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.

[Mithrae]

Otherwise, unless you're disputing the accuracy of translation, I'm not sure how Darmesteter's views on the date of composition are relevant?

I'm not sure that any of this discussion is relevant. It seems to be more of an attempt to disrupt and divert my discussion with Starboard Tack by taking up my time with side issues. If Starboard Tack wishes to make an issue of any of the points you have raised I will be glad to address them.

I'm simply asking about the specifics of evidence supporting these claims below (since besides some Persian influence in earlier Judaism I'm not yet aware of any myself), and the validity of the inferences you're making from them. In short whether there were actually significant parallels between early Christian and non-Christian beliefs, and crucially, whether that was used or contributed to the growth or development of a movement which on face value specifically rejected and forbade Pagan beliefs and practices. But fair enough, I'll leave it to Starboard

One of the things I have always puzzled over is why atheists think the comparisons of Judeo Christian beliefs to ancient religious frameworks strengthens their case. It would seem to me that if you wanted to prove that God was a fantasy and did not reveal himself to his created, that there would be less, rather than more similarities to point to. Maybe the reason why all religions seem to believe in a creator(s) of some kind, with eternal life a prominent feature, and the objective reality of good and evil is because it's true.

. . . .
During the course of our discussion you posed the question of what caused the story of this particular man, Jesus, to take root and grow into the mighty religion of Christianity if something very special and unusual had not occurred. It's a very reasonable question actually. Certainly the strength of numbers of Christians today, along with their deep and genuine faith in it's truth, represents one of the most powerful evidences for Christian believers and mutual verification for the truth of their faith. To understand how and why the belief in Christianity managed to grow and prosper, and ultimately prevail, I attempted to provide you with a brief overview of the early history of Christianity and of the nature of what was then popular culture 2,000 years ago. To understand that question one needs to understand the nature of how the various religious beliefs of the age were evolving and spreading about. Persian religious beliefs were very prevalent throughout the Mediterranean region, and were also very instrumental in Judaism for the formation of what would become Christianity.

[Adamoriens]

Better would be to require classes in Comparative Religion to HS juniors and seniors taught by instructors trained to discuss the comparative belief details of all major religions; not to promote religion or to endorse any single religion, but to provide students with a context and understanding of the world they are about to enter, giving them talking points to take home to Mr. and Mrs. Bubba.

I want to single this out because I've been saying this for years. How we cannot have a comparative religious studies survey in HS is beyond me. In a god-besotted, deeply divided, increasingly globalized nation, it is a glaring omission.

I've wondered that, too. I think the reason we don't is because true cognizance of religious diversity threatens the religious establishment somewhat, whatever it is. In the seemingly simple act of teaching about different religions, I think one can actually psychologically displace a religious student's source of authority and interpretation. Before long, the curious ones begin wondering why they ever took their cultural religion to be the proper interpretive in the first place.

Also, I think that many religious beliefs (and I'm trying to say this without malice) can seem ridiculous when presented without the usual methods of persuasion and conversion. Is there a neutral light in which the history of Scientology and Mormonism do not seem ridiculous, in which their founding and core beliefs do not seem sickly? Even the most orthodox monotheisms become odd when sheared from their supportive culture.

And there's more diversity within religions than many students might realize, which suggests that what we take to be standard or universal about our religion may in fact be culturally contingent. This threatens revelatory authority and whatnot.

So it looks like we have strong selfish motives not to teach these sorts of classes, even though they might encourage a more cosmopolitan approach to politics and life.

[Flail]

Adamoriens wrote:

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

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

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

[Autodidact]

Thanks. This still doesn't really mean anything especially tangible to me. I think someone else asked a similar question but it seems like maybe you're saying you choose Christianity much like I would choose to be a metalhead or to embrace Canadian culture or to be inspired by a certain poet?

Wait, Canada has a culture?

[Adamoriens]

Thanks. This still doesn't really mean anything especially tangible to me. I think someone else asked a similar question but it seems like maybe you're saying you choose Christianity much like I would choose to be a metalhead or to embrace Canadian culture or to be inspired by a certain poet?

Wait, Canada has a culture?

Mostly bacterial, but it's maturing.

[McCulloch]

Wait, Canada has a culture?

No, we have several. And humour is an integral part of the Canadian Identity, generally either self depreciating or making fun of Americans.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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

This thread was begun based on your claim that there were "a few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ." I notice that while you continue to post on this forum in other strings, you have not posted a reply in this string for three days now. Is it safe to conclude that you have chosen to end this discussion? And if so is it your honest impression that you have successfully defended your premise that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is perfectly reasonable, and therefor needs no more defending? Based on the argument you have provided here, do you still consider that conclusion even remotely supportable? Every one of your original five "few things skeptics need to explain if they wish to position themselves as motivated by reason in their rejection of Christ," has fallen completely apart under examination of the facts. There is no evidence that the risen Jesus "was witnessed by hundreds, perhaps thousands and referred to by Paul within 3 years of the event in front of crowds of people," as you asserted. No record of witnesses "within three years of the event." No mention of any such resurrection from the dead at all in fact for a quarter of a century or so. It's also perfectly clear from reading the story in the Gospels themselves that there were individuals with the means, motive and opportunity to not only relocate the body of Jesus, but to later spread the rumor of the "risen" Christ. This would mean that the Christian religion is in truth really nothing more than a human construct based on human motivations, like pretty much ALL human activities happen to be. Like pretty much all the other religions which you DO NOT subscribe to, would it not? Is it "reasonable" to discount the most obvious solution, that the missing corpse was the result of actions taking by the living, in favor of declaring instead that the missing corpse could only have been the result of actions taken by the corpse? Do you still consider that to be a reasonable and unavoidable conclusion? With all due respect for the conclusion I know that you prefer and which you have reached yourself, do you consider the argument that you have presented here to be convincing and conclusive, one which should certainly serve to convince others? Because I beg to differ.

My real question is this: not what you personally believe, which is a given, but do you STILL consider the story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead to be not only plausible but "rational" when considered in light of all of the facts, from BOTH sides of the argument? Or has it occurred to you that perhaps things were not so clearly defined as you once believed them to be?

I would end here with a friendly smiley face ':D' if I thought that would serve to salve your feelings. But I know it would not. These questions are too large and too emotionally charged for that.

[Composer]

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

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

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

Thank you

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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


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

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

Thank you

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

[Composer]

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

Cheers and my thanks again!