Question For Touchstone About the Resurrection

[The_Catholic]

Hello Touchstone, I know you’ve never met me, but I was reading the thread “Does Science Support Atheism?” which is now closed. In a particular post you said:

**"Well, lots of things, but here’s an example. I used to believe, uncritically, that there was historical support for the Resurrection. Taking a good look at both the actual evidence, the nature of hearsay, and hearsay from a disillusioned band of apocalyptic-minded followers of a recently-executed Jesus, and the basic implausibility of a claim of resurrection in contrast to alternative explanations, I had to admit that my “rational belief in a historial Resurrection” was bure bunk, digested baloney from Christian apologists. **

Of course, it matched what I wanted to believe, and sure felt I needed to believe, else I should take on the “scarlet letter” of “unbeliever”. That explains part of the disingenuous support I claimed for a historical Resurrection. Looking at other historical claims with similarly fantastic features and a similar poverty of objective evidence, and how quickly and efficiently I dispensed with those, I was confronted with my own pretense to rationalist approaches to the issue of the Resurrection."

I’m just curious, what books did you read regarding the Resurrection that caused you to think of it as “bure bunk?” Which other “historical claims” show “similarly fantastic features?” Because if you stand correct, why am I bothering to believe in God?

P.S. I’m also curious as to why you think the more one learns about physics and biology the more one sees God as an idea created by men?

 

[Touchstone]

I’m just curious, what books did you read regarding the Resurrection that caused you to think of it as “bure bunk?” Which other “historical claims” show “similarly fantastic features?” Because if you stand correct, why am I bothering to believe in God?

Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus was maybe the most influential book I can recall from that period – I was preparing to become a Catholic (converting from the Baptist/Arminian Protestantism I’d been subscribed to since childhood) in 2007 when that process triggered “the big review” which lead to my abandoning Christianity altogether in late 2007 (and yes, I’ve read Jones’ retort to Ehrman – Misquoting Truth; that book just made Ehrman’s case stronger, IMHO).

Others that come to mind: Avalos’ *End of Biblical Studies – *interesting but not persuasive. Oddly, a really big crack in my faith came from reading William Lane Craig on the resurrection, in debates (I forget the name of his book transcribing the debate with Ludeman), and in Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview. Between Craig and Plantinga, both whom I’d always held to be “titans” of rational/philosophical Christianity, I didn’t really need to read atheist material. I’d just never really sat down to read, closely and carefully what these guys were saying, and why. With champions like that, you don’t need a lot of debunkers.

Geza Vermes’ The Resurrection came out a little after I’d abandoned my faith, but it was an influence in my views on that as well. I went back to a lot of Christian apologetics books during that process to get “the other side”, books I’d only read as a “skim” or casually previously. Strobel’s *Case for Christ *was another one that got me thinking I was really, really on the wrong track truth-wise in subscribing to the view that the Resurrection was a solid bit of history.

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

P.S. I’m also curious as to why you think the more one learns about physics and biology the more one sees God as an idea created by men?

I was just thinking about that thread earlier today, and this was a point I wish I had thought to bring up in that thread, so am glad you brought it up here.

If I were to be asked for a “theorem” I have gleaned about people and religion in the last two years, through the process of becoming an atheist, I think my contribution would be this:

Touchstone’s* Counter-intuition Principle*

Religion is an index of credulity towards intuition.

I won’t bore you with a discussion of how that all gets unpacked, but the gist is this: religion prevails where man decides to ‘go with his gut’, over and against scientific and rational arguments that contradict his intuitions. For me, that was a “eureka” moment, realizing the role science had played in my life. The more heavily I got involved with science, in practice, and familiar with it as a method, the more I realized that science is a way of getting beyond, or outside of intuition. That’s not to say that science is inherently opposed to intuitive ideas; indeed, many of science’s conclusions are perfectly congruent with our intuitions.

But the message of science, particularly in biology and physics, is that man’s intuition is very well-tuned for his survival and evolutionary needs, but the wider reality of the natural world is highly counter-intuitive, to the point of being almost surreal in some respects. In biology, for example, the “design intuition”, which I grant is a strong, natural intuition, stumbles and falls with every passing year and each new level of insight into how biology works. Intuitively, we see that all life comes from life (parents), and so it “offends our intuition”, not to mention our “religious ego” to consider that we, and all life arose from impersonal processes. But with each incoming bit of evidence, the case gets stronger and stronger for just that conclusion – life, in all its exquisite diversity and complexity, is an emergent property of the universe, an emergent feature of physical law.

Now, I embraced the theory of evolution for more than 10 years as a devout Christian (I was a theistic evolutionist, a term I disliked, but that was the label), and I not only reject the idea that evolution is incompatible with orthodox Christian doctrine, I’m quite convinced it enables the most compelling theology Christianity has to offer, particularly in terms of theodicy.

So, the “automaticness” of evolution was really not the problem, although as I’ve said, evolution doesn’t disprove God, but does make God much more superfluous than he is in Creationist models. I have the good fortune to have highly credentialed physicists and biologists as friends, and as you can probably tell from my posts, I like to talk about this stuff. With their (name removed by moderator)ut, and lots of reading, and learning, one of the really ‘pearls of wisdom’ I began to derive from science was a healthy skepticism for intution. Intution is good, it’s valuable, it’s natural. But it’s a very crude, and often misleading instrument when it comes to “big questions”. Science provides a way to “see the universe” in a way that isn’t governed by our intution. Sometimes science affirms our intuitions, but often it rebukes them, and hard.

That’s a dynamic that I know I had not appreciated fully until recently, and suspect many others don’t. People who are scientists by vocation cannot help but learn this, this is the witness of science: reality is not at all like our intuition suggests it should be. Once you fully grasp how “human”, and “evolutionary” our intuition is, it really re-frames a lot of religious thinking. My claim is that intuition is the bedrock of much religious conviction, and without a scientific perspective and experience base, it’s much easier to “trust your gut”. Science teaches you what a humble, crude thing your intuitions really are. Scientists learn to look at the world through a discipline that basically ignores intuition (or more precisely, loves intuition, but as the source of ideas that must be tested/validated without any deference paid to its “intuitive” qualities), and doing that, I think, is very hard on faith.

-Touchstone

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

God is love.

With your definition of religion, it’s no wonder faith becomes crippled.

It’s tempting to start arguing on your own grounds, that if it were just a rag tag bunch of apocalyptic followers, it doesn’t explain the 2,000+ year history of the Church teaching a consistent view of faith and morals as an active organization in the world that traces specifically back to Jesus. I mean if we’re going to base our faith on arguments as to what was going on in the psychology of people 2000 years ago or the historical papers 2000 years ago when humans cannot figure if OJ did it, I think you are right you don’t have a suitable basis in and of itself for faith or non faith. Still, the historicity of the Church herself, her consistent teaching or the continuous rise of the Saints throughout history is worth pausing to reflect on.

But that’s arguing on physical grounds and really there are other avenues for faith.

The Catholic Religion is a continuing belief and action in love.
St. Therese of Liseux, Mother Theresa.

With that definition Christ is worth the benefit of the doubt. To live in love as a disciple of love with a teacher proven over 2000 years producing extraordinary examples of world changing love is worth spending time following. Not just in study, but in contemplation and prayer and then good fruit. People for 2000 years have cared for the sick, the poor, the imprisoned and treated all around them with love and found themselves in love.

 

[The_Catholic]

Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus was maybe the most influential book I can recall from that period – I was preparing to become a Catholic (converting from the Baptist/Arminian Protestantism I’d been subscribed to since childhood) in 2007 when that process triggered “the big review” which lead to my abandoning Christianity altogether in late 2007 (and yes, I’ve read Jones’ retort to Ehrman – Misquoting Truth; that book just made Ehrman’s case stronger, IMHO).

Others that come to mind: Avalos’ *End of Biblical Studies – *interesting but not persuasive. Oddly, a really big crack in my faith came from reading William Lane Craig on the resurrection, in debates (I forget the name of his book transcribing the debate with Ludeman), and in Philosophical Foundations of a Christian Worldview. Between Craig and Plantinga, both whom I’d always held to be “titans” of rational/philosophical Christianity, I didn’t really need to read atheist material. I’d just never really sat down to read, closely and carefully what these guys were saying, and why. With champions like that, you don’t need a lot of debunkers.

Geza Vermes’ The Resurrection came out a little after I’d abandoned my faith, but it was an influence in my views on that as well. I went back to a lot of Christian apologetics books during that process to get “the other side”, books I’d only read as a “skim” or casually previously. Strobel’s *Case for Christ *was another one that got me thinking I was really, really on the wrong track truth-wise in subscribing to the view that the Resurrection was a solid bit of history.

-TS

I’ve read atheist material, but not most whom you have mentioned. I am former atheist too. Though I am familiar with your heavy influence, Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. Would you care to go into this book, the points which he made that “convinced you” the Resurrection was bogus? Don’t ask me why, I just feel the need to go into this with you, especially since you were on your way to becoming Catholic

I have Strobel’s “Case for Christ” and it’s . . . alright. Strobel’s BEST work is “The Case For The Real Jesus” which deals heavily with books such as “Misquoting Jesus.”

Anyhow, let’s begin shall we? You can start off by pointing out material that Mr. Ehrman has charged Christianity with.

 

[The_Catholic]

I was just thinking about that thread earlier today, and this was a point I wish I had thought to bring up in that thread, so am glad you brought it up here.

If I were to be asked for a “theorem” I have gleaned about people and religion in the last two years, through the process of becoming an atheist, I think my contribution would be this:

Touchstone’s* Counter-intuition Principle*

Religion is an index of credulity towards intuition.

I won’t bore you with a discussion of how that all gets unpacked, but the gist is this: religion prevails where man decides to ‘go with his gut’, over and against scientific and rational arguments that contradict his intuitions. For me, that was a “eureka” moment, realizing the role science had played in my life. The more heavily I got involved with science, in practice, and familiar with it as a method, the more I realized that science is a way of getting beyond, or outside of intuition. That’s not to say that science is inherently opposed to intuitive ideas; indeed, many of science’s conclusions are perfectly congruent with our intuitions.

But the message of science, particularly in biology and physics, is that man’s intuition is very well-tuned for his survival and evolutionary needs, but the wider reality of the natural world is highly counter-intuitive, to the point of being almost surreal in some respects. In biology, for example, the “design intuition”, which I grant is a strong, natural intuition, stumbles and falls with every passing year and each new level of insight into how biology works. Intuitively, we see that all life comes from life (parents), and so it “offends our intuition”, not to mention our “religious ego” to consider that we, and all life arose from impersonal processes. But with each incoming bit of evidence, the case gets stronger and stronger for just that conclusion – life, in all its exquisite diversity and complexity, is an emergent property of the universe, an emergent feature of physical law.

Now, I embraced the theory of evolution for more than 10 years as a devout Christian (I was a theistic evolutionist, a term I disliked, but that was the label), and I not only reject the idea that evolution is incompatible with orthodox Christian doctrine, I’m quite convinced it enables the most compelling theology Christianity has to offer, particularly in terms of theodicy.

So, the “automaticness” of evolution was really not the problem, although as I’ve said, evolution doesn’t disprove God,** but does make God much more superfluous than he is in Creationist models. **I have the good fortune to have highly credentialed physicists and biologists as friends, and as you can probably tell from my posts, I like to talk about this stuff. With their (name removed by moderator)ut, and lots of reading, and learning, one of the really ‘pearls of wisdom’ I began to derive from science was a healthy skepticism for intution. Intution is good, it’s valuable, it’s natural. But it’s a very crude, and often misleading instrument when it comes to “big questions”. Science provides a way to “see the universe” in a way that isn’t governed by our intution. Sometimes science affirms our intuitions, but often it rebukes them, and hard.

That’s a dynamic that I know I had not appreciated fully until recently, and suspect many others don’t. People who are scientists by vocation cannot help but learn this, this is the witness of science: reality is not at all like our intuition suggests it should be. Once you fully grasp how “human”, and “evolutionary” our intuition is, it really re-frames a lot of religious thinking. My claim is that intuition is the bedrock of much religious conviction, and without a scientific perspective and experience base, it’s much easier to “trust your gut”. Science teaches you what a humble, crude thing your intuitions really are. Scientists learn to look at the world through a discipline that basically ignores intuition (or more precisely, loves intuition, but as the source of ideas that must be tested/validated without any deference paid to its “intuitive” qualities), and doing that, I think, is very hard on faith.

-Touchstone

This sounds like extreme “scientism” to me, and your concluding opinon a philisophical one, especially what I had bolded and underlined.

To me, evolution is most mysterious and amazing, and I see God behind the wheel. I know I know, one must not mention “God” at all within science, but it poses no problem.

Have you ever read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God,” he believes God exists because of evolution, and for the kind of creatures we are, evolution was the only way to bring us about.

Also, have you read “There Is A God: How The World’s Most Notrotious Atheist Changed His Mind” by Antony Flew.

Anyhow, I wish not to get into “science,” let’s stick with the Resurrection.

 

[The_Catholic]

God is love.

With your definition of religion, it’s no wonder faith becomes crippled.

It’s tempting to start arguing on your own grounds, that if it were just a rag tag bunch of apocalyptic followers, it doesn’t explain the 2,000+ year history of the Church teaching a consistent view of faith and morals as an active organization in the world that traces specifically back to Jesus. I mean if we’re going to base our faith on arguments as to what was going on in the psychology of people 2000 years ago or the historical papers 2000 years ago when humans cannot figure if OJ did it, I think you are right you don’t have a suitable basis in and of itself for faith or non faith. Still, the historicity of the Church herself, her consistent teaching or the continuous rise of the Saints throughout history is worth pausing to reflect on.

But that’s arguing on physical grounds and really there are other avenues for faith.

The Catholic Religion is a continuing belief and action in love.
St. Therese of Liseux, Mother Theresa.

With that definition Christ is worth the benefit of the doubt. To live in love as a disciple of love with a teacher proven over 2000 years producing extraordinary examples of world changing love is worth spending time following. Not just in study, but in contemplation and prayer and then good fruit. People for 2000 years have cared for the sick, the poor, the imprisoned and treated all around them with love and found themselves in love.

Very good post.

 

[Touchstone]

God is love.

With your definition of religion, it’s no wonder faith becomes crippled.

It’s tempting to start arguing on your own grounds, that if it were just a rag tag bunch of apocalyptic followers, it doesn’t explain the 2,000+ year history of the Church teaching a consistent view of faith and morals as an active organization in the world that traces specifically back to Jesus. I mean if we’re going to base our faith on arguments as to what was going on in the psychology of people 2000 years ago or the historical papers 2000 years ago when humans cannot figure if OJ did it, I think you are right you don’t have a suitable basis in and of itself for faith or non faith. Still, the historicity of the Church herself, her consistent teaching or the continuous rise of the Saints throughout history is worth pausing to reflect on.

But that’s arguing on physical grounds and really there are other avenues for faith.

Agreed. In my case, the “physical grounds” were simply not as supportive of my faith as I was pretending they were. That’s not the only, or even main grounds for faith, as you point out, but a lot of “doubtability” in the revelation side of things was propped up by “rational apologetics”, apologetics that when assessed critically, fell apart.

And as Protestant Christian for my entire life, I did agree (at last) and agree now that the history and continuity of the Church is something to weigh in her favor, at least in contrast to Protestantism. As you know, the history of the Church is complex, and filled with lots of problematic stuff, as well as so much good stuff, but it does provide a better basis for rational belief than the Protestant narrative I held to for so long, I’ll grant.

The Catholic Religion is a continuing belief and action in love.
St. Therese of Liseux, Mother Theresa.

With that definition Christ is worth the benefit of the doubt. To live in love as a disciple of love with a teacher proven over 2000 years producing extraordinary examples of world changing love is worth spending time following. Not just in study, but in contemplation and prayer and then good fruit. People for 2000 years have cared for the sick, the poor, the imprisoned and treated all around them with love and found themselves in love.

I certainly admire the commitment to live a life that is loving, altruistic, generous, and just, wherever that comes from. But as much as I can see those things being exemplified and practiced in the lives of many Catholics, past and present, there’s a whole lot of other stuff that necessarily comes with it, stuff that is difficult to accept with a clear conscience and a clear-thinking mind. Living a life that exalts those virtues doesn’t require Catholicism, or any supernaturalism at all, it turns out, and this affords a commitment and participation in a life oriented around those things without all the negative baggage that comes with it. I know the response may be to say that one can’t really do that without Christ or the RCC, but that’s the kind of apologetics that I’m talking about as part of the ‘negative side of the ledger’ in being a Catholic, or a Christian of any sort, I guess.

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

I’ve read atheist material, but not most whom you have mentioned. I am former atheist too. Though I am familiar with your heavy influence, Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus. Would you care to go into this book, the points which he made that “convinced you” the Resurrection was bogus? Don’t ask me why, I just feel the need to go into this with you, especially since you were on your way to becoming Catholic

I think I may have given the wrong impression in my post on the other thread, based on what you’ve said here. I would not say that Ehrman, or any of these books, even as a collection “convinced me” to abandon my faith. So it may be a bit of disappointment for you to go over Ehrman’s material, which I think is high quality, but really more of a catalyst to my own critical thinking than any kind of silver bullet against Christianity. Ehrman does provide useful points of research and thinking about the text and clues it may provide, and the historical setting of the time, etc. But really, the challenge comes down to this: as a matter of history, what is the basis one would use to affirm a miracle like that, and how does the evidence available work to establish that.

Clearly, the evidence that would be needed to support such a fantastic claim as the Resurrection would have to be quite extraordinary indeed. When William Lane Craig or Lee Strobel wonders why men would die for something they didn’t not know to be true (and it’s not necessary to think they apostles were guilty in any conspiracy in stealing the body or otherwise perpetrating a hoax), and suggest that that should strain our credulity, but we should somehow instead accept the idea that a man dead three days came back to life, that signals a much different set of criterion than just “history”. William Lane Craig wouldn’t accept as fact the hearsay testimony of Jabreel’s appearance to Mohammed, for example, in spiriting him across the globe for a “Midnight Journey” to al Quds, for example. Why not?

Because the issue for Christians is really not approached in a historically objective way, and it’s basically dishonest to present support for the Resurrection as “historically valid”. That’s not to say there aren’t other reasons to believe it happen for Christians – there are, and that’s why I and other Christians did/do believe that it was a historical fact, an actuality. But history as history cannot support it, and Christian claims to the contrary are either confused, disingenuous, or just plain dishonest (or some combination of all three).

I have Strobel’s “Case for Christ” and it’s . . . alright. Strobel’s BEST work is “The Case For The Real Jesus” which deals heavily with books such as “Misquoting Jesus.”

That’s one I’ve not read. Each book should be judged on its own, but based on The Case for Christ, I’m not inclined to expect much. He’s an apologist that has real trouble getting some objective distance from his subject.

Anyhow, let’s begin shall we? You can start off by pointing out material that Mr. Ehrman has charged Christianity with.

Let’s start with this: how do we, as a matter of historical investigation, pursue an objective assessment of the Biblical account? Whatever criteria we come up with, what verdicts or conclusions does it yield when applied to other miraculous claims?

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

This sounds like extreme “scientism” to me, and your concluding opinon a philisophical one, especially what I had bolded and underlined.

Well, it may be. As I understand sceintism, though, it claims some a priori status as the sole means of acquiring knowledge, through science. I don’t accept any such *a priori *qualifications, if that is how sceintism works. But as a matter of epistemology, I have no trouble enthusiastically endorsing testability, evidential coherence, and falsifiability (in principle, at least) as important features of knowledge, and the warrant for belief.

To me, evolution is most mysterious and amazing, and I see God behind the wheel. I know I know, one must not mention “God” at all within science, but it poses no problem.

I agree, and would say that the positions of sceince heavyweights like Ken Miller and Francis Collins demonstrate the kind of “behind the wheel” integration of science-as-science with faithful Christianity that I subscribed to as a Christian. The “Creator Hypothesis”, as you know, is fundamentally a metaphysical one, and wholly unfalsifiable. There is no science that we might develop that would disprove or invalidate the idea that God is “behind the scenes”, making it all come to be, and making it all happen.

Have you ever read Kenneth Miller’s “Finding Darwin’s God,” he believes God exists because of evolution, and for the kind of creatures we are, evolution was the only way to bring us about.

Yes, and i would say Miller’s position was the closest I could name to my own as a Christian on that issue. I’m an atheist, and think that the existence of God (or gods) is unlikely, but if God is real, then I think something like that synthesis is likely to be much more correct than the other “special creation” ideas that are out there in Christendom.

Also, have you read “There Is A God: How The World’s Most Notrotious Atheist Changed His Mind” by Antony Flew.

I’ve not read that book, but I certainly have read a lot about it. I’m regularly told that Anthony Flew had recanted to become a Christian, which isn’t at all true, as you know. So I’ve had to go read up and get clued in on Mr. Flew and his late-found deism just as a matter of keeping the record straight. Without having read the book, I do understand him to have found sympathy with a form of Intelligent Design, at a cosmic level anyway. As I said above, religion is an index of credulity towards one’s intuition, and it seems that in the contest between skepticism/science and intuition, his intuition prevailed on the Design question.

Anyhow, I wish not to get into “science,” let’s stick with the Resurrection.

OK!

-Touchstone

 

[The_Catholic]

“Let’s start with this: how do we, as a matter of historical investigation, pursue an objective assessment of the Biblical account? Whatever criteria we come up with, what verdicts or conclusions does it yield when applied to other miraculous claims?”

Before I begin my posts, I want to be sure I’m not typing for the wrong reason. Are you asking how can Christianity “prove” she is the absolute Truth and how does history support this claim when comparing to different religions?

 

[Touchstone]

“Let’s start with this: how do we, as a matter of historical investigation, pursue an objective assessment of the Biblical account? Whatever criteria we come up with, what verdicts or conclusions does it yield when applied to other miraculous claims?”

Before I begin my posts, I want to be sure I’m not typing for the wrong reason. Are you asking how can Christianity “prove” she is the absolute Truth and how does history support this claim when comparing to different religions?

No. I think my question fairly captures what I was driving at. I totally understand that one might appeal to “revelation” as one’s basis for believing in the Resurrection. If so, fine, but that’s the end of the conversation, because it’s a dead-end of subjectivity, in that case. It’s not transitive as a proposition.

I don’t think “prove” is a very useful word in historical analysis, or in science generally. Rather, we look for competing hypotheses, and evaluate them, test them, and rank them based on the epistemic criteria we are deploying (e.g. parsimony, explanatory power, predictive novelty and precision).

So, I still like what I asked, and how I asked it, but am happy to add qualifications if you need more. Setting “revelation” aside, and adopting a neutral (agnostic) position as to whether God exists, how would we come to a conclusion that the Resurrection was an objective, historical fact, over the other competing explanations? And to test that answer, whatever it is, for confirmation bias, we will apply that same line of thinking to various other claims from other religions and causes to see what conclusions it yields. A heuristic that yields a “yes” to the question of factuality of the Resurrection and also to the factuality of Mohammed’s Midnight Journey, Joseph Smith Jr’s Golden Plates, and a thousand other miraculous claims would produce a very curious and conflicted view of reality. If we don’t accept (or deny) the results that emerge from applying whatever criteria we deploy in analyzing the Resurrection, we rightly suspect we are engaging in sophistry and hypocrisy.

So, no “proof” in any kind of certain or unassailable sense needed. That kind of demand is really just a signal of incorrigibility on the part of the demander, I think. I’m satisfied with some objective algorithm that identifies the Resurrection as a historical fact as merely more reasonable and compelling than any of the alternatives.

-Touchstone

 

[The_Catholic]

No. I think my question fairly captures what I was driving at. I totally understand that one might appeal to “revelation” as one’s basis for believing in the Resurrection. If so, fine, but that’s the end of the conversation, because it’s a dead-end of subjectivity, in that case. It’s not transitive as a proposition.

I don’t think “prove” is a very useful word in historical analysis, or in science generally. Rather, we look for competing hypotheses, and evaluate them, test them, and rank them based on the epistemic criteria we are deploying (e.g. parsimony, explanatory power, predictive novelty and precision).

So, I still like what I asked, and how I asked it, but am happy to add qualifications if you need more. Setting “revelation” aside, and adopting a neutral (agnostic) position as to whether God exists, how would we come to a conclusion that the Resurrection was an objective, historical fact, over the other competing explanations? And to test that answer, whatever it is, for confirmation bias, we will apply that same line of thinking to various other claims from other religions and causes to see what conclusions it yields. A heuristic that yields a “yes” to the question of factuality of the Resurrection and also to the factuality of Mohammed’s Midnight Journey, Joseph Smith Jr’s Golden Plates, and a thousand other miraculous claims would produce a very curious and conflicted view of reality. If we don’t accept (or deny) the results that emerge from applying whatever criteria we deploy in analyzing the Resurrection, we rightly suspect we are engaging in sophistry and hypocrisy.

So, no “proof” in any kind of certain or unassailable sense needed. That kind of demand is really just a signal of incorrigibility on the part of the demander, I think. I’m satisfied with some objective algorithm that identifies the Resurrection as a historical fact as merely more reasonable and compelling than any of the alternatives.

-Touchstone

Touchstone (I love that name ) I’m working on a thoughtful response, writing it down. But I need a nap, i’ve been awake nearly all weekend, coffee isn’t helping anymore

When I awake I’ll return here to finish and post.

 

[fhansen]

I’ve noticed this phenomenon more and more lately-that many people have apparently based their faith on rational arguments alone. Then, when they’re challenged by the notion that everything must be verifiable by scientific method in order for it to be believable, their faith folds up and goes bye-bye. It’s as if they’ve never experienced faith to begin with. Would they refrain from loving someone until love is a scientifically verified fact? Humility before God is, generally speaking, an irreducible necessity in obtaining or increasing the gift of faith.

 

[Swan]

I’ve noticed this phenomenon more and more lately-that many people have apparently based their faith on rational arguments alone. Then, when they’re challenged by the notion that everything must be verifiable by scientific method in order for it to be believable, their faith folds up and goes bye-bye. It’s as if they’ve never experienced faith to begin with. Would they refrain from loving someone until love is a scientifically verified fact? Humility before God is, generally speaking, an irreducible necessity in obtaining or increasing the gift of faith.

But where does faith come from? I’ve heard that it is a “gift from God” - which seems to suggest that “god” dolls it out to some but not all - and in different quantities I would suppose.

But to continue in the vein of Touchstone’s arugments, many people have faith in things that are, or seem to be, oppossed to one another. For example, the Christian, the Mulim, and the Hindu. They all faithfully believe they are correct, so to say that because Christians have faith they must be “correct” seems to be a faulty argument on its face.

 

[severntofall]

God is love.
It’s tempting to start arguing on your own grounds, that if it were just a rag tag bunch of apocalyptic followers, it doesn’t explain the 2,000+ year history of the Church teaching a consistent view of faith and morals as an active organization in the world that traces specifically back to Jesus. I mean if we’re going to base our faith on arguments as to what was going on in the psychology of people 2000 years ago or the historical papers 2000 years ago when humans cannot figure if OJ did it, I think you are right you don’t have a suitable basis in and of itself for faith or non faith. Still, the historicity of the Church herself, her consistent teaching or the continuous rise of the Saints throughout history is worth pausing to reflect on.

A few history books would easily discount every claim you make here. The only argument for Christianity I ever hear any more is this “if Christianity is false then why does it exists” argument.

The Catholic Religion is a continuing belief and action in love.
St. Therese of Liseux, Mother Theresa.

With that definition Christ is worth the benefit of the doubt. To live in love as a disciple of love with a teacher proven over 2000 years producing extraordinary examples of world changing love is worth spending time following. Not just in study, but in contemplation and prayer and then good fruit. People for 2000 years have cared for the sick, the poor, the imprisoned and treated all around them with love and found themselves in love.

So because some nun hundreds of years ago said “The Catholic Religion is a continuing belief and action in love” we should just assume that Christianity is true?!?!? Is it really that easy to get you people to believe what you are told to believe. For 2,000 years Christians have initiated wars, tortured and killed those who failed to comply with their precise beliefs, lied and intimidated their way into power. The bible is the only source of evidence that any of the claims of Christianity are true and I see no reason to believe that any of it is truthful. The countless similarities between Jesus and Horus in and of itself prove that the religion is a Judaic/Pagan hybrid. Perhaps this Jesus fella actually existed (I suspect he did) but the evidence is pretty strong that Jesus were he still alive would be shocked by the beliefs his name has been attached to.

 

[The_Catholic]

“How would we come to a conclusion that the Resurrection was an objective, historical fact, over the other competing explanations? And to test that answer, whatever it is, for confirmation bias, we will apply that same line of thinking to various other claims from other religions and causes to see what conclusions it yields.”

Fair enough. First off, I would ask, what materials and customs exist that allow us to historically investigate Mohammed’s Midnight Journey, Joseph Smith Jr’s Golden Plates, and the thousand other miraculous claims you say there have been? Visions, dreams influenced by the Divine, and/or other “miraculous” events such as Mohammed’s midnight journey, according to my best of knowledge, are difficult to account for. There seems to be a difference between the Resurrection and other phenomena. There are many events I believe factor in, in historical support for the Resurrection and I’ll explain.

(note: most of what I’m about to write is going to be taken from Strobel’s “Case For The Real Jesus,” along with my own set of words, the points he and the scholars in the book I think are excellent))

To begin, Bart D. Ehrman says “Because historians can only establish what probaly happened, the historian cannot say it probaly occurred.” Now this is faulty. For example, if someone says Jesus rose from the dead by natural causes, then of course that would be the *least *probable explanation. But nobody is saying that. Rather, the claim is that *God *rose Jesus from the dead. And if God exists and wants to raise Jesus from the dead, I would think that would be the most *probable *explanation.

Philosopher Antony Flew, when he was an *atheist *said the resurrection is more likely if God exists. But as I was saying before, a good number of atheists begin with a bias against the supernatural: “there is no God, therefore there *must *be another explanation, no matter what!” Therefore, some historians rule out the supernatural at the outset. "You can’t have a Virgin birth, therefore Mary *must *to have been either raped or had an affair. There just *has to be *a "naturalistic explanation" for it. But this is methodological and metaphysical naturalism. These historians have to look at things strictly scientificlly and **cannot **consider the divine.

Of course you can rightfully argue: “if a historian allows for the possibility of the miraculous, doesn’t that throw history up for grabs?” Anotherwords one could invoke a miraculous explanation for all kinds of things that happened in the past. I don’t think you can though. For example, you have to apply historical criteria to determine the best explanation for what occurred.

Aesop’s fables describe animals talking in ancient Greece. Well did they or didn’t they talk? When you examine the fables I think it’s clear this material was not meant to be taken literally. There are no credible eyewitness accounts and no corroboration from other sources. So the historian would say there’s no good evidence the Aesop’s fables report actual historical events.

Ok, I’m going to seperate this in FIVE parts, the fifth is going to go off subject, just so you know, but pertains to Truth. It’s going to be rather lengthly, so I apologize in advance, but I do hope you will at least take a look at it setting aside prejudgment and bias–something ALL us humans have

 

[The_Catholic]

CRUCIFIXTION:

Regarding the Resurrection of Christ, we find that the gospels fit into the genre of ancient biographies. Ancient biographies were intended to be regarded as history to varying degrees. We’ve got early accounts that can’t be explained away by legendary development, we’ve got multiple independent sources, eyewitnesses, and a degree of corroboration from outsiders. There’s no reason to believe Aesop’s fables are true, but there are good reasons to believe the Resurrection happened.

The claim that Jesus may not have been dead after the execution. Now, even an extreme liberal like John Dominic Crossan said: “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical ever can be.” Skeptic James Tabor said: “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixtion he was truly dead.” Gerd Ludemann, an atheist and New Testament critic calls the cricifixtion an “indisputable fact.” Why? There are many of reasons. First of all it’s recorded in the gospels. I’m not claiming the gospels are inspiried by God right now, as neither do they, I’m looking at the gospels as ancient documents that can be subjected to historical scrutiny like any other accounts from antiquity. Now, beyond the four gospels we have a number of non-Christian sources that corroborate the crucifixtion. Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, and Mara Bar-Serapion. As well as the Jewish Talmud. (I’m aware of the arguments against these outside sources, and if you’d like, one by one we can also go into that) So, what were the odds of surviving crucifixtion? Extremely small and very rare!

If you’ve seen “The Passion of the Christ,” it accurately depicted the extreme brutality of Roman scourging and crucifixion. Witnesses in the ancient world reported victims being so severely whipped that their intestines and veins were laid bare. **Tacitus **referred to it as “The extreme penalty.” Cicero called it “cruel and disgusting” and “the very word *cross *should be far removed not only from the person of a Roman citizen but from his thoughts, his eyes and his ears.”

Josephus reports only three people (his friends) ever surviving it, though doesn’t mention how long they were on the cross. He intervened with the Roman commander Titus, who ordered all three removed immediately and provided the best medical attention Rome had to offer. Still, two of them died. So even under the best conditions a victim was very unlikely to survive this type of execution. It is very doubtful Christ received such “hospitality.” There’s not a shred of evidence to suggest Jesus was removed prematurely or provided medical attention, least of all Rome ’s best.

It can be charged that Pagan Rome was a primitive culture compared to today, but they were carrying out executions all the time. It was their job and I’m sure they were good at it. Also, death by crucifixion was a slow and agonizing demise by asphyxiation, because of the difficulty in breathing created by the victim’s position on the cross, something you can’t fake.

 

[The_Catholic]

Jesus’ Disciples Believed He Rose And Appeared To Them:

There are three strands of evidence for this, St. Paul ’s testimony about the disciples, oral traditions that passed through the early Church, and the written works of the early Church. St. Paul is important because he reports knowing some of the disciples personally, including Peter, James, and John. The “Acts” of the Apostles confirms this, so does 1 Corinthians. Then we have oral tradition. People in those days didn’t have tape recorders and not everyone could read. They relied on verbal transmission for passing along what happened until it was later written down. Scholars have identified several places in which this oral tradition has been copied into the New Testament in the form of creeds, hymns, and sermon summations. This is really significant because the oral tradition must have existed prior to the New Testament writings for the NT authors to have included it. Finally we have written sources such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. It’s widely accepted, even among skeptical historians, that the Gospels were written in the 1’st century. Even very liberal and anti-Christian scholars concede that we have four biographies written within seventy years of Jesus’ life that unambiguously report the disciples’ claims that Christ rose from the dead. We have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who were said to have known the disciples, and/or were close to others who did. Clement, Polycarp, etc.

Habermas completed an overview of more than two thousand scholarly sources on the Resurrection going back thirty years, and no fact was more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus.

Atheist Ludemann said: “it may be taken as historically certain Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Though he claims it was mere visions, natural phenomenal visions, which to me regarding these cases is absolute illogical nonsense. But the point is Ludemann concedes that their experiences were real. Also, Liberal scholar Paula Fredriksen said: “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus. That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attests to their conviction that that’s what they saw. I’m not saying they really did see the raised Jesus. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what they saw. But I know that as a historian they must have seen something.”

The Conversion Of The Church Persecutor Paul:

St. Paul , who was then known as Saul of Tarsus, was an enemy of the Church and committed to persecuting the faithful. But paul himself says he was converted to a follower of Jesus because he had personally encountered the resurrected Jesus. So we have Jesus’ resurrection attested by friend and foe alike, which is quite significant. Then we have six ancient sources in addition to Paul, such as Luke, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysus of Corinth, and Origen, reporting that Paul was willing to suffer continuously and even die for his beliefs. Liars make poor martyrs. So we can be confident that Paul not only claimed the risen Jesus appeared to him, but that he really believed it. Now you can say “people convert to religions all the time,” true, but when people convert they do so on *secondary *sources, that is, what other people tell them. That’s not the case with Paul. He says he was transformed by a personal encounter with the risen Christ. So his conversion is based in *primary *evidence—Jesus directly appeared to him. That’s a big difference.

One cannot claim that St. Paul was a friend of Jesus who was primed to see a vision of him due to wishful thinking or grief after the crucifixion. Saul was a most unlikely candidate for conversion. His mind-set was to oppose the Christian movement that he believed was following a false messiah. His radical transformation from persecutor to missionary demands an explanation—and I think the best explanation is that he’s telling the truth when he says he met the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus . He had nothing to gain in this world except his own suffering and martyrdom for making this up.

 

[The_Catholic]

The Empty Tomb:

There are three strands of evidence for this: The Jerusalem Factor, Enemy Attestation, and the Testimony of Women.

The first refers to the fact that Jesus was publicly executed and buried in Jerusalem and then his resurrection was proclaimed in the very same city. In fact, several weeks after the crucifixion, Peter declares to a crowd right there in Jerusalem : “God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.” Frankly it would have been impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if Jesus’ body were still in the tomb. The Roman or Jewish authorities could have simply gone over to his tomb, viewed his corpse, and the misunderstanding would have been over. This never occurred.

Instead, what we do hear is enemy attestation to the empty tomb, another words the skeptics were saying that they stole the body. This is reported by not only Matthew, but St. Justin Martyr and Tertullian. Why would you say someone stole the body if the body was still in the tomb? This is an implicit admission the tomb was empty, and the body unavailable for display. On top of that, the idea that the disciples stole the body is a pathetic explanation. Are we supposed to believe they conspired to steal the body, pulled it off, and then were willing to suffer continuously and even die for what they knew was a lie? That’s such an absurd idea scholars universally reject it today.

The third, we have the testimony of women that the tomb was empty. Not only were women the first to discover the vacant grave, but they are mentioned in all four Gospels, whereas male witnesses appear only later and in two of them. First century Jewish and Roman cultures, women were lowly esteemed and their testimony was considered questionable. They were certainly considered less credible than men. For example, the Jewish Talmud says: “Sooner let the words of the Law be burnt than delivered to women,” and “Any evidence which a woman gives is not valid.” Josephus said, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex.”

Point is, if you were going to concoct a story in an effort to fool others, you would never in that day have hurt your own credibility by saying that women discovered the empty tomb. It would be extremely unlikely that the Gospel writers would invent testimony like this, because they wouldn’t get any mileage out of it. In fact, it could hurt them. If they had felt the freedom simply to make things up, surely they’d claim that men—maybe Peter or John or even Joseph of Arimathea—were the first to find the tomb empty. So the best theory for why the Gospel writers would include such an embarrassing detail is because that’s what actually happened! and they were committed to recording it accurately, regardless of the credibility problem it created in that culture.

Ok, Touchstone, again to be clear, 98% of what I just typed are not my own words, I don’t want others to accuse me of Plagiarism. I copied Mr. Strobel’s work from his book “The Case For The Real Jesus.” Personally, i’m not a fan of Lee’s books, except for this one. it is quite proffesional scholarly material, presented brillantly, better than what I could have said, and so I used it in hopes to help show you that the Resurrection does have good historical data in favor of it.