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.

Well said. Good points. This is precisely the type of argument I was seeking in my thread "Circumstantial Evidence Against BibleGod" wherein I asked people to set aside for the purposes of that OP, ideas of direct evidence and hearsay and all the common evidentiary discussions that are typically made, in favor of arguing the logic of circumstances for and against the existence of BibleGod. I have often encouraged Christians that they could make a much better case for their beliefs if they would argue as you did here, logically from circumstantial evidence as tending to point to something referentially and indirectly via reason and common sense...as opposed to preaching and insisting on fundamental ideas of Biblical inerrancy without making the case....as you did here.

Perhaps you could make this post in that thread as well to get the discussions going.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Of course Christians understand that there will be many who reject God. As a theme in Scripture, this is repeated pretty frequently, so no shock there. Regarding whether believing in Christ's resurrection is reasonable, based on the historic record and the experience of billions afterwards I'd have to say, "of course." 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.

Sorry if that is thread hijacking, but you asked.

I did indeed ask. Some people have a problem with what you refer to as "thread hijacking." I do not. This is an open forum so please feel free. But on to your points.

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.

[McCulloch]

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.
   [font=Georgia]Jesus' life is not a matter of either Jewish or Roman historical record. The miracles, the preaching, the crowds, the crucifixion and the resurrection was recorded only by Christian sources during his lifetime and subsequent decades. There are a handful of questionable, ambiguous and / or brief references to him in subsequent Roman and Jewish sources, which all appear to be derived from the original Christian sources. [/font]
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?
   [font=Georgia]More on this point later. [/font]
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?
   [font=Georgia]His resurrection is claimed to have been witnessed by hundreds. This claim is unsubstantiated. His death is also said to have been accompanied by an earthquake. That earthquake was likewise unnoticed by anyone. Many of the works of that era critical of Christianity were systematically destroyed by subsequent Christian regimes. However, one interpretation of the Dead Sea Scrolls has Paul of Tarsus as the "Spouter of Lies".[/font]
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?
   [font=Georgia]Nothing much. After the fall of Jerusalem, they needed a good front-man for the movement. Being dead meant that he could not correct the errors of the movement's leaders. If they had picked some other would-be messiah, the whole thing would not have been much different. [/font]
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.
   [font=Georgia]The serious persecution of the Christians did not happen right away. Why do you think that was? I think that it is probably because the huge crowds and the rapid expansion recorded in the Gospels and in Acts, are largely fictitious. The writers wanted to make the movement seem far more significant and important than it really was at the time. Then, about a hundred years or so later, the Christians (none of whom witnessed the resurrection) were willing to die. Think about that. People willing to die for something they had not personally validated. [/font]

[Starboard Tack]

Since there are a number of challenges to my list, with permission, I'll just answer yours and hope no one else will be offended.

I did indeed ask. Some people have a problem with what you refer to as "thread hijacking." I do not. This is an open forum so please feel free. But on to your points.

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.

One thing we have to keep in mind is the difference in how history is recorded today vs. 2,000 years ago, and how much information there is today vs. 2,000 years ago. Janet Jackson has a 'wardrobe malfunction' and you can get 890,000 references to it on the Internet. However, it was 4 centuries before Alexander the Great had the first biography about him written, and he conquered the known world. So the fact that there are any references to the life and death of some Nazarene who only walked the stage for 3 years indicates something intriguing was going on. Unlike today, there just weren't many people writing histories, so even significant figures have very little documentary evidence about their actions.

The primary sources for Jesus' life are Josephus in "The Antiquities" where he describes how Ananias took advantage of the Roman Governor's death - Festus - to have James killed. James was Jesus' half brother and was very much a skeptic of the idea that his brother was the Christ. Until after his resurrection, and then was willing to die rather than deny him. From Josephus: "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." Josephus also referenced Jesus in the "Testimonium Flavianum". There are portions of the description of Jesus that are disputed, however, the main point that a man named Jesus was crucified by Pilate as a result of accusations made by the Sanhedrin, and that the religion founded in his name was still very active, is not disputed. Josephus wrote this when people were still alive who would have been eyewitnesses.

Tacitus is considered one of the most reliable of Roman historians, and he wrote in 115 that a man known as "Christus" suffered the extreme penalty under Pntius Pilatus, and that a most "mischievous superstition" stemming from this man had for the moment "been checked."

Pliny the Younger wrote in 111 about his attempts in Turkey to stamp out the Christian religion, testifying to its very rapid spread far beyond the Jewish cult status it may have started with.

There are a few passages in the Mishnah that reference Jesus and the alleged sorcery he performed, although in general Jewish writers didn't spend a lot of ink on people they thought were heretics.

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.

Agreed, there is little information and almost none of it reliable on how the other apostles died. However, given who they were, it isn't too surprising that no names like these folks would be killed just like thousands of other rabble rousers were without official comment. However, the fact that unlike everyone but really, really important people of the time these folks died unrecorded except by tradition is hardly the basis to assume that they died in their sleep.

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.

Again, the fact that ancient sources are absent is not compelling reason to doubt the veracity of the gospel accounts. As noted above, the first biographies of Alexander the Great were 4 centuries after his death. Are we to doubt his existence on that basis, or on the basis that his own generals left no written records of his existence? People who could even write an account of what they had seen were not all that common.

Paul did not see Jesus "in the flesh", but whatever happened to him brought about a change from a persecutor of Christians to one willing to die for Christ. When he wrote to the church in Corinth, he referred to miracles he had performed there. Odd thing to put in a letter to people who would know it was nonsense if it didn't happen. For this and other reasons, I take Paul at his word regarding his encounter with Jesus and his apostolic status. It is also worth noting that Paul's first meeting with Peter occurred approximately 5 years after Christ was supposed to have been resurrected. Whatever else they discussed, the facts of what had happened to Jesus Christ would have been part of the discussion, and this is the "creed" that Paul passed onto the Corinthian church that he refers to in 1 Cor 15:1 when he founded that church around 17 years after the crucifixion. This is significant because the belief in the creed referred to by Paul definitely relates to the resurrection - after all, Paul notes in 1 Cor 15:14 that without this central truth, their "preaching is vain, your faith is also vain," and this idea had been around since Paul met with Peter shortly after Christ's crucifixion. Saying that without the truth of the resurrection Christianity is a non-starter is a pretty strong statement made by a man who clearly believes it to be true, delivered to people close enough in time to the event to have access to falsification if such contrary evidence existed.

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.

Check back with me in 2,000 years on Mormonism. Regarding Islam, before Mohammed's body was cold, his armies had saddled up and were converting people with a simple creed: Convert or die. I guess I'm not surprised that Islam converted a lot of people with that message. Contrast to Christianity. 300 years after the matinee performance was lions vs. Christians, the Roman Empire became officially Christian without a sword being drawn.

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.

The entire basis for Christianity is the resurrection. As Paul said, without the truth of that, you might as well worship whatever god suits you. That message, without a great many people substantiating it would not have spread so quickly that the governor of Bithynia just 80 years later would feel the need to execute Christians from slave to citizens for adhering to a religion that conflicting with emperor worship. Given its rapid spread, and notwithstanding the absence of NYTimes headlines, it is clear that there were a lot of people who believed in the resurrection "running around" spreading the word.

Final comment...serious scholarship of the issue of Christ's life and resurrection yields a great deal of support. Taken altogether, the evidence presents a compelling picture of veracity. Ultimately many things are only determined to be true by the weight of the evidence that is available. Any one piece of evidence can be criticized, but when all the affirmative evidence points in one direction - well then it becomes unreasonable to reject a reasonable conclusion.

Given the stakes involved for the parties at the time, my challenge to naysayers is where is your evidence? On one side, you have an alleged criminal tortured and killed, surrounded by dis-heartened and uneducated rabble. On the other side, you have the Jewish state and the Roman Empire. Who wins the confrontation, and why? Where is the evidence that the apostles stole Christ's body? Where is the evidence the tomb wasn't empty as recorded? Where is the evidence the apostle's weren't killed for their beliefs as recorded? Where is the evidence that Tacitus and Josephus and the Talmud were wrong in their accounts? Where is the evidence from people listening to Paul referring to hundreds of witnesses to the resurrection stepping forward and saying, hey, wait a minute, I was there and saw nothing?

I suppose at the end of the day, no amount of evidence will be sufficient for some, but if that wasn't the case, then we'd all be Christians, now wouldn't we?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

One thing we have to keep in mind is the difference in how history is recorded today vs. 2,000 years ago, and how much information there is today vs. 2,000 years ago. Janet Jackson has a 'wardrobe malfunction' and you can get 890,000 references to it on the Internet. However, it was 4 centuries before Alexander the Great had the first biography about him written, and he conquered the known world. So the fact that there are any references to the life and death of some Nazarene who only walked the stage for 3 years indicates something intriguing was going on. Unlike today, there just weren't many people writing histories, so even significant figures have very little documentary evidence about their actions.

You originally stated: "His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened." In fact however nothing at all was recorded concerning Jesus during his lifetime, including his death and most particularly his supposed resurrection from the dead. Not by the Jews. Not by the Romans. Not by anyone even mentioning it in passing. NO SUCH RECORD EXISTS.

The primary sources for Jesus' life are Josephus in "The Antiquities" where he describes how Ananias took advantage of the Roman Governor's death - Festus - to have James killed. James was Jesus' half brother and was very much a skeptic of the idea that his brother was the Christ. Until after his resurrection, and then was willing to die rather than deny him. From Josephus: "He convened a meeting of the Sanhedrin and brought before them a man named James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ, and certain others. He accused them of having transgressed the law and delivered them up to be stoned." Josephus also referenced Jesus in the "Testimonium Flavianum". There are portions of the description of Jesus that are disputed, however, the main point that a man named Jesus was crucified by Pilate as a result of accusations made by the Sanhedrin, and that the religion founded in his name was still very active, is not disputed. Josephus wrote this when people were still alive who would have been eyewitnesses.

Josephus was born about 37 AD., some few years AFTER the execution of Jesus and wrote his histories sometime in the 90's AD. At best Josephus simply recorded Christian claims, not events he was personally witness to. We know pretty well what Christians were claiming by the end of the first century as recorded in the NT. Let me put this possible eyewitness claim of yours into perspective. If I told you that I personally knew someone who had seen flying reindeer, would you consider this to be proof positive that flying reindeer must therefore exist? Or would there still be some reason for doubt in your mind?

Tacitus is considered one of the most reliable of Roman historians, and he wrote in 115 that a man known as "Christus" suffered the extreme penalty under Pntius Pilatus, and that a most "mischievous superstition" stemming from this man had for the moment "been checked."

Pliny the Younger wrote in 111 about his attempts in Turkey to stamp out the Christian religion, testifying to its very rapid spread far beyond the Jewish cult status it may have started with.

There are a few passages in the Mishnah that reference Jesus and the alleged sorcery he performed, although in general Jewish writers didn't spend a lot of ink on people they thought were heretics.

These are is simply reactions to the existence of Christians and the stories being spread by Christians in the second century. Again, no one is disputing that there were Christians by the second century.

Agreed, there is little information and almost none of it reliable on how the other apostles died. However, given who they were, it isn't too surprising that no names like these folks would be killed just like thousands of other rabble rousers were without official comment.

Christianity had been outlawed by Rome in the second century and there is evidence of the persecution of Christians by that time. These were not individuals who were any more eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus then you are however. There is no evidence of any particular large scale persecution of Christians by the Romans during the time of the Apostles at all.

However, the fact that unlike everyone but really, really important people of the time these folks died unrecorded except by tradition is hardly the basis to assume that they died in their sleep.

Agreed! Most people who have ever lived left no record of their lives. This is one reason that I do not chose to question the fact of Jesus' existence simply because there was no record of it during his lifetime. On the other hand, if you were here asserting that all of those people whose lives went unrecorded died only to have their corpses become reanimated, and that their reanimated corpses flew away up into the sky, I am afraid I would vigorously question that.

Again, the fact that ancient sources are absent is not compelling reason to doubt the veracity of the gospel accounts. As noted above, the first biographies of Alexander the Great were 4 centuries after his death. Are we to doubt his existence on that basis, or on the basis that his own generals left no written records of his existence? People who could even write an account of what they had seen were not all that common.

Even though no one doubts the existence of Alexander the Great no one is claiming that it is "a matter of historical record" that the corpse of Alexander the Great became reanimated and flew away either, are they?

Paul did not see Jesus "in the flesh", but whatever happened to him brought about a change from a persecutor of Christians to one willing to die for Christ. When he wrote to the church in Corinth, he referred to miracles he had performed there. Odd thing to put in a letter to people who would know it was nonsense if it didn't happen. For this and other reasons, I take Paul at his word regarding his encounter with Jesus and his apostolic status.

While traveling to Damascus Paul was stricken ill. He was carried into the city by his traveling companions and left at the home of a Christian to recover. Blind, sick and delirious, unable to eat or drink for three days, Paul believed after his recovery that during his illness he had an encounter with Jesus whom had been executed some few years earlier, and as a result Paul become a confirmed Christian. So we are left with two possible conclusions. One is that in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, Paul hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, that Paul actually had a conversation with a dead man. With all due respect to the version I know you prefer to believe, in all honesty, which conclusion is THE MORE LIKELY?

It is also worth noting that Paul's first meeting with Peter occurred approximately 5 years after Christ was supposed to have been resurrected. Whatever else they discussed, the facts of what had happened to Jesus Christ would have been part of the discussion, and this is the "creed" that Paul passed onto the Corinthian church that he refers to in 1 Cor 15:1 when he founded that church around 17 years after the crucifixion. This is significant because the belief in the creed referred to by Paul definitely relates to the resurrection - after all, Paul notes in 1 Cor 15:14 that without this central truth, their "preaching is vain, your faith is also vain," and this idea had been around since Paul met with Peter shortly after Christ's crucifixion.

Granted. The rumor of the Resurrected Jesus was in the process of being spread about within weeks of his execution. This is a far cry from "His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands," though, isn't it?

Saying that without the truth of the resurrection Christianity is a non-starter is a pretty strong statement made by a man who clearly believes it to be true, delivered to people close enough in time to the event to have access to falsification if such contrary evidence existed.

The Heaven's Gate cult in the 90's required male members to be castrated to insure the purity of the movement. Talk about a non-starter! And then the entire group was required to voluntarily commit suicide to interface with a space ship that was hiding behind comet Hale-Bopp. Which they all did. They only way I can explain this is that there are always some people who are gullible and easily influenced. As for the story of the resurrected Jesus, I personally think that the physical evidence of the empty tomb probably did provide a sort of powerful evidence for the gullible and easily influenced of Jesus' time. Along with other reasons of course. Like Paul, people reach their conclusions for different reasons. The question is, are they rational?

Check back with me in 2,000 years on Mormonism. Regarding Islam, before Mohammed's body was cold, his armies had saddled up and were converting people with a simple creed: Convert or die. I guess I'm not surprised that Islam converted a lot of people with that message. Contrast to Christianity. 300 years after the matinee performance was lions vs. Christians, the Roman Empire became officially Christian without a sword being drawn.

We don't have to wait 2,000 years to check on Christianity at all though, do we? We can check in on Christian claims 2,000 years later RIGHT NOW! Christians have been insisting for the last 2,000 years that Jesus' return is imminent, almost any second now. This has proven to be the emptiest of empty claims however, because 2,000 years later everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is dead and have remained indisputably and reliably dead. People do not live 2,000 years. Coincidentally, there are no 2,000 year old people amongst us. This is NOT an empty statement. This is undeniable fact.

The entire basis for Christianity is the resurrection. As Paul said, without the truth of that, you might as well worship whatever god suits you. That message, without a great many people substantiating it would not have spread so quickly that the governor of Bithynia just 80 years later would feel the need to execute Christians from slave to citizens for adhering to a religion that conflicting with emperor worship. Given its rapid spread, and notwithstanding the absence of NYTimes headlines, it is clear that there were a lot of people who believed in the resurrection "running around" spreading the word.

I agree. If there is no reason to believe that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead then there is no reason to believe in Christianity. Period.

Final comment...serious scholarship of the issue of Christ's life and resurrection yields a great deal of support. Taken altogether, the evidence presents a compelling picture of veracity. Ultimately many things are only determined to be true by the weight of the evidence that is available. Any one piece of evidence can be criticized, but when all the affirmative evidence points in one direction - well then it becomes unreasonable to reject a reasonable conclusion.

Yes, Christians believe in Christianity. Do you personally consider the story of a flying reanimated corpse to be an entirely reasonable conclusion?

Given the stakes involved for the parties at the time, my challenge to naysayers is where is your evidence?

Evidence is exactly my point and has been from the beginning. There is none for the spectacular claims you are making. It made no news at the time it was supposed to have occurred. Hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering about the city of Jerusalem according to Matthew 27:52-53. One would that THAT would have caught someone's attention. But no, no mention of this little event at the time either. In fact only the author of Gospel Matthew, written many decades later, mentions it at all. I believe your perspective has been twisted by your lifetime of Christian programming. It is unreasonable NOT to reject an unreasonable conclusion.

[Starboard Tack]

[quote="Tired of the Nonsense"

You originally stated: "His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened." In fact however nothing at all was recorded concerning Jesus during his lifetime, including his death and most particularly his supposed resurrection from the dead. Not by the Jews. Not by the Romans. Not by anyone even mentioning it in passing. NO SUCH RECORD EXISTS.

So when Tacitus refers to the crucifixion of Christos, it doesn't represent a record? Interesting. But irrational.

Josephus was born about 37 AD., some few years AFTER the execution of Jesus and wrote his histories sometime in the 90's AD. At best Josephus simply recorded Christian claims, not events he was personally witness to. We know pretty well what Christians were claiming by the end of the first century as recorded in the NT. Let me put this possible eyewitness claim of yours into perspective. If I told you that I personally knew someone who had seen flying reindeer, would you consider this to be proof positive that flying reindeer must therefore exist? Or would there still be some reason for doubt in your mind?

Based on this theory of what makes good history, Edward Gibbon had no business writing on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire because he was born 1500 years later, and all history of the American Revolution written after George Washington died is suspect since the authors couldn't interview General Arnold. Are you serious?

These are is simply reactions to the existence of Christians and the stories being spread by Christians in the second century. Again, no one is disputing that there were Christians by the second century.

A simple reaction to Christians is a reference to Christians. Tacitus describes Jesus, known as Christos, or King, being killed by Pontius Pilate. Can you see the difference?

Christianity had been outlawed by Rome in the second century and there is evidence of the persecution of Christians by that time. These were not individuals who were any more eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus then you are however. There is no evidence of any particular large scale persecution of Christians by the Romans during the time of the Apostles at all.

Again, you illustrate the absurd standard of proof set by those troubled by history and reality that is discordant with their preferred view. My point was that while there were many, many people claiming to be messiahs, this one person, who was on the scene for only three years and never held any position of power, attracted a following that permeated the Roman Empire within a short period of time of his death and arguably conquered it within 3 centuries. Nothing about that suggests something extraordinary was going on?

Agreed! Most people who have ever lived left no record of their lives. This is one reason that I do not chose to question the fact of Jesus' existence simply because there was no record of it during his lifetime. On the other hand, if you were here asserting that all of those people whose lives went unrecorded died only to have their corpses become reanimated, and that their reanimated corpses flew away up into the sky, I am afraid I would vigorously question that.

Question away. However, your questions will have no effect on the truth of the matter. Jesus either was who he said he was, and those who saw him resurrected either saw what they saw or did not. If he was, and if they did, then you have some thinking to do....

Even though no one doubts the existence of Alexander the Great no one is claiming that it is "a matter of historical record" that the corpse of Alexander the Great became reanimated and flew away either, are they?

No, but then again, no one claims he did, nor did Alexander claim he could, nor were there witnesses to what didn't happen. See the difference?

While traveling to Damascus Paul was stricken ill. He was carried into the city by his traveling companions and left at the home of a Christian to recover. Blind, sick and delirious, unable to eat or drink for three days, Paul believed after his recovery that during his illness he had an encounter with Jesus whom had been executed some few years earlier, and as a result Paul become a confirmed Christian. So we are left with two possible conclusions. One is that in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, Paul hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, that Paul actually had a conversation with a dead man. With all due respect to the version I know you prefer to believe, in all honesty, which conclusion is THE MORE LIKELY?

For someone willing to reject historical affirmation of key portions of the gospel story on the basis that no one took a picture of Christ ascending into heaven, you seem very willing to assert you know what happened to Paul. You seem to have determined that he was ill (no validation), and that he was delirious (no validation). Perhaps your standard of authentication should be applied to your own views? Just a thought. But one correction. Jesus was not dead. He isn't dead. Your rejection of Paul's revelation is a consequence of your rejection of God. Perfectly rational, from your perspective, unless of course you are wrong. Based on the evidence at hand, the best interpretation is that Jesus was truly risen from the dead. And if that is true, again, you have some thinking to do.

Granted. The rumor of the Resurrected Jesus was in the process of being spread about within weeks of his execution. This is a far cry from "His resurrection was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands," though, isn't it?

It is your characterization that his resurrection was a rumor. To those listening to or reading Paul's and Peter's and James words, it was simply what they had seen. You reject their testimony. Fine. Does that make your rejection more rational than what they saw, and apparently died for rather than deny?

The Heaven's Gate cult in the 90's required male members to be castrated to insure the purity of the movement. Talk about a non-starter! And then the entire group was required to voluntarily commit suicide to interface with a space ship that was hiding behind comet Hale-Bopp. Which they all did. They only way I can explain this is that there are always some people who are gullible and easily influenced. As for the story of the resurrected Jesus, I personally think that the physical evidence of the empty tomb probably did provide a sort of powerful evidence for the gullible and easily influenced of Jesus' time. Along with other reasons of course. Like Paul, people reach their conclusions for different reasons. The question is, are they rational?

Can you point me to the local Heaven's Gate church so I can talk to some of the members? Or has it died out within an historic instant of its creation, leaving no trace. See the difference with Christianity? Can you explain the difference?

We don't have to wait 2,000 years to check on Christianity at all though, do we? We can check in on Christian claims 2,000 years later RIGHT NOW! Christians have been insisting for the last 2,000 years that Jesus' return is imminent, almost any second now. This has proven to be the emptiest of empty claims however, because 2,000 years later everyone who lived 2,000 years ago is dead and have remained indisputably and reliably dead. People do not live 2,000 years. Coincidentally, there are no 2,000 year old people amongst us. This is NOT an empty statement. This is undeniable fact.

Actually, the teaching is that no man can predict when Christ will return. Predictions made by those ignoring that clear teaching have come up a cropper, as would be expected.

I agree. If there is no reason to believe that Jesus was actually resurrected from the dead then there is no reason to believe in Christianity. Period.

We can agree on something! However, the evidence remains the evidence, and the evidence points to his resurrection.

Yes, Christians believe in Christianity. Do you personally consider the story of a flying reanimated corpse to be an entirely reasonable conclusion?

Notwithstanding your sarcasm, Christ's resurrection is not about flying corpses, but the question of whether you are the result of random chemical organization resulting in animation and consciousness, or the result of God's action in creating an eternal soul. Christ's resurrection was testimony to the latter, but what you do with that gift is entirely your choice. Consider it God's gift to you, along with your existence.

Evidence is exactly my point and has been from the beginning. There is none for the spectacular claims you are making. It made no news at the time it was supposed to have occurred. Hoards of dead people coming up out of their graves and wandering about the city of Jerusalem according to Matthew 27:52-53. One would that THAT would have caught someone's attention. But no, no mention of this little event at the time either. In fact only the author of Gospel Matthew, written many decades later, mentions it at all. I believe your perspective has been twisted by your lifetime of Christian programming. It is unreasonable NOT to reject an unreasonable conclusion.

Having come to my Christian faith via a path leading from Zen to atheism to new age to Jesus Christ I am unaware of being "programmed." However, if that is how you need to characterize those who disagree with you, please carry on. Again, all your bluster doesn't change what is real and what is not. Sooner rather than later, it will all sort itself out for you. One way or another.

[McCulloch]

Again, the fact that ancient sources are absent is not compelling reason to doubt the veracity of the gospel accounts. As noted above, the first biographies of Alexander the Great were 4 centuries after his death. Are we to doubt his existence on that basis, or on the basis that his own generals left no written records of his existence? People who could even write an account of what they had seen were not all that common.

Texts written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander are all lost apart from a few inscriptions and fragments. Contemporaries who wrote accounts of his life include Alexander's campaign historian Callisthenes; Alexander's generals Ptolemy and Nearchus; Aristobulus, a junior officer on the campaigns; and Onesicritus, Alexander's chief helmsman. These works have been lost, but later works based on these original sources survive. The five main surviving accounts are by Arrian, Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus, and Justin.

Texts written by people who may have known Jesus, do survive, however, only as propaganda promoting the new late first century religion based on the claim of Jesus' messiahship and miraculous resurrection.

There are no artifacts attesting to the tales of his many miracles or the alleged multitudes of his followers.

On the other hand, Alexander's name was recorded in Egypt circa 330 BCE.

on coins during his reign

[Goat]

[quote="Tired of the Nonsense"

You originally stated: "His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened." In fact however nothing at all was recorded concerning Jesus during his lifetime, including his death and most particularly his supposed resurrection from the dead. Not by the Jews. Not by the Romans. Not by anyone even mentioning it in passing. NO SUCH RECORD EXISTS.

So when Tacitus refers to the crucifixion of Christos, it doesn't represent a record? Interesting. But irrational.

It is not contemporary at least, nor is it from any kind of official record. From the sound of it, he got it from Christians, so it is not an independent account. There is a different an independent account and one that was taken from others. If I talked about the space ship that followed the comet hale bop, would that mean there was an actual space ship that followed the comet hale bop, or perhaps I got my information from hearing about or reading about the Heaven's Gate cult?

Josephus was born about 37 AD., some few years AFTER the execution of Jesus and wrote his histories sometime in the 90's AD. At best Josephus simply recorded Christian claims, not events he was personally witness to. We know pretty well what Christians were claiming by the end of the first century as recorded in the NT. Let me put this possible eyewitness claim of yours into perspective. If I told you that I personally knew someone who had seen flying reindeer, would you consider this to be proof positive that flying reindeer must therefore exist? Or would there still be some reason for doubt in your mind?

Based on this theory of what makes good history, Edward Gibbon had no business writing on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire because he was born 1500 years later, and all history of the American Revolution written after George Washington died is suspect since the authors couldn't interview General Arnold. Are you serious?

We also know that Josephus was at the very least modified, and therefore is corrupted as a source. Since even the most fervent of apologists will admit that the T.F. is modified, what evidence do you have that it even existed before the 4th century c.e., when Euribius quoted from it? Then, we have to consider why a Bishop would want such a strong forgery to support the issue.

These are is simply reactions to the existence of Christians and the stories being spread by Christians in the second century. Again, no one is disputing that there were Christians by the second century.

A simple reaction to Christians is a reference to Christians. Tacitus describes Jesus, known as Christos, or King, being killed by Pontius Pilate. Can you see the difference?

The earliest reference or quote to that passage in Annals is a thousand years later, and it just so happens to be from a Monastery. Since there are some anachronisms in Tacitus, what evidence do you have that it existed before the it's 'discovery' by Johannes De in 1468???

And, let us assume that it wasn't a forgery, and it was indeed written by Tacitus in 112 or 114 c.e. What in that passage is something that shows it independent from the Gospels?

Christianity had been outlawed by Rome in the second century and there is evidence of the persecution of Christians by that time. These were not individuals who were any more eyewitness to the resurrected Jesus then you are however. There is no evidence of any particular large scale persecution of Christians by the Romans during the time of the Apostles at all.

Again, you illustrate the absurd standard of proof set by those troubled by history and reality that is discordant with their preferred view. My point was that while there were many, many people claiming to be messiahs, this one person, who was on the scene for only three years and never held any position of power, attracted a following that permeated the Roman Empire within a short period of time of his death and arguably conquered it within 3 centuries. Nothing about that suggests something extraordinary was going on?

Nope.. nothing at all. Is that the logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal incredulity?'??

Agreed! Most people who have ever lived left no record of their lives. This is one reason that I do not chose to question the fact of Jesus' existence simply because there was no record of it during his lifetime. On the other hand, if you were here asserting that all of those people whose lives went unrecorded died only to have their corpses become reanimated, and that their reanimated corpses flew away up into the sky, I am afraid I would vigorously question that.

Question away. However, your questions will have no effect on the truth of the matter. Jesus either was who he said he was, and those who saw him resurrected either saw what they saw or did not. If he was, and if they did, then you have some thinking to do....

This is the logical fallacy known as a 'false dichotomy'. There are other possibilities, and some I think are even more likely than the two that you mention.

It could be that the stories about Jesus are exaggerated, and also are a composite of a number of different 1st century preachers.

It could be that the people who later wrote the gospels did not understand the Jewish culture and idioms, and took things out of context.

It could be that the stories about Jesus were made up to push specific theological ideas.

Or, it could be a combination of all of those.

I will say that claiming a unique incident that by all intents and purposes we know to be physically impossible today demands a lot better evidence than 'It's in a book'.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Based on this theory of what makes good history, Edward Gibbon had no business writing on the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire because he was born 1500 years later, and all history of the American Revolution written after George Washington died is suspect since the authors couldn't interview General Arnold. Are you serious?

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

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

Is there any reason to doubt this story in your opinion, or is it straightforward history and thus not to be rejected?

A simple reaction to Christians is a reference to Christians. Tacitus describes Jesus, known as Christos, or King, being killed by Pontius Pilate. Can you see the difference?

I do not question that Jesus existed, nor do I question that Jesus was executed. Fair enough?

Again, you illustrate the absurd standard of proof set by those troubled by history and reality that is discordant with their preferred view.

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

My point was that while there were many, many people claiming to be messiahs, this one person, who was on the scene for only three years and never held any position of power, attracted a following that permeated the Roman Empire within a short period of time of his death and arguably conquered it within 3 centuries. Nothing about that suggests something extraordinary was going on?

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

Question away. However, your questions will have no effect on the truth of the matter. Jesus either was who he said he was, and those who saw him resurrected either saw what they saw or did not. If he was, and if they did, then you have some thinking to do....

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

No, but then again, no one claims he did, nor did Alexander claim he could, nor were there witnesses to what didn't happen. See the difference?

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

For someone willing to reject historical affirmation of key portions of the gospel story on the basis that no one took a picture of Christ ascending into heaven, you seem very willing to assert you know what happened to Paul. You seem to have determined that he was ill (no validation), and that he was delirious (no validation). Perhaps your standard of authentication should be applied to your own views? Just a thought. But one correction. Jesus was not dead. He isn't dead. Your rejection of Paul's revelation is a consequence of your rejection of God. Perfectly rational, from your perspective, unless of course you are wrong. Based on the evidence at hand, the best interpretation is that Jesus was truly risen from the dead. And if that is true, again, you have some thinking to do.

Acts specifically depicts Paul as becoming suddenly blind and incapacitated.

Acts 9.
[8] "And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.
[9] And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink."

It specifically states that he was unable to DRINK for three days. Blurred vision, hallucinations and delirium are classic symptoms of dehydration, often caused by heat exhaustion.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/dehydr ... N=symptoms

It is your characterization that his resurrection was a rumor. To those listening to or reading Paul's and Peter's and James words, it was simply what they had seen. You reject their testimony. Fine. Does that make your rejection more rational than what they saw, and apparently died for rather than deny?

What do the Jewish priests tell Pilot that they are afraid the disciples intend to do? Take the body and spread the rumor that Jesus has risen from the grave. And what happened? The body of Jesus turned up missing and then some five weeks later the disciples returned to Jerusalem and begin to spread the story of the risen Jesus. But only after, according to them, the "risen" Jesus flew up into the sky and disappeared into the clouds. So from the beginning the "risen man" was not presented to the public. Only rumors of his return from the dead.

Can you point me to the local Heaven's Gate church so I can talk to some of the members? Or has it died out within an historic instant of its creation, leaving no trace. See the difference with Christianity? Can you explain the difference?

Here is a historical example, if you like.

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

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

Actually, the teaching is that no man can predict when Christ will return. Predictions made by those ignoring that clear teaching have come up a cropper, as would be expected.

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

We can agree on something! However, the evidence remains the evidence, and the evidence points to his resurrection.

We both agree that Jesus probably existed as well. I am sure we could find other areas of agreement, given the chance. What we don't agree on is the definition of evidence as opposed to unsupportable claims.

Notwithstanding your sarcasm, Christ's resurrection is not about flying corpses, but the question of whether you are the result of random chemical organization resulting in animation and consciousness, or the result of God's action in creating an eternal soul. Christ's resurrection was testimony to the latter, but what you do with that gift is entirely your choice. Consider it God's gift to you, along with your existence.

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

Again, all your bluster doesn't change what is real and what is not.

I have attempted to answer each of your charges in a completely straightforward manner. Do you normally accuse anyone who disagrees with you to be guilty of "bluster?" Or am I special?