts is too much bother, then I will make it even easier for you.

I've followed the discussion from the beginning, with various comments thrown in from page 2 onwards. I'm surprised you don't remember replying to quite a few of them yourself. But I thought it would be courteous to request your evidence for the claim that the Tacitus passage (and Josephus) is "simply reactions to the existence of Christians," since it had not specifically been previously asked and my general impressions from your posts may have been incorrect. As it turns out, my general impressions were correct; you do not have any actual evidence that Tacitus' information regarding Jesus is "simply reactions to the existence of Christians." Your guess as to his sources and verification methods is possibly just as valid as Starboard's of course.

The subject at hand here is: "Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?" Instead of doing your best to hijack the discussion by branching out with a foray into detail and minutiae, how about first answering the central question I posed to Starboard Tack yourself. Do you consider the story of a flying reanimated corpse to be both plausible and reasonable? Does the evidence move us inexorably to the undeniable conclusion that the corpse of Jesus must have actually returned to life, and that it ultimately flew away up into the sky? Since the obvious answer to the question of a missing corpse would normally be that it was a result of actions taken by the living, rather than actions taken by the corpse, would a reasonable person be within his rights to question the opposite conclusion? Starboard Tack agreed that the truth of Christianity stands or falls on the truth of the resurrection. If belief in the resurrection is not reasonable then, well, everything else is really nothing more than useless detail and minutiae anyway, isn't it?

The OP lists 5 claims by Starboard Tack, and it seems that you dismissed the first of them essentially out of hand with your unevidenced claim that they're "simply reactions to the existence of Christians." A Roman historian, hostile to Christians, stated that Christ "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" - on face value that seems to validate half of Starboard's first point. You stated your opinion that Tacitus was simply parroting the claims of those he denigrated, and I responded. You may describe that as detail and minutiae, but I personally do not consider it to be particularly sound research or debate methodology.

It's also interesting how easily "is belief in the resurrection reasonable" can turn into "move us inexorably to the undeniable conclusion..." No conclusion is undeniable, which is why from page 2 I've pointed out the foundational importance of establishing sources and the general role of presuppositions in the discussion.

On that note, please show me where you get this "flying reanimated corpse" from. And in particular, could you explain why you consider the reasonableness of the alleged resurrection to be associated with that particular source. I hope you'll appreciate my hesitation in answering such a loaded question without that further clarification.

[Composer]

Starboard Tack wrote:
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.

I asked Starboard to provide legitimate evidence of this, so I was wondering where the evidence of this is in the Posts? (I have been away and haven't searched all the pages I admit). Could Starboard or any one else please refer me to Starboard's alleged evidence?

Thank you

Starboard provided the usual late first century reference to Josephus, and references to second century historians Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, which it was pointed out to him are simply reactions to the existence of Christians and the stories they were telling many decades after the time of Jesus. He DID NOT provide evidence taken from the actual time of Jesus, because there is not any. Begin on page one and catch up. The question at this point is whether Starboard has deserted the discussion or not.

Please provide evidence that the information provided by Josephus and Tacitus "are simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

Still waiting for legitimate evidence this biblical jesus literally existed as written about?

What others may or may not have said about this fictional character is of no particular importance for it is ALL spurious and beliefs in a fantasy and YOUR efforts haven't changed that one iota!

Starboard didn't claim that there was Roman or Jewish evidence from the within the few years of Jesus' public ministry. Could you explain why you've introduced this as an important criteria?

Bottom-line: I agree that he claimed there was Jewish and Roman evidence which we still have patiently waited to see and examine? So far you and he have nothing of value, but by all means if you wish to try again please do so and we'll see what you have next time around?

Paul, John and Mark were contemporaries of Jesus of course, even if they wrote later - though of course they were Jewish, not Roman.

These are ALL fictional Story book characters and your legitimate evidence otherwise a constant zero!

Edit:

Thanks very much for that ' Tired of the Nonsense '. I'll try to read all posts but yes typically and from my vast personal experience, these ' hit and run ' people are afraid to hang around after they Post something, because they know that they created the accident (metaph' their false claims) but then they soon run away after knowing full well they were in the wrong and can't face up to Truth and deny the Truth that legitimately exposes them and they just don't want to hear it because their ' bubble ' gets burst and they can't handle Truth & Reality and wish instead to continue to live in a make-believe Story book Fairyland & their comfort zone of errors!

Considering my internet was down last weekend and had major flooding in my neck of the woods early in the year, I personally do not see the merit in little victory dances like this over a couple of days' inactivity in a topic. Does your rejoicing over his lack of reply count as a valid argument against his position in any scenario, or just something that makes you feel good?

I already know for certain that the facts are ONLY against your claims, so yes I am always dancing for joy, for I am certain of the outcome and it is NEVER good for those like you now and I also dance for joy knowing my contributions contribute to your learning Story book Truth instead of what your previous Story book teachers have misled you to believe so far!

As far as your god(s) sending major floods then you can thank them, for you people claim it has everything under control and always does the right thing first time every time but I suppose you are a doubter and probably prayed for them to change their minds because you don't actually believe in them at all and are not content and instead want to hang on to your earthly possessions and treasures and house etc. in defiance of your jesus cf. e.g. Luke 14:33 & 1 Tim. 6-8?

Better luck next times?

[Mithrae]

Starboard Tack wrote:
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.

I asked Starboard to provide legitimate evidence of this, so I was wondering where the evidence of this is in the Posts? (I have been away and haven't searched all the pages I admit). Could Starboard or any one else please refer me to Starboard's alleged evidence?

Thank you

Starboard provided the usual late first century reference to Josephus, and references to second century historians Pliny the Younger and Tacitus, which it was pointed out to him are simply reactions to the existence of Christians and the stories they were telling many decades after the time of Jesus. He DID NOT provide evidence taken from the actual time of Jesus, because there is not any. Begin on page one and catch up. The question at this point is whether Starboard has deserted the discussion or not.

Please provide evidence that the information provided by Josephus and Tacitus "are simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

Still waiting for legitimate evidence this biblical jesus literally existed as written about?

What others may or may not have said about this fictional character is of no particular importance for it is ALL spurious and beliefs in a fantasy and YOUR efforts haven't changed that one iota!

If what may have been said about Jesus is not important, because it's ALL spurious and beliefs in a fantasy, what exactly do you mean by 'legitimate evidence'?

We have two very widely acknowledged primary sources of information regarding the brother of Jesus (Josephus and Paul), one of whom was a contemporary of Jesus himself, and arguably two other primary/contemporary sources regarding Jesus (Mark and John), plus the circumstantial evidence of the movement which spread in his name and the non-primary sources of Matthew, Luke/Acts, Tacitus and so on. As far as I can see the fact that he existed is all but indisputable by any normal standards of historical investigation.

Starboard didn't claim that there was Roman or Jewish evidence from the within the few years of Jesus' public ministry. Could you explain why you've introduced this as an important criteria?

Bottom-line: I agree that he claimed there was Jewish and Roman evidence which we still have patiently waited to see and examine? So far you and he have nothing of value, but by all means if you wish to try again please do so and we'll see what you have next time around?

"Nothing of value" is a subjective judgement call, of course. I may be wrong, but despite considerable differences of opinion I suspect Tired and Goat would not say that they've been waiting in vain for something of 'value' vis a vis Roman and Jewish evidence for the life and crucifixion of Jesus. Goat has correctly pointed out that there's no definite non-Christian Jewish reference to Jesus' crucifixion, of course. We each have our differing perspectives, presuppositions and standards for evaluating evidence, but we also share rather large areas of 'reason' and 'evidence' in which we can discuss the merits of different views and speculations.

Thanks very much for that ' Tired of the Nonsense '. I'll try to read all posts but yes typically and from my vast personal experience, these ' hit and run ' people are afraid to hang around after they Post something, because they know that they created the accident (metaph' their false claims) but then they soon run away after knowing full well they were in the wrong and can't face up to Truth and deny the Truth that legitimately exposes them and they just don't want to hear it because their ' bubble ' gets burst and they can't handle Truth & Reality and wish instead to continue to live in a make-believe Story book Fairyland & their comfort zone of errors!

Considering my internet was down last weekend and had major flooding in my neck of the woods early in the year, I personally do not see the merit in little victory dances like this over a couple of days' inactivity in a topic. Does your rejoicing over his lack of reply count as a valid argument against his position in any scenario, or just something that makes you feel good?

I already know for certain that the facts are ONLY against your claims, so yes I am always dancing for joy, for I am certain of the outcome and it is NEVER good for those like you now and I also dance for joy knowing my contributions contribute to your learning Story book Truth instead of what your previous Story book teachers have misled you to believe so far!

I appreciate your concern for the state of my soul.

I hesitate to advise you in your missionary efforts on the part of this capital-tee Truth, since I'm not certain what you believe. But at the top left of my posts if you look just beneath that satirical picture of a Flying Spaghetti Monster with big meaty balls touching His noodly appendage to the finger of our old mate Adam, you may notice a hyper-linked tag which says 'Atheist' at the top of a rather short list. It's unfortunate for fundamentalists of all stripes that life is not black and white.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

The OP lists 5 claims by Starboard Tack, and it seems that you dismissed the first of them essentially out of hand with your unevidenced claim that they're "simply reactions to the existence of Christians."

Here are the list of 5 claims by Starboard Tack you mention, and my 5 responses.

Starboard Tack wrote:
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.

Tired of the Nonsense replied:
1. While I do not personally doubt that Jesus was an actual historical figure as some on this forum do, please provide us with the Roman and Jewish documentation that serves to establish Jesus' life and crucifixion as a matter historic record.

2. Matthew 27:64 says specifically that the Jewish priests were afraid that the disciples of Jesus were planning to carry out the hoax of the risen Jesus. Acts 1:15 places this number at about 120. Nor does the NT provide us with any details at all on the deaths of the apostles, outside of James the brother of John who was executed by Herod. In fact after Peter's escape from prison the apostles scatter and largely disappear from the narrative in Acts, which then becomes mainly the story of Paul.

3. if as you say "His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands" they left no record of it when it was supposed to have occurred. Paul says in First Corinthians that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however. Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels. Paul has provided us with a story of 500 eyewitnesses, but we have no such testimony from the supposed eyewitnesses themselves. First Corinthians, which was written by Paul circa 55 AD., represents the very earliest mention historically of the risen Jesus. Jesus was executed, according to the time frame established by the Gospels, circa 30 AD. THE VERY FIRST mention of the risen Jesus does not occur until some quarter of a century after his death. And then is recorded by an individual who clearly was not present at the time. In fact no one recorded the death of Jesus at all, one way or another for about a quarter of a century. And specifically, there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected dead man AT ALL at the time it was supposed to have occurred. What we do have, years later, are records of what early Christians believed.

4. One could make pretty much the same claim for Joseph Smith here. Or Muhammad. Not all religious movements have proven to be as successful as Christianity or Islam, but they all had their moment of origin.

5. There is no record "that there were people running all over the place saying they had seen the risen Christ." No mention of anything at all for about a quarter of a century. I will agree with you that there were believing Christians by the second century however.

A Roman historian, hostile to Christians, stated that Christ "suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus" - on face value that seems to validate half of Starboard's first point. You stated your opinion that Tacitus was simply parroting the claims of those he denigrated, and I responded. You may describe that as detail and minutiae, but I personally do not consider it to be particularly sound research or debate methodology.

A Roman historian in the second century tells us what we know Christians were already saying about Jesus in the second century. The first three Gospels, at least, had already been written by the time Tacitus takes notice of Christians. As historian Will Durant pointed out: "These references prove the existence of Christians rather than Christ." Quite right! But I do not deny that Jesus existed, and I made that clear to Starboard Tack.

It's also interesting how easily "is belief in the resurrection reasonable" can turn into "move us inexorably to the undeniable conclusion..." No conclusion is undeniable, which is why from page 2 I've pointed out the foundational importance of establishing sources and the general role of presuppositions in the discussion.

Of course conclusions are undeniable. For example, it is impossible for a person to throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth. Try as hard as you wish. Get as many people helping you as you can find. None of you will ever throw a baseball off of planet Earth using as many attempts as you want. And in fact we know scientifically through experimentation just how much velocity it takes to reach escape velocity. It's a little over 11 km/s. No human in the history of humans has ever possessed the ability to throw an object 11 kilometers a second. That would be one helluva fast ball! The conclusion that a person cannot throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth is undeniable and will remain undeniable until such time as a person DOES throw a baseball entirely off of planet Earth. I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. But I will change the wording from "undeniable conclusion" to "unavoidable conclusion" if that will make you more comfortable.

On that note, please show me where you get this "flying reanimated corpse" from. And in particular, could you explain why you consider the reasonableness of the alleged resurrection to be associated with that particular source. I hope you'll appreciate my hesitation in answering such a loaded question without that further clarification.

The resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the central claim of Christianity. Jesus was a corpse, and then the corpse returned to life... it became reanimated.

Acts 1:
[9] "And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight."

The once dead and now reanimated corpse of Jesus flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. A flying reanimated corpse. Is it perfectly reasonable to believe this story; or is there reason to doubt it?

[Mithrae]

Hello Mithrae,

I see that you too have had bad weather your way. Hope things are ok on a personal level. Here, early summer storms have been offering up hail the size of rock melons, and although, my family and I are safe, such destruction of others homes and therefore temp. homelessness of some, needing to be accomodated "quickstix" has brought more work my way. As I always say on here, my RL commitments always come first.

Ah, a fellow Aussie! We might even be neighbours I'm in southern Brisbane; had heaps of sirens around after the storm last week, and police knocking on our door to find the home of a boy washed downstream in the flash flooding

Only if we assume that p52 is a fragment of the original, first ever brand new version of the gospel. That seems almost absurd.

I don't see why it is not fair to assume that the p52 fragment is of the original. Otherwise, I would just be going on "what if's", which frankly lead people no where but in circles. I am going with the fragment (p52), as it IS the earliest known document that holds anything remotely contained in "John".

Martyr for one makes no mention whatsoever of anything that could be attributed to "John", mere memoirs or otherwise. If it had existed, you'd have to reckon, given his position, he would have grasped it with both hands and at the very least referred to it in some way. He didn't.

Something else about the P52. Further research has been done, and it seems that the date of its writing, could well be pushed out to the end of the 2nd Century CE to the early 3rd Century CE. The initial dating of the document was done in 1935. As one can appreciate, investigative ability has improved leaps and bounds since then. Further investigation has proven, quite telling.

If so inclined, please feel free to google up ""the use and abuse of P52 : Paprylogical pitfalls of the dating of the fourth gospel". It was written by Brent Nongbri of Yale Uni. and published in assorted publications, including the Harvard Theological Review. It's pointless me giving you the link I used, unless of course you want to pay for the paper. It's a 26 page PDF and cost me $30. You may be able to download it free from another site. (I used the Cambridge link). Alternatively, I could always email or (if possible) upload it to you in PM. ( I don't know if it is possible to upload PDF's as one can with IMG)

Interesting read (thanks to Joey for his link). Obviously it's all Greek to me, so I really wouldn't know one way or the other whether a 130-150 date is most likely or late second/early third century might be possible also, but as an ignorant bystander I have always wondered how reliable and precise paleographic dating could really be.

On the other hand, I still really don't see any reason to assume that p52 is from the original copy of John, and I don't think it's crucial to the question of the date of composition either. To my mind one of the more telling points on that score is the simple fact that the author of the appendix stated it was written by a disciple (21:24). Assuming that was an honest belief, whatever other value we assign or deny it it's clear that it would be increasingly untenable further into the second century - an alleged disciple would be 90 or so by the turn of the century.

My point is that Tatian wrote a harmony of four gospels, which already existed. But if one of them (John) had only just been written, why would he use it? The Diatessaron implies that gJohn had already had time to establish itself as fairly authoritative by c170CE.

Odd though how NONE of these gospels were known of by Martyr a mere 20 years earlier?
Come to think of it, Martyr never mentioned Paul, or ANY of the epistles, and they're purported to have been written c. 50CE. One has to wonder, considering Martyr had no clue who John, Matthew, Mark, Luke or Paul were, if he was actually a "christian" in the name of "Jesus of Nazareth" = "Jesus Christ". Certainly doesn't seem that way, as in the oracles of the apostles he does cite, there is no mention of all the OTT stuff, this "jesus of nazareth" fella has been claimed to have done, and again, if all these miraculous things HAD been done, isn't it logical to assume these followers would have recorded all of THAT stuff?

An argument from silence only goes so far. In the case of Paul, three possible reasons off the top of my head for his silence; he may have disagreed with Paul's theology and influence; he may have confined himself in his writings to the 'best' information from the Hebrew scriptures and Christian material directly regarding Jesus' life; or of course he may have known little or nothing about Paul at all. On that score (albeit off-topic), it's worth noting that while he wrote some letters and Acts focuses on his activities, we really can't objectively say how influential Paul was in the early church compared to the likes of James, Peter, John, Apollos, Barnabas and so on. While I believe suggestions by a few fringe scholars that Marcion invented Paul are untenable, given Marcion's considerable influence in his day I think it's quite possible that he may have been responsible for greatly increasing recognition and integration of Paul and his ideas into what became the 'orthodox' stream of thought.

However in the case of the gospels, though Justin only (arguably) assigns a specific name to one of them, he uses them all in the form of both general information specifically referenced to the 'memoirs' of the apostles, and also direct quotation:

• For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body; and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, This is My blood; and gave it to them alone. ~ 1 Apology 66
  
  Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him. ~ Dialogue with Trypho 106 (found only in Matthew 2:1)
  
  And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder ~ Dialogue 106 (found only in Mark 3:16-17; many scholars suggest that "written in the memoirs of him" means the memoirs of Peter)
  
  For in the memoirs which I say were drawn up by His apostles and those who followed them, [it is recorded] that His sweat fell down like drops of blood while He was praying, and saying, If it be possible, let this cup pass: ~ Dialogue 103 (found only in Luke 22:42, 44)
  
  For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. ~ Dialogue 105 (found only in John; virgin birth from Matthew/Luke of course)
  
  For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. ~ 1 Apology 61 (from John 3:3&5)

I posted a complete list here

That said, I have to wonder which "messianic model" he was a follower of? There WERE a lot of them, whose followers/disciples/apostles would have left "memoirs" also. THAT has been shown in the discovery of the DSS. Did it ever cross your mind, that much of the info used to bolster this "Jesus of Nazareth" character, may have been in reference to any "yeshu/yeshua" PRIOR to the (IMO) made-up Jesus of Nazareth character? It has crossed mine many a time and I do have evidence to support such a notion.

Indeed - I've seen other theories suggesting it's best to understand the earliest 'Christians' as gnostics choosing recently-devastated Judea as the best place to historicise their mythical saviour-figure, and still others saying it's all best understood as a product of Pagan religious syncretism.

It appears that the whole messianic concept within Judaism, as it is understood today, came to light around the end of the Maccabean period/ beginning of the Hasmoneon Period, so the 2nd century BCE. Just prior to and continued on during the Maccabean period (c 174-135 BCE), the Manual of Discipline was written as well as the Thanksgiving Psalms, were written by the Teacher of Righteousness (from now I will refer to it him as ToR). The term NESER (meaning shoot or sprout) occurs and can be found in writings such as Isaiah 60:20. (DSS reference: 1QH6:15; 7:19; 8:6; 8:;10). This reference, despite what "gentile" christians want to read into it, does not refer to a SOLE Messianic figure, but rather, the community as a whole.

From around 720BCE, give or take a couple of decades:

• Isaiah 11:1 There shall come forth a Rod from the stem of Jesse,
  And a Branch [netser] shall grow out of his roots.
  2 The Spirit of the LORD shall rest upon Him,
  The Spirit of wisdom and understanding,
  The Spirit of counsel and might,
  The Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.
  3 His delight is in the fear of the LORD,
  And He shall not judge by the sight of His eyes,
  Nor decide by the hearing of His ears;
  4 But with righteousness He shall judge the poor,
  And decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
  He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
  And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked.
  5 Righteousness shall be the belt of His loins,
  And faithfulness the belt of His waist.
  6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, etc etc

The term 'Messiah' may not have been applied until much later, but as far as I can see the most obvious interpretation of this is a reference to a sole messianic figure. The views of the community at Qumran were not the views of all Jews at the time (as is implied by the simple fact of their chosen isolationism), and of course even through the wider Jewish nation opinions no doubt would have varied. However even if Isaiah 11 is simply picking up again on Isaiah 9's hyperbole regarding the grand destiny of young Hezekiah, it's easy to see how passages like this sowed the seeds of the Messiah concept. Incidentally if Tired is reading this, I'd say it has considerable bearing on the question of whether Jewish messiah notions were largely derived from the Persians' Saoshyant or not.

The TR did NOT see, nor think of himself as a Messiah and in fact, quite the contrary. Interestingly too, many a serious scholar equate the "john the baptist" character of the NT, with the ToR - "'He who rains down (baptises with) righteousness' (1QH). If that IS the case, then it would be pretty impossible for him to be a contemporary of "Jesus of Nazareth" some 150 + years later, now wouldn't it. What is interesting though is around the time of the ToR, there was a Yeshua(real name Jason - remember, Jesus/Yeshu back then was NOT a name, it was a title given to people, "proven" or shown to be "with" (their) God" and work with (their)"God").He was a Zadokite High Priest (FTR, Zadokites were "branches" of Zoastorism, akin, but also a tad different to Mithrasism).

The 'John the Baptist character of the NT' is also mentioned in some detail by Josephus, with minor variations against the Christian portrayal. In fact most scholars consider that Jesus being baptised by John was somewhat embarrassing to the early Christians, implying inferiority, so that gMatthew has John protest that he's not worthy to do it and gJohn omits the baptism entirely (albeit possibly for other reasons) and has John frequently testify how much greater Jesus is. I think you'd need a lot of contrary evidence to plausibly suggest that John the Baptist wasn't historical.

'Yeshua' or 'Yehoshua' means 'the Lord is salvation' (source) and obviously was the name of Moses' successor, as well as several others in the Tanakh (a field-owner in 1 Samual 6:14, a city governor in 2 Kings 23:8, and the post-exilic high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak in Haggai/Zechariah). The Greek equivalent Jesus (source) is shared in the NT by Jesus Barabbas, the robber released by Pilate, and Paul's associate Jesus Justus (Colossians 4:11). I'm not sure where you've got your information, but again it'll take a lot of convincing to make your case that 'Yeshua' was not a name.

Zadokites were the descendants of David's priest Zadok. I've only checked a few websites regarding them, but none of them have mentioned a connection with Zoroastrianism. And if (just guessing here) they were to some extent the forerunners of the Saducees, then views such as denial of a resurrection would be decidedly non-Zoroastrian. Do you have a handy source for that?

Moving onto the Hasmoneon Period (134-63BCE) A new generation of Essenes popped up during this time. Persecuted Pharisees entered the group. This is when the 4QTestimonia was written and the Manual of Discipline expanded on. All of a sudden there is full blown messianism (much of the concept probably gleaned from other religions at the time and introduced just prior)"saviour/messiah/christ" theology, but even then, it was not about a SOLE "messiah", but rather TWO: a PROPHET and the priestly (Aaronic), and a royal (Davidic) messiah (1QS 9-11).

It was Pharisees, therefore, who brought this style of messianic expectation to the community of Essenes in the 2nd century BCE, no doubt information gleaned from their travels elsewhere. This is also the time when the basic foundations of the T12P (Testimonies of the 12 Patriarchs) was written, with its priestly and royal messiah's. (AGAIN, remember, there were TWO)

Interesting. The NT might also allude to this, with folk asking John the Baptist first whether he's the Messiah, then if he's the Prophet or Elijah. Ironically, while the Christian view of Jesus may not align with those earlier views, one of the common criticisms is that he can't have been Messiah because he didn't fit the [Davidic/royal] criteria; the dual perspectives on Messiahs is suggested as a Christian fiction.

Roman/Pompeian Period (63-37 BCE) is represented by the Damascus Document (CD), the oldest copy of which (4QDb) of 75-50 BCE now conjoins the two messiahs into ONE, the Messiah of Aaron and Israel (CD19:10-11; 20:1; 12:23; 14:19). Now we are getting closer to the N'tzarim - Nazarenes (gee could that possibly eventually refer to "Nazareth"? in 4th Century CE christian writings - which BTW Nazareth did NOT exist at the time "Jesus of Nazareth" is claimed to have lived) this document also foretells a PROPHET who comes back at the end-time with the messiah. 4QarP says:

"I shall send you ELIJAH before......" - cross reference fro the Bible : Malachi (3: 1)

Non-biblical historical references to Nazareth in the 1st and 2nd centuries are few and far between - most notably, Josephus doesn't mention it amongst the 60-odd (from memory) Galilean towns he does name. It's not particularly weak as far as arguments from silence go, and at least demonstrates that Nazareth couldn't have been more than a small village in Jesus' day.

The similarity to netser/branch is worth noting of course, though it's not the only possible association. But as far as Jesus' connection with the term goes, again it's widely believed by scholars that Jesus' obscure Galilean origins were a little embarrassing to many early Christians. The nativity stories in Matthew and Luke place his birth in Bethlehem instead of Galilee, and John's characters question whether "anything good can come from Nazareth" or Galilee (1:46, 7:52). Like his baptism by John, this is one of the points where early Christian beliefs and the content of their writings is considered difficult to understand unless it had a basis in history.

But most tellingly, while the "Nazareth didn't exist" claim may have had some rather small merit in the past, it seems that archaeology has continued to find new things over the decades and among them are indications of settlement at Nazareth prior to the Jewish revolt. From a 2009 excavation:

• Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it. The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, "Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE".

Herodian Period (37BCE-68 CE) Anti-Roman and Zealot tendencies arise. The War Rule dates to this period and the MD, CD are recopied YET AGAIN repeating the expectation for TWO messiahs (1QM 11:7-8) but the expectation for a single messiah still continues among some of the community and is represented in several Cave 4 texts.(those tending to have embraced the FOREIGN "sole saviour" concept) We now have (4QPatBls 1:34) the Scion of David who will rise with the Interpreter of the Law (prophet) and (4QFlor 1:11) the Scion of David will arise at the end of days (4QpISa). Here is where I reckon the whole separation between the Essenes and the Nazarenes occur, through the Enochian literature which is appended by the "parables" at this time. The Parables of the Book of Enoch merges the "Son of Man," "Elect One," "the Anointed," and the "Just One" into ONE person.

Concepts of 'son of man,' God's elect and an anointed are to be found in the much earlier books of Ezekiel and Daniel also, of course.

So you're saying that the 'Nazarenes' (cf Acts 24:5) appeared not long after the time of this 'Jesus of Nazareth'? The similarities between early Christian literature and that of the Essenes are certainly interesting, and while John the Baptist was most probably an early 1st-century historical figure it's widely regarded as possible that he (and ultimately to an extent Jesus and the Christians) was influenced by the Essenes. But from what little I know, the comparison is nowhere near strong enough to suggest that Christianity directly emerged as an offshoot of the Essene community, especially since a considerable body of evidence regarding John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christians must be drastically reinterpreted to accommodate that conclusion.

[Starboard Tack]

From Post 171:

That statement could only be made by someone with a philosophically driven "pre-condition to acceptance" of a universe without meaning.

Can Starboard Tack show this is a universe with meaning?

What would such meaning be? 42?

When you mean "show", do you mean as in a mathematical proof? Well, I can show by mathematical proof that the universe must have a cause by something outside of the thing caused, and I can show mathematically that the nature of the thing caused cannot vary in its features by 1 part in 10^1000+ for life to exit in the thing caused. Does that prove meaning? No. Does it strongly suggest meaning? Yes. Does it strongly suggest that the position that it doesn't have meaning is fanciful? Yes. But does it prove it? No, nothing can be proved.

Clearly you have very little understanding of the breadth and depth of the reasons why people are religious, much less Christians.

I agree that many religious folks have given their position much thoughtful analysis.

Thank you. That was my point, and I am not bashful about pointing out that intellectual bigotry is odious, whether from Christians who insist that others must believe because they do, or from non-believers who mis-characterize the motivations or accomplishments of believers.

Yours is a cartoon version of faith...

I propose if this expression of faith, in the form of religious texts, weren't so "cartoony" to begin with, perhaps this confusion wouldn't occur.

That is an expression of an emotional response. You don't like religious texts or the study thereof because you find them boring, therefore people who find them interesting and informative must be goofballs. Doesn't follow, since God may exist, the Bible may be an expression of his nature and laws and plan for mankind. If so, who is the cartoon?

A cold, rational, logical approach to the Bible would cause marvel in the reader as the early conditions of creation are poetically described in Genesis.

Argument from incredulity.

That is the rhetorical equivalent to "Oh yeah? Well your mother wears combat boots!!" It states nothing, other than you disregard the substance of the argument, which you are entitled to. However, that doesn't actually validate your argument, which appears to me to be an argument from incredulity. And, by the way, your mother wears combat boots!

I find reading the Bible to be among the most boring endeavors I ever attempted - but that's just me.

No, it's not just you. It is common, just as it is common for people to be bored by physics. However, boredom on your part does not constitute a lack of truth on the part of the Bible anymore than my wife's aversion to physics invalidates Planck's constant.

Nahmanides was able to deduce the following simply from reading that Bible at a time before the invention of calculus, the telescope, agreement that we do not live in a geocentric world, and when a trip of 1000 miles on the back of a donkey was the trip of a lifetime (1250 AD)
...

That's interesting as heck, and I 'preciate ya for it.

You're welcome. Careful, though. Soon you may find the Bible interesting, and then where would we be?

From the same rational reading of the Bible I see numerous references to God "stretching out the heavens", using a Hebrew verb indicating continuous and on-going expansion, mimicking our understanding of cosmic expansion 2800 years before man had a clue about the nature or even the existence of the expansion of space.

I just see it as a mere expression of awe - where "stretching out" is a rather mundane term given significance only by the religious. Again, that's just me.

You don't find the concept of stretching out space as something that might not be obvious to a sheep herder 3,500 years ago? Why not "and God created the universe in all its glory fully formed, unchangeable, as testimony to the Creator's unchangeability"? That's what I would have come up with, were I making it up...

From the same rational reading of the Bible I find as good a description of Maxwell's second law of thermodynamics as one could hope to find written 1700 years before Maxwell postulated his laws: (Romans 8)

"For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God".

Now ya lost me. I see nothing in the above to indicate knowledge of the 2nd LoT.

The 2nd law is Murphy's law. Everything falls apart. Entropy and all that. Doesn't that sound like the "bondage of decay" to you? Does to me...

A mind incapable of reading the Bible and not noting in wonder, even if skeptical wonder, the prophetic nature of the work is a mind without spiritual imagination, much less intellectual curiosity.

Meh. It could be we find it be just so much drivel.

Again, the fact that you, or millions who share your view consider the Bible to be drivel doesn't affect its truth, or falsity, anymore than mankind's common belief in the eternality of the universe made that so. The Bible said it wasn't, and it wasn't.

A mind capable of ridiculing faithful people, including a large number of intellectual giants who find relevance and truth in Scripture is a very small mind indeed.

The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is not one who does good.

And of course bible folks don't do some "small minded" thinking of their own.

If the Bible is truly the word of God, then small minded isn't going to apply.