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]

Flail wrote:

I don't think any reasonable person could legitimately maintain an absolute conviction that God was born a virgin and rose from the dead based upon solely on the word of 1st or 2nd century writings.

Mithrae wrote:

Can a reasonable person legitimately maintain an absolute conviction that this did not happen?

Both the thread title and the quote from Starboard in the OP say 'reasonable.' But like Tired it seems you prefer to speak about absolutes. This is safe ground; it's easy to argue that Jesus' alleged resurrection is not undeniable or unavoidable, as Tired says, or a matter of absolute conviction in your words.

As a skeptic who recognizes that although 'anything is possible', truth claims which contain no logical support and that have no verifiable evidence and which would otherwise require a suspension of the laws of physics and nature, are unprovable to the point of meaninglessness. So in that vein I am absolutely convinced that the virgin birth story is a myth. But of course I cannot prove a negative. But I can mount circumstantial evidence persuasive to the reasonable person that such did not occur.

The OP asks if it is 'reasonable to believe' in the ('objective, nature defying act of resurrection by BibleGod as reported in the Bible...my words). And no, I don't think any reasonable person could believe such an event based upon the information available for founding such a belief. In order to believe the Resurrection event, something more, something emotional must be added which overcomes 'reason' in the believer; something beyond reason. This 'something' is religious dogma and indoctrination and all that attends its ceremonies and group think so as to cause the reasonable person to suspend his disbelief.



Mithrae wrote:

It seems to me, and I think this deserves to be emphasised, that for all intents and purposes if anything is possible then everything is equally probable.

As for predicting the future, you might want to abandon this axiom before going to Vegas. It is possible, in the realm of all things possible, that parts of Florida will drop into the ocean tomorrow via an unprecedented earth quake. But I would take equal odds with you that such will not occur; and that in great probability, the end of tomorrow will find the entire state of Florida intact. So I don't think these two results are at all equally probable.

Likewise as to a proposed past event; I think it more probably true than not true that the resurrection story is fiction. I don't think the two sides to this event (truth or fiction) are equally probable. We can gather all manner of circumstantial evidence that the resurrection did not occur, and none to show that it did.

In sum, I am not even saying that the Resurrection event did not happen; I really don't know. But what I am saying is that, based upon the available information we have, no reasonable person could believe that it did. There is absolutely nothing to demonstrate the truth and credibility of this implausible story.

[Mithrae]

Edit: Having posted, just read Flail's response. My comments to Fredonly may or may not satisfy Flail (or Fredonly for that matter). Let me know folks But it's pushing 7am on Sunday now and I have to be up for work in 21 hours, so I'll leave it at that.

If anything is possible then everything is equally probable

Not strictly true. Consider mortality tables. It is more probable that a 90 year old will die over the coming year, than that a 20 year old will do so.

Certainly true from our human/observational perspective. And for that matter presumably true, to a far lesser extent, from a hypothetical objective/infinite perspective - which I why I mentioned 1-in-a-trillion versus 3-in-a-trillion and prefaced my first use of the bold comment with "for all intents and purposes."

I don't disagree with anything you've said regarding human 'knowledge,' as we call it, only with those who debate the OP on the basis of a distinction between the presumed probability of the observed 'natural' and the implied improbability of the comparatively unobserved 'supernatural.' Considering the limits of human observation I wouldn't be surprised if the distinction so crucial to some sceptical arguments was, in the grand scheme of things, far less significant than one in a trillion.

---

You may still believe that Jesus existed regardless, but I think it's a point worth making; doubly so since a couple of others are suggesting that he didn't exist.

Your argument is with them.

Despite their views, as I read them, to my memory neither Composer nor Catalyst has stated an opinion in this thread regarding Tacitus' information concerning Jesus. An opinion may be implied by their beliefs, but you're the one who has stated that the information of Tacitus and the others were "simply reactions to the existence of Christians." You made the assertion, and while we both enjoy our little rhetorical flourishes on occasion I will not be persuaded that my argument was based on anything other than your comment.

I debate for many reasons, but the top five probably include both 'fun' and 'bloody-mindedness' which means I can at times be quite persistent. Since I've come to consider you as an intelligent, rational person I'd rather like an intelligent, rational answer. Giving no evidence for your assertion and telling me that my argument is not associated with the person who prompted the argument does not, in my opinion, qualify. If the answer is "it's just an opinion" I'd consider it not only rational and intelligent, but somewhat wise also, if that helps. You may have noticed how frequently I express my ignorance or mere opinion in posts, and while the humility might often be largely false, the ignorance is usually mostly real.

If such casual dismissal of a Roman historian's statements is even slightly indicative of anyone's study and thinking methods in general, it should probably be highlighted rather than dismissed as detail and minutiae.

If the resurrection never occurred then everything else is pointless detail and minutiae, isn't it?

[parody of Christian fundamentalist] YES, AMEN BROTHER! [/end parody] We all know what 'parody' means, I hope, and it's interesting that you use one to express your position and/or argument.

In practice, I suspect there's many Christian fundamentalists who would still be conservative Christians even if, to use your term, it was 'undeniably' proven that Jesus did not physically rise from the grave in his human body.

We're talking about 'reasonable' or 'undeniable' in the context of ancient history here, not constant observation backed by modern science. Even then, despite being quite a good example it's quite possible that the likes of flat-earthers might deny that conclusion, or that somewhere out there there's legends about someone who did throw a baseball off earth.

Does a story somehow become more reasonable the older it gets? Does the story of the Minotaur...

You started talking about 'undeniable' in a context of ancient history. When I questioned it, you provided an example involving our constant observation backed by modern science. Now, in answering a comment I made in passing, you're going back to even more ancient mythology. Some folk might be able to write sizable chapters on our exchange, but since it was a passing comment, I'll leave it at that.

(Actually I won't, because of bloody-mindedness. As far as I can tell from this and your subsequent comments, it looks to me as though you took my contrast between 'ancient history' versus 'constant observation and modern science' as an endorsement of ancient history! Quote - "It's an ancient story so apparently we must give it some extra measure of authenticity." If it's possible for you to so drastically misunderstand such a markd contrast posted by a 21st century Western atheist, I wonder how well you understand the book of Acts? If you would like a reply to the quoted block of text prior to the above quote please let me know, but since they seem inconsistent I'd first appreciate clarification on exactly where those quotation marks begin and end.)

You didn't explain why you consider the reasonableness of the alleged resurrection to be particularly associated with the book of Acts. To be repeating this phrase so frequently, I can only assume that you do indeed consider that Acts is crucial to the issue. So why is that?

Did I imply that I consider Acts to be crucial to the issue? Acts is simply a continuation of the stories found in the Gospels, and written well before ALL of them.

I did actually write my opinion as to how you implied that Acts was crucial to the issue, in proper English with punctuation and all. To briefly recap, in many posts you used the phrase 'flying reanimated corpse,' I asked which source it came from and why it was important, you posted from Acts without explaining its importance and my reply included:
"To be repeating this phrase so frequently, I can only assume that you do indeed consider that Acts is crucial to the issue."

You've now claimed that Acts was written well before all of the gospels. Since to my knowledge an overwhelming majority of modern scholarship suggests that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written before Acts, I hope that you're not offended if I ask for your evidence about this claim.

But here is the "ascension" of Jesus mentioned in Gospels Mark and Luke as well, if that helps you out.

Mark 16
[19] "So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."

Luke 24
[51] "And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven."

For some strange reason, there's folk out there who think Luke might have been written by the same person as Acts. Probably just god-lovers, of course.

Mark is another matter of course. Mark is suggested as a semi-reliable source in my own classifications on this issue. Now generally I've got three actual paper copies of the bible on my little computer desk, which surprisingly is not all that cluttered, subjectively speaking, despite the many envelopes with random statistical scrawlings and computer game notes, empty painkiller boxes, old receipts, pens, CD and DVD cases and a dog/sheep/gorilla menage a troi perched atop a CRT monitor generally used for my old internet computer but sometimes used for my newer games/movies computer.

My bibles are similarly mismatched. One of them I acquired probably no more than thirteen or fifteen years ago, a nice official black New King James Version whose copyright suggests a 1982 date of publishing and whose appearance suggests somewhat limited usage; essentially I bought it for the nice official black, when I was young enough to care about such things. It faithfully reproduces the words you attribute to the gospel of Mark. Another is considerably more worn and with the more colourful cover of a cross made of blood-spatter decorating a door on the cusp of opening into a room of light. I was given a bible or three as a young child, including a blue-cover KJV with some handy maps at the back whose time and circumstances of disappearance I do not recall, but in my opinion this bible was the first I really owned. I'd lived in Hervey Bay for two years while younger, but from memory I acquired this bible for free from my mother's church while visiting that town over Christmas when I was twelve. It's a Contemporary English Version, not very scholarly, though it still has a few hand-written notes on hand-torn bits of paper preserving a few teenaged views in its pages, while other larger notes have succumbed to the inevitability of entropy. This version has "One old ending to Mark's gospel," which includes the words you attribute to the gospel of Mark, and "Another old ending to Mark's gospel," which does not. My third bible once belonged to my father, who in a developing family tradition has been an atheist since before I was old enough to know him - a nice black New International Version bible which I must have acquired after the NKJV since it probably would have almost satisfied my youthful style requirements if I'd owned it previously. I use online bibles a little more often than paper these days, but the faithful family NIV still sees quite a bit of use. This old bible was apparently published way back in the 1970s, so one can only assume that it's not very accurate. Sometimes it doesn't even have courtesy of footnotes; after Mark 16:8 it has some square brackets and a small-font note saying "The most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20."

Hark at the nonsense these Christians spout in their book!

Surely you have proven that this 'flying reanimated corpse' of which you so frequently speak is integral to the question of Jesus' resurrection.

[Autodidact]

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.

Apparently your idea of an argument is to insult anyone who disagrees with you. This is the mark of someone who lacks an actual argument. Please let us know if that changes.

[Autodidact]

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.

If the Bible is true, then it's true. Furthermore, if the Bible is false, then it's false.

I really don't think the "amazing scientific knowledge" is a very good defense of the Bible, unless you want to present a scientific defense of:
the earth standing still
an unmoving earth
stars as holes in a firmament
a firmament
talking snakes
a person living inside a fish
and so forth.

I love how you call anyone who ridicules faithful people small-minded, and then go on to quote your scripture ridiculing non-Faithful people.

What, the Bible criticizes people who don't believe the Bible! Isn't that remarkable! Not.

At this point of scientific knowledge, we don't know whether the universe is eternal or not. It's an unsettled point.
Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal
Anthony Aguirre, Steven Gratton
(Submitted on 10 Jan 2003 (v1), last revised 28 Mar 2003 (this version, v2))

Not being a physicist, I am unable to resolve the question, and have difficulty grasping the subtleties--and I bet you do too.

If it turns out the universe does have a beginning, and we can know that, it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to show that there an invisible intelligence that created it. For all we know it could be a cosmic quantum event, or the result of the want of a horse-shoe nail. No way of knowing.

[Flail]

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.

If the Bible is true, then it's true. Furthermore, if the Bible is false, then it's false.

I really don't think the "amazing scientific knowledge" is a very good defense of the Bible, unless you want to present a scientific defense of:
the earth standing still
an unmoving earth
stars as holes in a firmament
a firmament
talking snakes
a person living inside a fish
and so forth.

I love how you call anyone who ridicules faithful people small-minded, and then go on to quote your scripture ridiculing non-Faithful people.

What, the Bible criticizes people who don't believe the Bible! Isn't that remarkable! Not.

At this point of scientific knowledge, we don't know whether the universe is eternal or not. It's an unsettled point.
Inflation without a beginning: a null boundary proposal
Anthony Aguirre, Steven Gratton
(Submitted on 10 Jan 2003 (v1), last revised 28 Mar 2003 (this version, v2))

Not being a physicist, I am unable to resolve the question, and have difficulty grasping the subtleties--and I bet you do too.

If it turns out the universe does have a beginning, and we can know that, it does nothing, absolutely nothing, to show that there an invisible intelligence that created it. For all we know it could be a cosmic quantum event, or the result of the want of a horse-shoe nail. No way of knowing.

It is a common tactic to pronounce wonders on the bible and all manner of great insight and wisdom in order to deflect the obvious point that such has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the supernatural events therein are factual. It's a weak tactic. I do find wonder in the bible and I have often gained insight from it; if I didn't find the Bible worthy I would not be here debating its many aspects. But the Bible is simply not a factual account of supernatural beings and occurrences; and there are many great books of philosophy and insight and the Bible is but one of them, and nothing more.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You've now claimed that Acts was written well before all of the gospels. Since to my knowledge an overwhelming majority of modern scholarship suggests that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written before Acts, I hope that you're not offended if I ask for your evidence about this claim.

This is really the problem with this entire discussion. Your "knowledge" of the NT is mediocre, and I am being kind here. You don't seem to know that the story of Jesus includes his "ascension" bodily up to heaven. He flew off up into the sky, and if you were unaware of THAT particular feature of Christian belief, then you are pretty far from being a Bible scholar, aren't you! And anyone who has actually read Acts would know that Paul was still alive at the time Acts was written.

Date
Main article: Dating the Bible

The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the 1st century. Norman Geisler dates it as early as between 60-62.[17] Donald Guthrie, who dates the book between 62-64,[18] notes that the absence of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 would be unlikely if the book were written afterward. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

The Gospels were not written until AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD. The earliest of the Gospels in fact, Mark, makes a reference to the stone by stone destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. (Mark 13:2). Your "knowledge" that "an overwhelming majority of modern scholarship suggests that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written before Acts" demonstrates your clear lack of any real knowledge of what you are talking about at all, a fact you attempt to disguise with verbiage. My suggestion to you is that you sit down and actually read the NT before you attempt to engage others in debate over the nature of it. And, no I'm not offended, just weary of a discussion in which you seem to be simply engaging in argument for argument's sake, to no real purpose, and with no genuine understanding of the material you are arguing over.

[Confused]

Having finally read through all 20 pages of this quite interesting thread, I have to ask how it is that two atheists have made a stronger case for the typical theistic side than any theist participating thus far. Now, I don't say this to minimize the theists who have contributed strongly to this thread, nor do I wish to minimize the contribution of all posters for keeping this thread on track, but I find the irony in the strongest support for the historical side of this debate have come from the atheists and actually more in favor of the theist argument.

I just offer my extreme respect for all who have contributed thus far for mostly remaining on point and maintaining a level of respect despite a few peoples taunting.

[Mithrae]

You've now claimed that Acts was written well before all of the gospels. Since to my knowledge an overwhelming majority of modern scholarship suggests that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written before Acts, I hope that you're not offended if I ask for your evidence about this claim.

This is really the problem with this entire discussion. Your "knowledge" of the NT is mediocre, and I am being kind here. You don't seem to know that the story of Jesus includes his "ascension" bodily up to heaven. He flew off up into the sky, and if you were unaware of THAT particular feature of Christian belief, then you are pretty far from being a Bible scholar, aren't you! And anyone who has actually read Acts would know that Paul was still alive at the time Acts was written.

Date
Main article: Dating the Bible

The book of Acts has been most commonly dated to the second half of the 1st century. Norman Geisler dates it as early as between 60-62.[17] Donald Guthrie, who dates the book between 62-64,[18] notes that the absence of any mention of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 would be unlikely if the book were written afterward. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_Apostles

The Gospels were not written until AFTER the destruction of Jerusalem, which occurred in 70 AD. The earliest of the Gospels in fact, Mark, makes a reference to the stone by stone destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. (Mark 13:2). Your "knowledge" that "an overwhelming majority of modern scholarship suggests that Mark, Matthew and Luke were written before Acts" demonstrates your clear lack of any real knowledge of what you are talking about at all, a fact you attempt to disguise with verbiage. My suggestion to you is that you sit down and actually read the NT before you attempt to engage others in debate over the nature of it. And, no I'm not offended, just weary of a discussion in which you seem to be simply engaging in argument for argument's sake, to no real purpose, and with no genuine understanding of the material you are arguing over.

A Wikipedia quote saying that Acts doesn't mention Paul's death or the destruction of Jerusalem. Thankyou for your evidence. Scholars who are not conservative Christians often point out that Acts probably doesn't mention Paul's death because it's about the spread of the gospel (Acts 1:8), rather than an unhappy ending. Luke was written after Jerusalem's destruction (Luke 21:20) and Acts was written after Luke (Luke 1:1-4 and Acts 1:1). From the main solutions to the synoptic problem, an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew. Luke/Acts were written after Josephus' Jewish Wars, which was written c75-80CE (sources one and two). Acts was written around 80-130CE (source).

I think this establishes that Luke/Acts and the late-addition ending to Mark's gospel are not our most reliable sources regarding the alleged resurrection. This was obviously the subject of my very first post in the thread, and many posts since. So for the purpose of caricature 'flying reanimated corpse' may serve your needs well, but as I've previously said I don't believe that it's a sound method of inquiry. However to restate my answer to your question, it's my opinion that in the grand scheme of things everything which doesn't imply a logical contradiction must for all intents and purposes be equally probable amongst the infinite possibilities.

As for you, do you maintain that Luke/Acts or the late-addition ending to Mark's gospel are among our most reliable sources regarding the alleged resurrection?

If not, do you believe that repeatedly characterizing the issue with information from less reliable sources is a sound method of debate?



Edit: Incidentally, I don't think it's very polite to say that I'm "simply engaging in argument for argument's sake, to no real purpose, and with no genuine understanding of the material you are arguing over." I have been quite consistent throughout the thread in my view that evaluation of our sources is fundamental to the discussion of reasonableness in any historical scenario. Unless I've missed something, you still have neither acknowledged nor refuted that point, and indeed aside from dismissing Paul as a source I'm pretty sure your claim that Acts was written well before the gospels has been the first time you've offered a definite (though I believe rather inaccurate) evaluation of our sources at all!

If your position regarding the reasonableness of belief in the resurrection can be summed up as not considering the 'supernatural' to be reasonable, that's a valid perspective and, once you've clarified it as such, there'd be no further point to this discussion you find so wearisome. Otherwise if you have any interest in discussing its historical reasonableness, I'd appreciate it if you would, at long last, at least acknowledge what I've been saying through the whole thread, instead of repeatedly throwing out your caricature and now even insults.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Let me say first, I acknowledge that "the late-addition ending to Mark's gospel," verses 9-20 of chapter 16, the final 12 verses of Gospel Mark as contained in most modern versions of the NT, are a later addition and do not appear in the oldest existing manuscripts of that Gospel.

From the main solutions to the synoptic problem, an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew. Luke/Acts were written after Josephus' Jewish Wars, which was written c75-80CE (sources one and two). Acts was written around 80-130CE .

.

Yes it's true that "an overwhelming majority of scholars believe that Luke was written after Mark and Matthew." It is in fact the only reasonable conclusion. Gospel Luke contains material from both Gospels Mark and Matthew. Gospel Matthew contains virtually all of Gospel Mark, excluding the "late edition ending" and only a few other passages. This suggests in the strongest possible terms that Gospel Mark was written first, Gospel Matthew second and Gospel Luke third. Like it or not however, there is no support among "an overwhelming majority of scholars" for the claim that Acts was written contemporarily with Gospel Luke, although it IS true that "an overwhelming majority of scholars" believe that Luke and Acts were written by the same individual. Not only does Acts end with Paul still alive and Jerusalem still intact, Acts gives not the slightest hint that the author is aware of any of the other gospels at all. It makes no reference to and uses no language from, any of the other Gospels. If the author of Gospel Luke and Acts wrote them consecutively beginning with the Gospel, then for some unknown reason he purposely and very studiously wrote Acts in such a way as to leave no hint of his own Gospel in the document, nor the slightest hint of the existence of either of the two other synoptic Gospels. Why he should have striven so carefully and successfully to have achieved this result is a mystery? It's far more reasonable to conclude that the reason no hint of the other Gospels is to be found anywhere in Acts, is because THEY HAD YET TO BE WRITTEN. Paul was still alive and Jerusalem as yet undestroyed when the author stopped work on the manuscript. While I acknowledge the inherent problems with Wikipedia, and I would not myself ever quote Wikipedia as a source in a professional work of my own, it does represent consensus opinion on this question concerning the dating of Acts.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Having finally read through all 20 pages of this quite interesting thread, I have to ask how it is that two atheists have made a stronger case for the typical theistic side than any theist participating thus far.

This is an EXCELLENT point actually. For two non-theists to be quarreling over Biblical details is a very fruitless exercise. The problem I found myself with was, for most of my discussion with Mithrae it was a good deal less than clear to me that Mithrae WAS a non-theist. He seemed to be more of a gadfly, arguing for the sake of argument, and his exact position was, and has remained, somewhat up in the air. At any rate it is a discussion that I am inclined to bow out of.