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.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Explain the identification of Cyrus as the future ruler of Persia 150 years before he was born.

Is this in reference to Isaiah 44? If so, once again you are in disagreement with mainstream biblical scholarship.

Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40-55), a 6th century BCE work by an author who wrote under the Babylonian captivity;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Isaiah

The Babylonian captivity was contemporary with Cyrus, not 150 years before him.

[Goat]

The universe has not "existed for all time." That is a statement that flies directly in the face of virtually all current understanding of cosmology as well as what you seem to be saying about time itself. I'm not sure what theory you are advancing here, but it sounds like you are saying that space existed, but time did not and space came into being when time came into being?? And yes, I do know where space time came from. It came from outside space time. The cause of its coming into being is a matter of logic and reason, as explained below. Perhaps consult Alex Vilenkin's book "Many Worlds in One" where he states:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. "

Yes, Alex Vilenkin has some ideas... dealing cosmic strings and multi-universes. However, there is just one problem with his ideas. There is absolutely zero evidence his concepts are correct. Now, he wrote a popular book on it. What is the EVIDENCE that shows he is correct? I'll tell you. Right now, none. There might be some in the future, but right now, there is zero evidence to support his speculations.

As far as we can tell, time itself started during inflationary stage of the big bang. While there are some ideas (not theories) that time existed independently, there is no evidence of this. There are also concepts and ideas that say that time is an illusion, and there is no time.

[*]Since supernatural causation is demonstrated, the causal agent can only be a natural, unthinking, unguided process or an entity that is thinking and purposeful. Since the universe displays overwhelming design features essential for life, a designer not a natural process is indicated.

Same old same old rebuttal: The multiverse; novel theories of statistics that posit that whatever is, must be; the observations and measurements of fine tuned design are false; life as we don't know it can exist inside of stars, or black holes, etc. so there is nothing unusual about life as we do know it.

[font=Georgia]If the universe displays overwhelming design features indicating that it was deliberately designed for life, then there would be a whole lot more life in it. For example, if I were to tell you that I had designed a farm the size of Australia with the express purpose of growing yeast, and in three thousand years, it managed to produce 1.2 grams of yeast, you would not conclude that my design was that amazing. Life adapted to one small place in the universe, not the other way around. [/font]

You make an assertion without evidence or support. Who says the universe should have more life in it? You? And your proof would be? You further state that "life adapted to one small place in the universe". Again, says who? And when you say "adapted" do you mean as in "comes into existence?" That is the first problem you have to solve before making unsupported statements about the ubiquity of life. Where did this life come from? Incidentally, the argument that the universe could not be created by God in order to create humanity on earth since there is way too much useless stuff out there has been thoroughly refuted by our understanding of cosmic expansion. In order to have just one earth anywhere in the universe, you have to have exactly, precisely all that stuff out there, given the laws of physics we observe. So yes, if the laws of physics required you to have a farm the size of Australia to grow 1.2 grams of yeast, I guess you'd have to have a farm the size of Australia if you wanted any yeast at all.

No, he was pointing out the problems with your assertion by the use of analogy. What you did is you in a very wordy matter came up with the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'. "I don't know , therefore God". Just because we don't know doesn't mean there is a supernatural entity. Sorry, but that leap of logic goes over a huge chasm.

[*]The Hebrew Bible is the only religious text that describes creation ex nihilo and is therefore the only such text that accurately describes what is observed. Sufficient other examples of prophetic writings in the Bible validate it as inspired by some force imparting knowledge outside what could be known at the time of the writing, therefore the Bible is probably a reliable text in describing the supernatural reality required by the circumstances of creation.

Same old same old rebuttal: There's no such thing as creation ex nihilo, the Hebrews were copying somebody else's writing; the words don't mean what they appear to mean; the authors were ignorant sheepherders; the Catholic church made it all up.

[font=Georgia]The Hebrew Bible is somewhat ambiguous about creation ex nihilo. Before God said, "Let there be light" there was chaos and water. Nothing is said about where those came from. The text of Genesis is quite inaccurate about the progression of creation.

Relying only on Genesis, Nahmanides was not confused about creation ex nihilo. The text clearly states that there was a beginning of the 'heavens and earth.' Things that have a beginning have not existed before, therefore creation ex nihilo, since without space time, you have, well, nihilo.

Not according to a number of rabbinical commentaries. It all depends on what you call 'heavens' and 'earth'. Part of the issue was 'the spirit of God went over the waters', and 'separated the earth from the waters'. The waters existed before hand, before the heavens and the earth. It was not ex nihilo.

The examples of prophetic writings in the Bible validate nothing. They do not demonstrate any knowledge outside of what could have been known or guessed at the time. [/font]

A statement easily refuted, and generally made without the benefit of knowledge of Scripture. Explain the identification of Cyrus as the future ruler of Persia 150 years before he was born. Explain the prophecies relating to the birth of Jesus Christ made centuries before he was born.

That's very simple. It didn't predict the birth of Jesus at all. Those prophecies were taken out of context, mistranslated, and retrofitted into place by the writers of the New Testament. Not ONE of those alleged prophecies were about Jesus.. when looked in context. Having someone retrofit Jesus into them by use of mistranslation and taking things out of context is not very convincing. I would be more than happy to take any three of your alleged prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures, and debate you head to head about them, as long as the three prophecies are agreed to ahead of time. That way, 'Let me not respond to the point, and let me throw up 10 other items to see what sticks to the wall' method of debate won't be used.

[*]The origin of life is completely inexplicable. It cannot have happened on primordial earth because the chemistry is impossible under the conditions that were available. It is reasonable therefore to presume that the same supernatural intellect that brought space time into existence brought life into existence. One singularity to bring the inanimate into existence then another singularity to bring the animate into existence begins to require an agent the operates purposefully outside the laws of physics to account for the singularities

Same old same old rebuttal: You're using the God in the gaps argument and we'll figure it out later; we already have figured it out; yes, it's impossible on early earth which is why is happened on Mars, or Europa, or Titan or a gas cloud. Or maybe aliens done it.

[font=Georgia]You are right, we don't know everything. The origin of life is a rare event, but since it did happen, it is not impossible. We just have not figured it out yet. Heck, I haven't figured out why the electron emission in the absence of light increase as the temperature of a photomultiplier is decreased. Or how axons branching out from neurons find their targets. This process is crucial to nervous system development, allowing the building up of the brain. It must be supernatural! [/font]

Yes, the "science in the gaps" argument that we just haven't figured it out yet is a common rebuttal. Your examples are legitimate scientific questions, but you are presenting them in an apples to oranges comparison. Our understanding of how axons branch and find their targets is an area of inquiry where we are getting closer to the answer, therefore a naturalistic explanation would be presumed http://mr.caltech.edu/press_releases/11914 . With origins of life research, more research isn't getting us closer to an answer, it is getting us farther away from a workable theory, therefore a naturalistic explanation is likely excluded. Big difference. The more we learn about primordial chemistry, the more we know life could never have developed, which is why there is such enthusiasm for panspermia - the researchers know a terrestrial source for life isn't in the cards. Which I would agree with, by the way. Just not the extraterrestrial source the naturalist prefers....

It doesn't sound like you know the current state of the examination of abiogenesis. It does sound like the logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal incredulity' though.

[*]Jesus Christ lived, claimed to be God, performed miracles, was crucified and was resurrected, all in front of witnesses. Jesus Christ is who he says he is.

Same old same old rebuttal: The Catholic church made it all up; the witnesses were lying; the apostles didn't die defending their assertion of Christ's resurrection; the gospels were written by Constantine; the resurrection story is just recycled Egyptian mythology; you're a fool for believing in flying corpses.

[font=Georgia]The man Jesus probably lived and was put to death, and had a small group of zealous followers by the middle of the century. The rest is hearsay written by late first century promoters of a new religion, uncorroborated by any contemporary sources. [/font]

There are 9 extant copies of Josephus' The Jewish War, which is accepted as fairly accurate; 30 extant copies of Plato's writings which are accepted as accurate portrayals of his thought, 650 extant copies of Homer's Iliad which are considered authentic, and 24,000 extant copies of the Gospels, which you reject. That rejection is a philosophical preference, and no more. The spread of Christianity is inexplicable if the way folks like you describe the Gospel story is accurate.

[*]The effect cannot be greater than the cause. Intelligence exists. Therefore, a greater intelligence is required to explain what is observed.

I would love to see you prove this claim. Please show where 'the effect can not be greater than the cause'. This is an unsupported claim. I know it is a medieval piece of dogma that Descartes used.. but , lets see you actually PROVE it. If you light a match against 10,000 tons of tnt, the cause of the tnt exploding is a tiny match.. and that effect is certainly greater than the cause.

[font=Georgia]Yes, the effect can have greater complexity than the cause. This has been demonstrated numerous times. Please refute this rather than dismiss it as the same old rebuttal. [/font]

An increase in complexity requires an input of energy where the sum of the inputs must be at a minimum at least equal to the effect. However, there is always some bleed of energy from every system which is why the effect is never equal to the cause, much less greater than the cause. This is basic thermodynamics. No more refutation is required than that, unless you feel that thermodynamics need to be further proven.

[*]Information is contained chemically in the universal genetic code. The error trapping capabilities of the code and the amount of information it contains for even the simplest life could not have come into existence through random processes under any possible time frame available, therefore an intelligence created that code.

This is a misunderstanding of the term 'genetic code', and a misuse of the term 'information' . It also rather effectively points to where you got your claims from.

It is also a misuse of the 'argument from probabilities'. The chances of the various steps coming into place are accumulative, not 'all at once', and the process is not 'random', but rather follows the 'rules' of chemical interactions.

Those to points show your total argument is based on false information.


etc etc etc/

[Autodidact]

I didn't so much 'bail' and simply not bother to respond. The meaning of the Christian message evokes a predictable torrent of reasons why it can't be true from folks like you, and I have no doubt that if Jesus Christ appeared today and healed your neighbor, you would reject him just as many rejected him 2,000 years ago. You put that down to reasonably skepticim. I put it down to something else, and you are welcome to your faith, just as I am welcome to mine.

When one disappears from a discussion one is doing poorly in, it does tend to leave the impression that the person is "bailing" out. If you felt that you were the one with the upper hand, I seriously doubt that you would have simply walked away as you did. I posted several follow-up messages to you, attempting to coax you into continuing, but to no avail. At the beginning of our discussion you wrote: "Yes, a belief in the resurrection is reasonable, but I'd love to hear the reasons why it is not." Then when I presented you with a very detailed list of reasons "why it is not," you suddenly decided that you would "simply not bother to respond." That, I am afraid, rather naturally serves as an admission of defeat on your part in anyone's estimation. If you wish to continue the discussion in the "Is belief in the resurrection reasonable?" string, I am still available. On the other hand, if you find that you are unable and unwilling to actually defend your beliefs, what exactly is your purpose here?

If you have anything to say in defense of your beliefs Starboard here is your chance and this is the place to do it. If defending your beliefs has suddenly become to much of a burden for you to "bother to respond," then again I ask, what exactly is your purpose here?

To learn if there are any coherent arguments to be made by atheists, so I can better understand their position and compare it to my own. The pursuit of truth would be the purpose. When what I read is the same old same old, the exercise becomes tedious, and I would frankly rather gouge my eye out with a clam knife than spend time rebutting the same arguments over and over again. As I said, you have your religious beliefs, and I have mine. Mine, I think, are based on a reasonable interpretation of science, history and logic. You feel the same with yours, and as I am very familiar with your beliefs, I'm not learning much from you, and I know you aren't going to learn much from me, what with my belief in "flying corpses" and all. So, Cheers!

Wait, you rebutted an argument? Could you cite the post please? Thanks.

[Starboard Tack]

Yes, Alex Vilenkin has some ideas... dealing cosmic strings and multi-universes. However, there is just one problem with his ideas. There is absolutely zero evidence his concepts are correct. Now, he wrote a popular book on it. What is the EVIDENCE that shows he is correct? I'll tell you. Right now, none. There might be some in the future, but right now, there is zero evidence to support his speculations.

If you can follow the math, you can find the proof in the paper he published Alan Guth and Arvind Borde, which is the most recent and most restrictive space time theorem. So your statement is incorrect, at least with respect to a boundary for space time.

As far as we can tell, time itself started during inflationary stage of the big bang. While there are some ideas (not theories) that time existed independently, there is no evidence of this. There are also concepts and ideas that say that time is an illusion, and there is no time.

As far as who can tell? You? Your theory is unsupported by any cosmological model since expansion is predicated on the existence of time.

No, he was pointing out the problems with your assertion by the use of analogy. What you did is you in a very wordy matter came up with the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'. "I don't know , therefore God". Just because we don't know doesn't mean there is a supernatural entity. Sorry, but that leap of logic goes over a huge chasm.

Wrong. I simply pointed out that our understanding of cosmic expansion explains why there is so much apparently useless stuff out there if you want a single planet like earth. Perhaps the argument went over your head?

Not according to a number of rabbinical commentaries. It all depends on what you call 'heavens' and 'earth'. Part of the issue was 'the spirit of God went over the waters', and 'separated the earth from the waters'. The waters existed before hand, before the heavens and the earth. It was not ex nihilo.

Where in the text does it say the waters existed before the heavens and the earth? And what "rabbinical commentaries" would you like to reference to support your claim that creation ex nihilo is not explicit in the text?

That's very simple. It didn't predict the birth of Jesus at all.

Says you. As I noted, the usual response from atheists is "it's all made up."

Those prophecies were taken out of context, mistranslated, and retrofitted into place by the writers of the New Testament. Not ONE of those alleged prophecies were about Jesus.. when looked in context. Having someone retrofit Jesus into them by use of mistranslation and taking things out of context is not very convincing.

Rubbish. Demonstrate how this is so. Provide proof that the prophecies that were part of the Talmud for centuries were retrospectively retrofitted to conform to what we know of Jesus' life.

I would be more than happy to take any three of your alleged prophecies in the Jewish Scriptures, and debate you head to head about them, as long as the three prophecies are agreed to ahead of time. That way, 'Let me not respond to the point, and let me throw up 10 other items to see what sticks to the wall' method of debate won't be used.

Wonderful. Amos 1:9-10, predicting how Tyre would fall, written in 750 BC or thereabouts, fulfilled. Isaiah 13:19, predicting that Babylon would fall, permanently. Fulfilled. Jeremiah 32:36-37, predicting that the Jews would be taken captive to Babylon, then returned. Fulfilled.

It doesn't sound like you know the current state of the examination of abiogenesis. It does sound like the logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal incredulity' though.

Rather than an ad hominem, please state your favored theory of abiogenesis. What pathway to first life do you find most convincing, and what evidence would you provide to support it? What is the mechanism that creates a funtioning cell wall, and how does the simplest life we know of which contains over 250 genes all come together at one time?

I would love to see you prove this claim. Please show where 'the effect can not be greater than the cause'. This is an unsupported claim. I know it is a medieval piece of dogma that Descartes used.. but , lets see you actually PROVE it. If you light a match against 10,000 tons of tnt, the cause of the tnt exploding is a tiny match.. and that effect is certainly greater than the cause.

You clearly have zero comprehension of what I am talking about. Who made the match? The TNT? What energy went into that process, and what was the thermodynamic balance that resulted? If you are going to argue points like this, at least take the time to gain at least a basic understanding of what you are arguing about. Otherwise, you're just wasting your, and my time.

This is a misunderstanding of the term 'genetic code', and a misuse of the term 'information' . It also rather effectively points to where you got your claims from.

And my source would be? If you don't think that the genetic code contains the basis for information transfer, what is your understanding of what it does do? Do you understand how proteins are replicated? By magic?

It is also a misuse of the 'argument from probabilities'. The chances of the various steps coming into place are accumulative, not 'all at once', and the process is not 'random', but rather follows the 'rules' of chemical interactions.

Since you apparently don't understand the argument, I can only advise you that while some fine tuned elements for life in the universe are dependent, the argument hardly depends on them. For example, the expansion rate must be just so, as must be the mass of the Mars sized planet that collided with Earth to create the moon. If you can show how these are dependent, have at it. And while you are at it, take the expansion rate fine tuning to 1 in 10^120 and explain your view on the probability that something that fine tuned comes into existence through unguided processes. And what on earth do "chemical interactions" have to do with the expansion rate, the mass of earth, the radiometric content of the earth's crust, the existence of gas giant planets outside the orbit of earth - all of which are fine tuned elements for life on earth?

Those to points show your total argument is based on false information.


etc etc etc/

Not so much. What they show is that you confuse your passion for your point of view with knowledge. You have passion, but apparently little knowledge.

[Goat]

Yes, Alex Vilenkin has some ideas... dealing cosmic strings and multi-universes. However, there is just one problem with his ideas. There is absolutely zero evidence his concepts are correct. Now, he wrote a popular book on it. What is the EVIDENCE that shows he is correct? I'll tell you. Right now, none. There might be some in the future, but right now, there is zero evidence to support his speculations.

If you can follow the math, you can find the proof in the paper he published Alan Guth and Arvind Borde, which is the most recent and most restrictive space time theorem. So your statement is incorrect, at least with respect to a boundary for space time.

Please prove this statement. Please refer to the specific peer reviewed article... and then.. SHOW how this theoretical work has actually been confirmed with observational data.

And, while you are at it, please demonstrate that you understand the math yourself.


Or, withdraw your claim.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Incorrect. Creationism predicts that first life will be complex, evolution says it will be simple. First life is complex - edge creationism.

What do you consider to be "first life," and where might one find an example of it? Certainly all eukaryotic organisms are quite complex, even at the single cell stage, but then no one considers even the most simple eukaryote to be anything close to "first life." There are the prokaryote's, the bacteria's to consider. So simple they don't even have a nucleus for their DNA, blue-green algae is nothing more than groups of open membranes clinging to rocks and catching the nutrients they need through simple wave action. Even more simple still are the protobionts, which entirely blur the distinction between what is life, and what is not. What we observe is a range of biologically simple structures to biologically complex structures, exactly as evolution predicts.

[Mithrae]

The first part of my reply was quite long, so I'll keep this brief.

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

Ohh.. STRONGS CONCORDANCE is your source of clarification. *sigh* Yeah.. better check that out and see if the "stronger Strong's" has fixed that stuff up... I appreciate it is a work (stronger strongs) in progress and can take some time, but they ARE working on their errors. FTR, when I want to know exactly what a word i Hebrew means, I ask a Jew. (one of my best friends is a Jewess living in Tzfat, Israel and she and her husband are my "go to's" as to getting correct translation). As such,yes, I appreciate that Joshua was a Yeshua... Yeshua Ben Nun - a title and obviously so considering he was supposedly God's CHOSEN successor to Moses after all. You will note too, that Yeshu Ben Nun's original name was Hoseah. (see Numbers) High priests, also make sense as a TITLE given to those "of God". In 1 Samuel 6, the dude is a Joshua. 2 Kings, again, you have to look at the significance of the character. As to Barabbas, his name was NOT Jesus Barabbas. Even the completely far right and rigid apologists agree the "jesus" bit in it is, not an interpolation, but actually more like a TYPO left in, in later biblical translantions. It is not in the KJV1611 for example, nor is it present in the Codex Sinticus. As to Pauline writings... yes Paul mentions a RIVAL "saviour" that the writer calls "JESUS"....who is this RIVAL "saviour" also known as "Jesus"??

You're correct that according to Numbers, before being called Yehoshua the son of Nun was originally named Hoshea, which means 'salvation,' and also that most versions do not name the thief Jesus Barabbas. However your acknowledgement that where 1 Samuel 6 refers to a field-owner "the dude is a Joshua" is not really a counter-argument. Nor regarding some obscure city governor from 2 Kings 23, and certainly not regarding an associate of Paul's - how on earth do you get 'rival saviour' out of Colossians 4:11? Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eleazar ben Sira is another example you provided. Your claim that Jesus was a title rather than a name seems rather dubious, one for which (again) you've provided little in the way of evidence and references.

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

I am fully aware that the Zadokites were descendants of Zadok, however, after the conquest of (or fall of) Babylon, much of the preisthood mindset changed due mainly by influence of the Persians. Hence the Zoroastrianistic "link" and influence of Zostoarism. It's hardly rocket science to work that out and frankly perhaps the sites you have been ""checking out" don't want to identify the glaringly obvious link. I know I have a link somewhere in my book marks which refer to this in some way. I will post it when I find it. (my daughter used me PC and I asked her to save it.... I just dont' know where she did) - so as it stands right now :TBA...

Looking forward to it.

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

It seems that the NT does more than allude to it, it copies it. Remember, the TR was back over 150 years prior to the jesus of nazareth character's supposed lifetime even "began". The TR's teachings were prior to ANY messianic thought popping into the equation in Judaism.Yeshua Ben Sira wrote the Psalms Scroll & The Book of Wisdom, around the same time of the TR and the onus was NOT on any sole Messiah or dual messiah's at all. The writings related to the COMMUNITY as a whole. They believed in the concept of eternal life. They believed that there was life after death and the resurrection of ALL not just ONE, and not because of ONE person's claimed "sacrifice" to allow it to happen.

That is the beauty of researching the DSS, Mithrae. It gives a far better understanding into what WAS back then, as opposed to what we have all been lead to BELIEVE happened back then. Even in the DSS writings of the 1st century CE, there is NO mention of this "jesus of nazareth" fellow, whom supposedly went around telling assorted different religious sects that their teachings were wrong and frankly they were not in any of their writings and some of them DO date into the 1st centiry CE. NOTHING about this "virgin birth", nothing about some sole person being offed and then ressurected for the "multitudes" sins. Surely if nothing else, THEY as a religious community would have written SOMETHING about this "rogue", going against their teachings, or even SWIPING their teacings, if he actually existed in reality.

What do the DSS contain about, to pick a few random examples, Hillel the Elder, Shammai, Philo and the high priest Annus?

What you don't seem to understand is that a vast majority of the DSS writings, from 170BCE through to before 1CE were swiped and used in the NT.
On another thread I showed just ONE example of this and it was in reference to the "Sermon on the Mount". What "jesus of nazareth" allegedly said was plageraised from the Book of Wisdom (again, written by Yeshua Ben Sira). So sure a "Jesus" DID "say" such things, actually WRITE such things, but it was NO Jesus of Nazareth saying them NOR writing them. This is just one of MANY examples of plageriasm from the DSS and it is also obvious in the writings of John. In fact, "gospel of john" writings take A LOT from the older DSS writings: "sons of dark and light" is from the Manual of Discipline

You listed some fairly vague points of similarity yes, such as might be expected of someone who'd read the work and liked the ideas. "Do unto others as you'd have them do to you" is another example, probably paraphrased from Hillel's "That which you hate, don't do to your neighbour; this is the whole of the Law. The rest is commentary, go and learn it." Off the top of my head I don't recall any "sons of dark and light" in gJohn, so I'd appreciate a reference for that. I'm assuming you would be proffering the best examples you have here? If so your claim that "a vast majority of the DSS writings" were 'swiped' for the NT seems extremely dubious.

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

Frankly, it is odd that Josephus does not mention it at all, considering in his writings in LIFE, he lived in a little town only 1 mile away from where Nazareth is NOW located for some time in his life and at the very least, would have had to have passed through there from time to time. It also seems strange that he would not mention this place, IF it existed, as THE assumed "christ" allegedly grew up there... and WOW.... so CLOSE to where Josephus HIMSELF lived? It should be noted too that Josephus himself was at one time Govenor of galilee, and he also lived in Cana, a place where this "JON" allegedly did one of his "miracles"- (water to wine). Now even THAT one would stick in the memory banks in this day and age to be passed on to future generations.. but...NOPE... Josephus said nothing.

It turns out I was incorrect above; Josephus writes that there were 240 cities and villages of Galilee in his day, and apparently he only names 45 of them. Again, arguments from silence are rarely persuasive.

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

As the writer of John obviously got a lot of his material from the Essenes, it is not unlikely that he would question the subtle differences between the teachings of Older DSS writings, as to the Nazerene "sect". If you take that into account, the original wording could well have been "can anything good come from a Nazarene", which BTW in the Hasmoneon Period, one Yeshua Ben Pandira WAS. (a Nazarene) - born a bastard child - had "disciples" (but only 5 - the 12 "thing" comes from Mithrathism), was hung on the eve of Passover, where Salome watched in tears as she into his "teachings"...etc etc etc... he even had "40 days" of "hell" prior to his tree death, as he was on public display for that period of time so as to see if anyone would speak up for him or stone him. (wow any of this sound familiar?) *shrug* Having read the NT, I personally see where elements from this dudes life have been "tweaked" to accomodate one assumed to have lived 100 odd years after this guy's REAL life experiences.

See the beginning of my first reply. I've noticed that you actually did mention the requests for anyone to speak in his defense during 40 days, as found in the Talmud. So did you get this from a pre-Christian source which (yet again!) you've chosen not to reference, or from a few different cobbled-together passages of the Talmud?

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

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

No as I stated before, Daniel was written around 160 BCE and no earlier. Ezekiel... ALSO a DSS work(4Q385).

Your comments on Daniel will be appreciated in the thread I started the day before your post, but many (perhaps most) scholars believe the Aramaic section was written before the 2nd century. In any case, 160 BCE is indeed earlier than the Herodian period. Ezekiel wrote in the 6th century, though there are suggestions of editing by priestly circles in later centuries.

But most tellingly, while the "Nazareth didn't exist" claim may have had some rather small merit in the past, it seems that archaeology has continued to find new things over the decades and among them are indications of settlement at Nazareth prior to the Jewish revolt. From a 2009 excavation:
Another hewn pit, whose entrance was apparently camouflaged, was excavated and a few pottery sherds from the Early Roman period were found inside it. The excavator, Yardenna Alexandre, said, "Based on other excavations that I conducted in other villages in the region, this pit was probably hewn as part of the preparations by the Jews to protect themselves during the Great Revolt against the Romans in 67 CE".

Yes, one of the first findings over the past decade or so was of TOMBS, which rules out any any concept of there having been residential inhabitence there. I also suggest you see what the official report of the IAA have to say on the matter before quoting the Foreign Affairs site as to conclusion, Mithrae.Ms Yardenna Alexandre got verbally smacked around for voicing such a conclusion, based on squat. Just saying, I am always amused at how these "christian" findings seem to pop up around 25th December. (in sweet-sickly voice - It's a xmas miracle!!!)

At the end of my reply, I think it's worth mentioning again that you began your post by criticising my references from Wikipedia, and sprinkled throughout your posts snide little comments like "Have you ever actually READ the references you cite?" Here you're even doing your honest best to imply that an Israeli government site quoting the director of the excavation is not a valid source!

So why do you cite so few references of your own?

Show me where "Ms Yardenna Alexandre got verbally smacked around for voicing such a conclusion." I don't mind telling you that your strange combination of both blatant hypocrisy and deep condescension has made a polite reply rather difficult.

-

In any case, to summarize the main points you've made in your case that Jesus did not exist, you seem to be arguing:

• 1 - That the gospels weren't written 'til the mid/late 2nd century CE
  . . . They were known to Justin Martyr and you gave no evidence they weren't, besides an unreferenced 'meditative trek' story which wouldn't seem to prove your point in any case; they were firmly-established by the time Tatian wrote his Diatessaron and Irenaeus wrote AH (c 180 CE)
  
  2 - That Justin Martyr was not a 'Christian' or believer in Jesus of Nazareth
  . . . You've given no evidence for this
  
  4 - That Paul did not exist and Marcion wrote his epistles
  . . . You've given no evidence; argument from silence implies his critics would have commented had that been the case; and I'll add now that Clement of Rome mentions Paul and Peter in his epistle
  
  3 - That John the Baptist did not exist
  . . . Your ToR 'raining down' righteousness is a very weak comparison; Josephus mentions John in a not apparently Christian fashion; John was embarrassing to Christians, so he wasn't invented
  
  4 - Argument from silence (Philo, Pliny the Elder, Seneca the Elder, DSS)
  . . . Argument from silence is generally weak (compare Hillel the Elder); you showed no reason why we'd expect these people to mention Jesus, unless we assume the gospels were not embellished accounts; and Jesus is mentioned by contemporary Paul, and his brother by contemporary Josephus
  
  5 - Nazareth did not exist at the time
  . . . A particularly weak argument from silence, since Josephus says there were some 240 cities and villages whose names are mostly unrecorded; recent archaeological finds suggest the location was inhabited by the time of the revolt (c67 CE)
  
  6 - General development of 'messianic' thought from Persians to Christians
  . . . This argument depends on late dates for texts in the Tanakh which you have given no specific evidence for, notably Isaiah 11; even with moderate late-dating (ie 6th or 5th century), aspects of your theory are still manifestly false; it wouldn't imply that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist in any case
  
  7 - Specific dependance of the NT on the DSS
  . . . Besides a general similarity of thought in the Sermon on the Mount you have not provided any evidence for this (and ben Sira's work, being included in the Septuagint, is not considered DSS material in any case); sharing and/or adapting the ideas of earlier or contemporary Jews would not be evidence that Jesus did not exist

Let me know if I've missed anything. It may well be that many of your points have some merit, but so far it seems you've made a lot of exceptional claims and provided rather limited and unexceptional evidence to support them - and indeed on several points I have noticed obvious errors in your claims (eg. the association between Josephus' Antiquities 18 ch 5 and ch 7, or the claim that Jesus was not a personal name).

For the sake of brevity in your response, it may help to answer these 7 points first and then check if there's anything really important that still needs answering; I'm sure we can let some extraneous details slide or we'll be here forever

Thanks again for getting back with your reply

[Starboard Tack]

Yes, Alex Vilenkin has some ideas... dealing cosmic strings and multi-universes. However, there is just one problem with his ideas. There is absolutely zero evidence his concepts are correct. Now, he wrote a popular book on it. What is the EVIDENCE that shows he is correct? I'll tell you. Right now, none. There might be some in the future, but right now, there is zero evidence to support his speculations.

If you can follow the math, you can find the proof in the paper he published Alan Guth and Arvind Borde, which is the most recent and most restrictive space time theorem. So your statement is incorrect, at least with respect to a boundary for space time.

Please prove this statement. Please refer to the specific peer reviewed article... and then.. SHOW how this theoretical work has actually been confirmed with observational data.

And, while you are at it, please demonstrate that you understand the math yourself.


Or, withdraw your claim.

Nice try. The paper speaks for itself, as does one of the authors of the paper, who I quoted. The paper has been reviewed. Talk about an argument from ignorance....

Mathematical theroems rely on mathematics, not simply on observational data. There is no "observational data" supporting the Pythorgean theorem, although there are plenty of proofs as well as the measurements of any right triangle in Euclean space you wish to measure yourself. Such theorems would also be true even if there isn't observational data supporting the math because the math solves for what it solves. Your bluster simply betrays your lack of understanding of the very basics of what is referenced. If you want observational data supporting this and other space time theorems, I refer you to observations on the accelerating inflationary universe and cosmic beginnings that are readily available to anyone wishing to note them, and these are the underpinnings of the theorem.

[Starboard Tack]

Incorrect. Creationism predicts that first life will be complex, evolution says it will be simple. First life is complex - edge creationism.

What do you consider to be "first life," and where might one find an example of it? Certainly all eukaryotic organisms are quite complex, even at the single cell stage, but then no one considers even the most simple eukaryote to be anything close to "first life." There are the prokaryote's, the bacteria's to consider. So simple they don't even have a nucleus for their DNA, blue-green algae is nothing more than groups of open membranes clinging to rocks and catching the nutrients they need through simple wave action. Even more simple still are the protobionts, which entirely blur the distinction between what is life, and what is not. What we observe is a range of biologically simple structures to biologically complex structures, exactly as evolution predicts.

Well, not so much. The simplest life we have been able to measure is macrophyllum gentalia, which I believe has around 450 genes, or thereabouts. Knockout experiements have been done on this parasite to see how many genes can be destroyed and still have parasitic life, which will be much simpler than life that can exist without a host. The number is around 250 genes. Your portrayal of life as ranging from the biologically simple to the biologically complex is rooted in entities that are so hideously complex that imaging how they came into being all by their lonesome with all the requisite genes, cell walls, DNA in place to allow any kind of life to exist is a true expression of faith.

I suppose you can posit that life can exist in some form even simpler than this on the early earth. However, you will be hard pressed to explain what that life would look like, how it came into being without help and what the chemistry could possibly be that could have functioned on the early earth to make it possible. Or you can rely on a "just so" story, which is usually what naturalists have to resort to when pressed on the question of origins. It's much easier to fill the room with philosophical smoke when talking about the Cambrian explosion, but rather harder to explain evolutionary beginnings.

[Composer]

According to Matthew (Matt 1:18-20) Mary was pregnant and with child prior to her marriage to Joseph. He decides to marry her and later divorce her quietly to avoid shaming her. In Mary's world an unmarried pregnant woman was considered to be a harlot and she was deserving of death. Apparently Joseph did not want her being stoned by the villagers and so he married her to preserve her life.

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 RSV

"...if...the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has wrought folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; so shall you purge evil from the midst of you."

What do you think the chances would have been in Mary's world of her fellow-villagers swallowing a tall tale that she was pregnant by the Holy Spirit? I doubt they would have believed her and she would have been stoned to death. And had she been allowed to live and give birth to her child, he would be known to all in the village as being a bastard and therefore shunned and denied entry into the Holy Congregation (the local Synagogue) on the basis of Deuteronomy 23:2-3. Just think, had Joseph_not_obeyed the Holy Spirit's instructions not to turn a pregnant Mary over to her father and the local villagers for stoning to death, there would have been no birth of Christ and thus no Christianity. Luckily for Mary Joseph was not a hard-core fundamentalist who zealously obeyed scripture come hell or high water, for he spared her and her son's life with this act of mercy.

A Roman "critic" of Christianity, an educated and trained philosopher called Celsus (circa 178 A.D.) has a Jew of his day understanding that Jesus was probably an illegitimate bastard:

"More and more the myths put about by these Christians are better known than the doctrines of the philosophers. Who has not heard the fable of Jesus' birth from a virgin or the stories of his crucifixion and resurrection? And for these fables the Christians are ready to die -indeed do die...Their favorite expressions are "Do not ask questions, just believe!" and: "Your faith will save you!" "The wisdom of this world," they say, "is evil; to be simple is to be good."...I shall take up the matter of the Jewish doctrines in due course. First, however, I must deal with the matter of Jesus, the so-called savior, who not long ago taught new doctrines, and was thought to be a son of God...Taking its root in the lower classes, the religion continues to spread among the vulgar: nay, one can even say it spreads because of its vulgarity and the illiteracy of its adherents...Let us imagine what a Jew -let alone a philosopher- might put to Jesus: "Is it not true, good sir, that you fabricated the story of your birth from a virgin to quiet rumors about the true and unsavory circumstances of your origins? Is it not the case that far from being born in royal David's city of Bethlehem, you were born in a poor country town, and of a woman who earned her living by spinning? Is it not the case that when her deceit was discovered, to wit, that she was pregnant by a Roman soldier named Panthera, she was driven away by her husband -the carpenter- and convicted of adultery? Indeed, is it not so that in her disgrace, wandering far from home, she gave birth to a male child in silence and humiliation?' ...A beautiful woman must his mother have been, that this most high God should want to have intercourse with her!...Are we to think that this high God would have fallen in love with a woman of no breeding -one unknown and unregarded even by her neighbors? Odd that the kingdom of God, the core of their teaching, is made to hang on the disgrace of a rejected woman, whose husband turned her aside."

(pp. 56-58. "The Unoriginality of the Christian Faith." R. Joseph Hoffmann. Celsus: On the True Doctrine, A Discourse Against the Christians. New York & Oxford. Oxford University Press. 1987)

Another educated Roman critic of Christianity, Porphyry (3rd century A.D.) doubted that a God had impregnated a woman:

"Even if someone among the Greeks were silly enough to think that gods dwelt in statues, his idea would be more sensible than that of the man who believes that the Divine Being entered into the womb of the virginal Mary to become her unborn son -and then was born, swaddled, [hauled off] to the place of blood and gall, and all the rest of it."

(pp. 86-87. "The Christian Doctrine of God." R. Joseph Hoffmann. Porphyry's Against The Christians, The Literary Remains. Amherst, New York. Prometheus Books. 1994)

Celsus' and Porphyry's critiques of Christianity would be destroyed in the 5th century A.D. along with the writings of other critics of Christianity on the orders of the Roman Emperors who had embraced Christianity.

Christ being a man (and not born of a God) means that he did not rise from the dead. His body may have been removed by his followers and a resurrection claimed. He would have been buried elsewhere in a "secret" tomb. Simcha Jacobovici, a Canadian Jew, has recently released a TV documentary (February 2007) claiming he has found the tomb of Jesus near Jerusalem, his name being found on an ossuary, a small box made of marble designed to contain the bones of the dead person. Whether this is "really" where the body wound up being buried will never be known of course.

Celsus doubted the resurrection of Jesus. If God _really_ wanted the world to be saved and "know" that Jesus was his son why didn't Jesus appear to those responsible for his death, the Romans and Jews? The fact that he neglected to make an appearance before his former persecutors was proof for Celsus the resurrection claims of his followers was nonsense:

(Extracts from: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)