Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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

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

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

[Starboard Tack]

Ok, I'll play. Can we agree that the tomb was empty?

Fine! All four Gospels are consistent on the point that the tomb was empty on Sunday morning. If we dismiss the Gospel stories entirely, then we have no means to explain the sudden rise of the cult of the crucified carpenter in the first century. And in fact much, all though certainly not all, of the story of Jesus contained in the Gospels is reasonably cogent and consistent with reason. So if we are going to grant the Gospels any potential for validity at all, then it's not unreasonable to conclude that there really was a tomb, and it really was empty on Sunday morning. In fact we are told that it was the rich man, Joseph of Arimathaea's brand new never before used tomb. The Gospel of John, chapter 19, tells us this:

[41] "Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand."

These tombs, and there are many others like it to be found, were typically intended to be multi-use mulit-generational family crypts. Joseph's expensive new personal rock tomb was never intended to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus. It was used because it was late in the afternoon and Jewish law required that all bodies be out of sight on the Sabbath. The crypt was "nigh at hand" to the place where Jesus was crucified and was simply used as an out of sight and private place for the body to be prepared.

The Gospel of John, chapter 19, also tells us this:

[39] "And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury."

The body was heavily wrapped and coated with a hundred pounds of aromatic herbs. This would serve no practical purpose in the preservation of the body, and Jews didn't practice bodily preservation anyway. Being prepared in this way would serve a very practical purpose in keeping the smell of decay under control for several days however. The body was in fact very well prepared as if to be taken on a journey of several days.

A journey where? Well, where does one normally take a body? HOME! He was Jesus of Nazareth after all, and Nazareth is in Galilee, roughly a hundred miles north east of Jerusalem.

Matthew 28:
[16] Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

Where did the apostles journey immediately after the execution of Jesus? GALILEE! Notice also that Mary the mother of Jesus is nowhere mentioned as being at the empty tomb on that first Easter Sunday morning. There is a trivia question for you. Most people will swear that of course the mother of Jesus was at the tomb on Easter Sunday, and they would be WRONG. Various Marys are mentioned, but not Mary the mother of Jesus. She IS specifically mentioned as being at the crucifixion.

John 19:
[25] Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
[26] When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

Where do we pick of Mary the mother of Jesus again?

[12] Then returned they unto Jerusalem from the mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a sabbath day's journey.
[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
[14] These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

We find Mary the mother of Jesus WITH HIS BRETHREN, newly returned to Jerusalem from Galilee after having spent the previous night at Olivet, the Mount of Olives, which is north east of the city. And now they begin to spread the story of the risen Jesus, whom they say flew away up to heaven.

If one approaches the story of the risen Jesus from a position of skepticism, and frankly why SHOULDN'T one approach the story of a resurrected dead man with skepticism, then we are faced with two possibilities here.

One is that a group of the dead man's friends, along with the dead man's mother, quietly took the body back to his home to be buried. Then a few weeks later returned and began spreading a story that the dead man had returned to life, pointing to the empty tomb as their proof.

OR:

The dead man came back to life and ultimately flew away up into the sky.

WHICH CONCLUSION IS THE MORE REASONABLE?

The tomb was empty on Sunday because the body was already on it's way home for burial, back to Galilee.

Perhaps you've cracked the case and satisfied the way to falsify Christianity that Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians - disprove the resurrection. You've done what the Romans couldn't do by killing Christians, and all just with basic crime solving skills. You have the circumstantial evidence of all those herbs, and you've described the crime - the disciples stole the body and took it to Galilee. You have also impugned the testimony of Matthew on the resurrection, since he apparently made up the guard story, while the Mark, Luke and John correctly stated what happened. Have I got it right so far?

But like Columbo always seem to say, there are just a few loose ends to tie up before we close the case. You mentioned all the herbs they packed Christ's body with as evidence that they intended to do a weekend at Bernie's routine with him and they didn't want the body to smell. However, this was common practice in Jewish burials, just as your citation notes, because the tombs used were just carved caves with a round stone rolled in front, and the people outside didn't want to smell the bodies putrefying within. Based on Jewish burial customs, the herb evidence doesn't support your theory.

One of the outworkings implicit in your argument is that M, L & J's gospels are accurate down to small details, like whether guards were or were not present. Others would say that the natural variation between eye witness accounts that have not been colluded on have these variations, but you're making a very big deal of the whole guard thing, so you must take it to be, well, Gospel. That’s good, because I agree with you. Generally you can trust the Gospel accounts within the normal variation that accompanies eye witness testimony that is truthful.

So, let’s assume there were no guards, since if there were, credibility is lent to the resurrection account.

By your theory, after Christ was crucified, the disciples immediately decided to:

1. Become grave robbers, a crime punishable by death, and anathema to Jews.
2. Spread the lie about Christ's resurrection to gullible millions throughout history, beginning immediately after Christ’s death.

What we know about the disciples on or about the time Christ was crucified include:

1. Peter's denial that he even knew Christ 3 times after his arrest.
2. The disciples were hiding in fear of the Jews - John 20:19
3. That when Mary came to the disciples to report that Christ's body was missing, the disciples didn't believe her - Luke 24:11, Mark 16:10.
4. The disciples were completely demoralized - Mark 16:10.

So, based on your theory, these demoralized people, frightened for their lives and unwilling to affirm that they even knew Jesus after his arrest, became grave robbers at the risk of their lives and carted the body from the unguarded tomb to Galilee for burial, violating strict Jewish law regarding the prompt burial of the dead in the process.

And apparently the reason they did this, was because they wanted to spread the lie about the resurrection.

Now to the motive for spreading this lie in the first place. The disciples become grave robbers and carry a dead body around risking death for what? The Christian cult had already been made illegal, their leader was dead and according to you buried someplace in Galilee. By pursuing this story they immediately got arrested and beaten, thrown in jail, periodically stoned, and generally harassed and eventually killed for stating the resurrection happened. Some motive. You really think that is what happened?

The reason why the “no guards/ the disciples stole the body� story sounds like the kind of debate assertion that college sophomores would cook up around a keg of beer is because it makes no sense. The alleged criminals here gained nothing and bought into a whole lot of grief by sticking to their account that they had seen what they had seen.

But you do raise an interesting point, and the probable explanation for their actions. You stated “If we dismiss the Gospel stories entirely, then we have no means to explain the sudden rise of the cult of the crucified carpenter in the first century�. Spot on. But if you take away the firm belief in the resurrection, what have you got? Nothing. No religion at all, just another rabble rousing false messiah. And where does the resurrection belief come from by thousands? Because a few itinerant fishermen said so, prompting those thousands to be on the receiving end of persecution and in many cases death? Since the resurrection story was attested to by eye witnesses that you say we can trust to tell us if there were guards or not, and since you say that where all four Gospels agree on something it lends credibility, and since the resurrection was referred to by Paul as having hundreds of witnesses, yet we have no record of anyone coming forward with a contrary view, which explanation makes more sense. The Gospel account with all its witnesses, or your musings without the slightest evidence other than your confidence in your analytic abilities? If you approach this question as a skeptic to answer that question, you lose.

[Starboard Tack]

For the sake of debate suppose one accepts that everything happened as believed by Christianity.

How does a person get past this text.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



Deuteronomy 13

Worshiping Other Gods
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods� (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,� 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

Jesus himself claimed to be the" I AM "of the OT while the "Father" was unknown to humanity till revealed by Christ.

John 8:57-59

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



57 “You are not yet fifty years old,� the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!�

58 “I tell you the truth,� Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!� 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds


John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.


Luke 10:22
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.�

Again, I am not sure what your point is. You cited the reasons why the Pharisees and Sadducees felt justified in killing Jesus. They didn't belief that all the prophecies about the messiah applied to Jesus, expecting a kind of Jewish Rambo to restore David's kingdom.

The concept of the Trinity can certainly be found in the OT, but not made explicit until Christ came to fully explain it. This is part of gradual revelation, where you are in a position to know things about God that people living 3,000 years ago did not. If you are making some other point, please explain.

[postroad]

For the sake of debate suppose one accepts that everything happened as believed by Christianity.

How does a person get past this text.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



Deuteronomy 13

Worshiping Other Gods
1 If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, 2 and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, “Let us follow other gods� (gods you have not known) “and let us worship them,� 3 you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. 4 It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. 5 That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you.

Jesus himself claimed to be the" I AM "of the OT while the "Father" was unknown to humanity till revealed by Christ.

John 8:57-59

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



57 “You are not yet fifty years old,� the Jews said to him, “and you have seen Abraham!�

58 “I tell you the truth,� Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!� 59 At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds


John 1:18
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.


Luke 10:22
“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.�

Again, I am not sure what your point is. You cited the reasons why the Pharisees and Sadducees felt justified in killing Jesus. They didn't belief that all the prophecies about the messiah applied to Jesus, expecting a kind of Jewish Rambo to restore David's kingdom.

The concept of the Trinity can certainly be found in the OT, but not made explicit until Christ came to fully explain it. This is part of gradual revelation, where you are in a position to know things about God that people living 3,000 years ago did not. If you are making some other point, please explain.

What if the Trinity is the gods they have not known.

The text does seem to exclude the possibility that further revelation on the issue of Gods singular nature as understood at the time is to be tolerated.

That is what better way to deceive than impersonating and stealing his identity.

The fact that the Law was dumped as obsolete further proves the point.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

For the sake of debate suppose one accepts that everything happened as believed by Christianity.

How does a person get past this text.

Deuteronomy 13:1-5

Jesus himself claimed to be the" I AM "of the OT while the "Father" was unknown to humanity till revealed by Christ.

As I have already pointed out to Starboard, Jesus wrote NOTHING himself, and the words attributed to him were placed into his mouth by others decades after his death. The authors of the Gospels were certainly aware of the various prophases of a coming messiah which is, after all, what the Gospels were written to establish that Jesus represented. Were the authors of the Gospels taking liberties with the truth?

Micah 5:
[2] But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

According to prophesy the new ruler of Israel is to be, as was David, from the city of Bethlehem. In fact the author of Gospel Matthew goes through a whole litany of "begats" to establish that Jesus was in fact a direct descendant of King David.... through Joseph the husband of Mary, whom, as every believing Christian knows, was not Jesus' father at all. Unfortunately Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth. No problem. A little known fact, according to Gospel Matthew, is that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem, who traveled there in accordance with the Roman census command. Was this the
Census of Quirinius, undertaken during the years 6-7 AD, years AFTER JESUS WAS BORN?

"The Gospel of Luke links the birth of Jesus to a "world-wide" census ordered by Augustus carried out while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This is thought to be a reference to the census of Judea in 6/7 AD; however, Luke also, like the Gospel of Matthew, dates the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC, ten years before the census of 6 or 7 AD. According to Raymond E. Brown, most modern historians suggest that Luke's account is mistaken." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

John Chapter 7 addresses the problem of Jesus the Nazarene not being the promised fulfillment of the prophesy:

[40] Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.
[41] Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
[42] Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?
[43] So there was a division among the people because of him.
[44] And some of them would have taken him; but no man laid hands on him.
[45] Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him?
[46] The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.
[47] Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived?
[48] Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?
[49] But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed.
[50] Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,)
[51] Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?
[52] They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.

But Gospel John does not resolve the question, and leaves it open.

Gospel Matthew also relates the so called "slaughter of the innocents."

Matthew 2:
[16] "Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men."

"The infants, known in the Church as the Holy Innocents, have been claimed as the first Christian martyrs. Traditional accounts number them at more than ten thousand, but more conservative estimates put their number in the low dozens.[3]. Most modern biographers agree there is no evidence that this event took place." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter_of_the_Innocents

Jewish historians deny that it ever took place for the good a proper reason that they have no history of it. It was their history after all.

Midrash

"Midrash is a way of interpreting biblical stories that goes beyond simple distillation of religious, legal or moral teachings. It fills in many gaps left in the biblical narrative regarding events and personalities that are only hinted at." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midrash

We might reasonably refer to this as "making it up as the need arises."

[postroad]

And no wonder that Jesus never wrote anything about himself.

A written doctrine being taught by men is exactly the thing to be eliminated in the new covenant of the Spirit of God directly to all the elect from the greatest to the least regardless of age,gender,education, intellect, etc,etc.

Jeremiah 31:33-34

New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)



33 “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel
after that time,� declares the LORD.
“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
34 No longer will a man teach his neighbor,
or a man his brother, saying, ‘Know the LORD,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,�
declares the LORD.
“For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more.�

[fredonly]

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

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.

I agree it is likely that Jesus was a real person who was crucified.

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?

Now you're getting non-historical. There's no credible evidence that any of the alleged eyewitnesses of the "resurrection" died because of their beliefs. It does seem likely that one or more disciples related that he experienced some sort of post mortem appearance. It could have been a dream. Historians relate that the primitive people of the time considered dreams to be real events.

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?

Assuming Paul actually said this, and it wasn't a later interpolation, he was just relating a belief that he was taught. Christian apologists like to assume this "hymn" in 1 Cor 15 goes back to 3-5 years after Jesus death, but other scholars dispute it, suggesting it could be a later interpolation. If Paul indeed received this dogma, he doesn't appear to have questioned or verified it. It is curious that If indeed 500 people in the vicinity of Jerusalem had seen a dead man walking, that there would be no records of this outside of the New Testament. Why didn't Josephus know about, and report it?

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?

Tough to answer, since we have so little information about the guy. It could have been the uniqueness of his eschatological message, and it could have been due to the activities of his closest followers after his death. Another thing that's very unclear is: what did his earliest followers actually believe and what did they teach? How much did the teachings evolve over time, and as it spread to the Greek world outside Palestine? These are interesting historical questions, but I'm sorry to say that there's no credible historical case that it is due to an ACTUAL resurrection. It just doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny.

5. The Jewish rulers were scared witless of revolutionary movements and would do anything to head one off at the pass.

You're parroting the hyperbole of some Christian apologists. There's no credible historical evidence to support this assertion.

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?

This is downright silly. There were no Roman persecutions of Jesus' followers in Palestine after his resurrection. Most significantly, there's no record of anyone who claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus having been killed or tortured for this belief.

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.

This is an extreme distortion. Pliny the younger relates that there were Christians in one small region (Bithynia) who refused to pay tribute to the state gods, an act that was deemed antisocial. Some of the Christians relented and made their offering (which did not require renouncing their beliefs in Jesus). Others stubbornly refused to make the offering and were executed.

From a truly historical perspective, it seems quite likely that the martyrologies did a great deal to encourage people to become Christians. If a person would die for their beliefs, they reasoned, it must be true. Impeccable logic to a primitive, uneducated mind. Educated minds today understand there's a difference between a sincere belief and objective truth. A willingness to die for a belief implies the belief is sincere, not that the belief is true. (for example, consider Muslim extremist suicide bombers – esp the 9/11 perpetrators).

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

Perhaps, certainly but not for the unhistorical reasons you cite. Citing counterfactual information does more harm than help to your case.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Perhaps you've cracked the case and satisfied the way to falsify Christianity that Paul outlined in 1 Corinthians - disprove the resurrection.

I have no way of knowing how any of the story of Jesus actually played out of course. But within the context of the information at hand, the possibility that the disciples of Jesus returned his body to Galilee for burial makes perfect sense. As opposed to flying.... well, you know. But perhaps we are both wrong and Jesus never actually existed. That is far more likely than the flying corpse version.

You've done what the Romans couldn't do by killing Christians, and all just with basic crime solving skills. You have the circumstantial evidence of all those herbs, and you've described the crime - the disciples stole the body and took it to Galilee. You have also impugned the testimony of Matthew on the resurrection, since he apparently made up the guard story, while the Mark, Luke and John correctly stated what happened. Have I got it right so far?

Mark, Luke and John conspicuously omitted the story of the guard at the tomb. Why is a very good question.

But like Columbo always seem to say, there are just a few loose ends to tie up before we close the case. You mentioned all the herbs they packed Christ's body with as evidence that they intended to do a weekend at Bernie's routine with him and they didn't want the body to smell. However, this was common practice in Jewish burials, just as your citation notes, because the tombs used were just carved caves with a round stone rolled in front, and the people outside didn't want to smell the bodies putrefying within. Based on Jewish burial customs, the herb evidence doesn't support your theory.

Gospel John refers to the practice "as the manner of the Jews is to bury." This is clearly not true though, because and it wasn't common practice. A "mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight," would have been exorbitantly expensive, far beyond the means of most families. Not for the rich man Joseph, but then most people are not rich. Hand carved tombs like Joseph's were typically made with a flat stone slab for laying out the body. After a year or so the bones would be collected and placed into a stone ossuary with the person's name carved onto it. The ossuary would then be placed onto a niche in the tomb, along with other family members. These were meant to be family crypts, not single occupant dwellings. Heavily wrapping and coating a body as described by Gospel John would have served no practical purpose in this process. It would not have arrested the smell of decay for more than a week at best, and the heavy wrappings would have impeded, but not stopped the reduction of the corpse to a skeletal state, which was actually what was desired. Preparing a body in such a manner would certainly be practical if one had to accompany the body on a trip of several days however.

One of the outworkings implicit in your argument is that M, L & J's gospels are accurate down to small details, like whether guards were or were not present. Others would say that the natural variation between eye witness accounts that have not been colluded on have these variations, but you're making a very big deal of the whole guard thing, so you must take it to be, well, Gospel. That’s good, because I agree with you.

There is no way of knowing how accurate any of the Gospels are. They are, however, our only detailed source of information on the origins of Christianity. There are portions of all of them which are clearly nonsense of course. That fact does not in itself mean that the entire works should be disregarded.

Generally you can trust the Gospel accounts within the normal variation that accompanies eye witness testimony that is truthful.

Studies have shown that eyewitness testimony, even when presented truthfully, is often wildly inaccurate.

The reason why the “no guards/ the disciples stole the body� story sounds like the kind of debate assertion that college sophomores would cook up around a keg of beer is because it makes no sense. The alleged criminals here gained nothing and bought into a whole lot of grief by sticking to their account that they had seen what they had seen.

Again you are referring to the grief that the apostles underwent for spreading the story of the resurrected Jesus. And yet even you agreed that the stories of the terrible demise that each one underwent are unreliable. Which is entirely true. As for having nothing to gain: Acts 4

[34] "Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,
[35] And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need."

Making religion one's job has always been very lucrative, if one is good enough at it. The Catholic Church is worth zillions. Modern televangelists are multimillionaires. It can be the classic easy money job, if one works it right.

But you do raise an interesting point, and the probable explanation for their actions. You stated “If we dismiss the Gospel stories entirely, then we have no means to explain the sudden rise of the cult of the crucified carpenter in the first century�. Spot on. But if you take away the firm belief in the resurrection, what have you got? Nothing. No religion at all, just another rabble rousing false messiah.

Jewish historians have long insisted that no significant numbers of Jews ever converted to Christianity until the time of the Spanish Inquisition, and then only for obvious reasons. No mention of anything concerning Christians for the first quarter of a century, remember? Christianity took awhile to catch on, and when it finally did begin to catch on, it was mainly with the gentiles. The Jews were looking for a military messiah, another David, to deliver then from the hated Romans. Most of the rest of the population of the Mediterranean world, the gentiles, were waiting for a SPIRITUAL messiah. The long awaited descendant of Zoroaster (Zaharathustra) who was prophesied to return a thousand years after his death, ushering in the End Times. This messiah was supposed to sit at the right hand of God and judge mankind. JUDGEMENT DAY IS AT HAND. This nonsense has been going on for thousands of years now. The message that Paul and others brought to the gentiles played right into the hands of what was at the time popular culture. The Greeks were especially big on this belief which was derived from Persian (Parsee) religious teaching. And this also explains why there we see so many variations of Christians right from the earliest times. The story of Jesus represented different things to different groups.

Since the resurrection story was attested to by eye witnesses that you say we can trust to tell us if there were guards or not, and since you say that where all four Gospels agree on something it lends credibility, and since the resurrection was referred to by Paul as having hundreds of witnesses, yet we have no record of anyone coming forward with a contrary view, which explanation makes more sense.

No record of anything at all, for about a quarter of a century. The Gospels would not begin to be written until more than forty years after the time of the death of Jesus. In an age when the average life expectancy was only about 45 or so, there weren't all that many people around who had any first hand knowledge of what had occurred around 30 AD.

[Starboard Tack]

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

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.

I agree it is likely that Jesus was a real person who was crucified.

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?

Now you're getting non-historical. There's no credible evidence that any of the alleged eyewitnesses of the "resurrection" died because of their beliefs. It does seem likely that one or more disciples related that he experienced some sort of post mortem appearance. It could have been a dream. Historians relate that the primitive people of the time considered dreams to be real events.

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?

Assuming Paul actually said this, and it wasn't a later interpolation, he was just relating a belief that he was taught. Christian apologists like to assume this "hymn" in 1 Cor 15 goes back to 3-5 years after Jesus death, but other scholars dispute it, suggesting it could be a later interpolation. If Paul indeed received this dogma, he doesn't appear to have questioned or verified it. It is curious that If indeed 500 people in the vicinity of Jerusalem had seen a dead man walking, that there would be no records of this outside of the New Testament. Why didn't Josephus know about, and report it?

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?

Tough to answer, since we have so little information about the guy. It could have been the uniqueness of his eschatological message, and it could have been due to the activities of his closest followers after his death. Another thing that's very unclear is: what did his earliest followers actually believe and what did they teach? How much did the teachings evolve over time, and as it spread to the Greek world outside Palestine? These are interesting historical questions, but I'm sorry to say that there's no credible historical case that it is due to an ACTUAL resurrection. It just doesn't hold up to historical scrutiny.

5. The Jewish rulers were scared witless of revolutionary movements and would do anything to head one off at the pass.

You're parroting the hyperbole of some Christian apologists. There's no credible historical evidence to support this assertion.

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?

This is downright silly. There were no Roman persecutions of Jesus' followers in Palestine after his resurrection. Most significantly, there's no record of anyone who claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus having been killed or tortured for this belief.

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.

This is an extreme distortion. Pliny the younger relates that there were Christians in one small region (Bithynia) who refused to pay tribute to the state gods, an act that was deemed antisocial. Some of the Christians relented and made their offering (which did not require renouncing their beliefs in Jesus). Others stubbornly refused to make the offering and were executed.

From a truly historical perspective, it seems quite likely that the martyrologies did a great deal to encourage people to become Christians. If a person would die for their beliefs, they reasoned, it must be true. Impeccable logic to a primitive, uneducated mind. Educated minds today understand there's a difference between a sincere belief and objective truth. A willingness to die for a belief implies the belief is sincere, not that the belief is true. (for example, consider Muslim extremist suicide bombers – esp the 9/11 perpetrators).

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

Perhaps, certainly but not for the unhistorical reasons you cite. Citing counterfactual information does more harm than help to your case.

Can you give a specific example where I have counterfeited history. For example, I stated 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. You say that is an extreme distortion, but that comment appears unrelated to the documents, so I would appreciate your providing something other than declarative statements supporting your view.

From Pliny's letter to Trajan: These examinations made me think it necessary to inquire by torments what the truth was; which I did of two servant maids, who were called Deaconesses: but still I discovered no more than that they were addicted to a bad and to an extravagant superstition. Hereupon I have put off any further examinations, and have recourse to you, for the affair seems to be well worth consultation, especially on account of the number of those that are in danger; for there are many of every age, of every rank, and of both sexes, who are now and hereafter likely to be called to account, and to be in danger; for this superstition is spread like a contagion, not only into cities and towns, but into country villages also, which yet there is reason to hope may be stopped and corrected. It seems to me that having tortured women for their faith without getting them to deny that faith, Pliny is stumped and appeals to the emperor for instruction on how many more people he should torture and kill hoping to convince them to recant that faith. That is perfectly consistent with my observation, and contradicts your own.

There is nothing unclear about what Jesus' followers thought and believed. The Gospels and Epistles provide adequate explanation of that.

Your proof that what the disciples of Christ experienced were dreams is exactly what? Is this your theory, or do you have a theory of mass coordinated dreaming you would like to cite?

There is no disagreement that Paul is referring in 1 Cor 15 to the earliest Christian creed that he received within 5 years or so of Christ's death. Would you like to cite the scholarship that disagrees with this, or do you feel your statement should be taken as evidence enough? This includes references to mainstream scholars who have a different view than yours, and share mine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_Corinthians_15

The rest of your critique is of a similar flavor. "You're wrong, and I'm right". That doesn't actually constitute a reasoned debate, now does it? In general, if you are going to challenge the historical accuracy of someone else's opinions, it is best for you not to make up your own history by way of rebuttal.

[Autodidact]

1. His life and crucifixion is a matter of historic record - Roman and Jewish. It happened.

Wouldn't it be interesting if this were true?

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

. I guess we'll never know, since, assuming they existed, none of them wrote anything down.

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?

Well, of course we don't know how they died, assuming they ever existed.

And people are never mistaken *Waco* *People's Temple* *Heaven's Gate.*

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?

Because nobody read them.

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?

I think this is a very interesting question, and the strongest argument for Christianity. This is pretty factual, and that's why this is the argument Christians should use. something happened, that seems clear.

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.

Well, they couldn't know that a hundred years later, could they? Anyway, don't see how this argument supports Christianity particularly.

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

You want to know why it's not reasonable that an invisible magic power got a woman pregnant so she could give birth to a man-God so He could be sacrificed to Himself to atone for my sins? And that a dead person came back to life, just because there was a rumor that they couldn't find His body? Seriously?

[Autodidact]

Starboard: Are you in all seriousness trying to use the gospels to prove the truth of the gospels? Because that doesn't work.