Question For Touchstone About the Resurrection

[The_Catholic]

I know objections can (and will) be brought up, and I’ll be happy to deal with them also. I’m not saying this is absolute “proof” for the Resurrection, that’s something I think is impossible to present, but I do believe it certainly rises about historical data for Mohammed’s Midnight Journey, Joseph Smith Jr’s Golden Plates, Aesop’s fables, etc.

This is the fifth element I wished to consider which doesn’t have anything to do with the Resurrection but still lies in favor of the Truth of Christianity, or admitedly one could say even Judism; nevertheless, it points toward a Truth among the Spiritual. I’m going to mention it because over all I feel it fits into the catergory of Christianity being more than one’s “intuition.”

From the time of Aristotle, some 2,300 years ago, the “scientific” theory or the religious of the day held the universe to be eternal. But Genesis 1:1 has proven correct in light of modern science, there was a beginning to this universe, (whether it spawned from another universe as with the “multi-universe theory” I don’t know, neither do scientists. But it poses not a problem for me. Besides, Genesis 1:1 can also be translated as “In a beginning”).

Steven Weinberg in the closing page of his book “The First Three Minutes” says: “Some cosmologists are philosophically attracted to the oscillating model [of the universe], especially because, like the steady-state [eternal] model, it nicely avoids the problem of Genesis.” The problem of Genesis, of course, is the problem of a beginning.

I’m not claiming Genesis to be teaching a science lesson, only that the author believed there was a beginning to “the heaven and earth,” while other religions did not. (To be fair, I admit I do not know whether** every single other religion** of those times believed in no beginning, I am just not unaware of them).

This of course by no means “proves” the Biblical account, or Christianity to be the Truth. But I do believe it shines a good amount of light onto the religion, one of many things which causes numerous to ponder its claim of authenticity.

In the end, all this can do is either harden our hearts to the Truth and turn away, or lean forward to it. But it is God whom gives us True Faith, something which cannot be scientifically examined. Religious people are not all completely ignorant or stupid, and never not look into things, and are not all led by mere “intuition,” but by the Spirit. I know, I know, we can’t “scientifically examine” that.

But if you base your Faith on physical examination only, I doubt it’s going to do anything. We have to get a “taste” for Him, and abandon our sin. Once we do that, it’s extremely difficult to leave Him forever.

Something to consider

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

A few history…

It would help if you posted with respect. It takes mine and others time to answer these same tired allegations time after time. The Horus and Mithra allegations are quite old and have been easily torn apart by biblical scholars as well as just by the smallest common sense. You can always google these arguments easily enough.

The other arguments are equally easily refuted. Particularly the historical non objection objection. The rough overlay accusation opposed to the specific examples of Christians acting as Christians. You are most likely a victim of your false schooling driven by polemical extremes to throw off the moral “shackles” of Christianity. You’ve been blindsided by the pride in this world that writes to excuse not bending a knee to truth, charity, and chastity. But enough about atheists and atheism.

Christianity is a living faith with a true Church with a true historicity that you can only refute by failing to understand what She is. Nevertheless, She has stood, a unique and specific organization, and taught for 2,000 years the same gospel in the face of many heresies. This is no light statement. Small minds would love to tear at Her, especially the evil one. She stands a real, physical and constant precense unbroken, and generation after generation, a living testament and human organization marked by proclaiming the Gospel. Real bricks, torn down and built again and again and true Eucharist for 2,000 years as He said He would be with us always.

I’m not as ecumenical as some and these tired saws do real damage to kids and others tender in their faith who lack the self discipline to think beyond google or their textbooks. To mock our Lord and 2,000 years of saintly work is a terrible human tragedy.

Live your Christian faith. That will be the best proof there is.

Jesus have mercy on us

My heart and respect goes out to the Catholics who tirelessly reach out in the face of seemingly unending concrete ignorance and morbid senseless derision. They mocked Him, too. Something about our Lord incensed them to treat Him so savagely. God bless the Catholic posters who do this work to reach out in charity.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

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

Thank you for the respectful post.

I am afraid I don’t see the “negative side of the ledger” unless you find yourself in disagreement with a specific teaching. Without bringing that out, I’m afraid a Catholic poster cannot bring you a defense of the teaching.

Argument through History

I think those virtues do require “Catholicism” Look at the ISMs of the 20th Century, the brutality of the pre Christian Americas, the savagery of Rome, the savagery told of in the Old Testament, the savagery of the Vikings, the blood soaked history of Islam.

I think Christian Civilization is not so bloody as modern historians would portray her. Witch burtnings? Inquisition? Government or Church? Catholic or Protestant? How many? What was the scope?

Oppression of women? The great Saints of the middle ages were often women; women held all kinds of roles in society in the middle ages.

It wasn’t common sense that brought this gentility to men. It was uncommon sense. Worship of a crucified man, not a hammer wielding or hawk headed god.

Unfortunately history is full of legerdemain as any fragment of pottery can become a scholar’s prooftext, so I cannot construct anything airtight here. I think though an open mind such as yours can find in Christianity a surprising religion and without supernatural aid, unlikely in the extreme to have dominated the world since its rise and filled in comparison to non Christian societies with the milk of compassion and human respect startling in contrast to the savagery of things like Wahabhism.

I am a sober 43 year old adult and yet I believe in the Eucharist. I understand your difficulty.

Is that not its own proof though? The teaching on the Eucharist has been central from the begining and Catholicism is a billion strong. A billion people believe God is “under the appearance” of bread? So much so they refrain from “free love” (so to speak) and many go to a martyrs death?

So much testimony. Yes anecdotal. But so much? And so complex and so old a belief set living to match the times, but constant. Of the world but not part of the world. Human Vitae held the answers for us to arm ourselves in the new world sexuality in constancy to faith. Not an easy answer, but a hard one that is constant to Christ, to compassion, to love. Grant Henry VIII a divorce? nope. Hard indeed, but true. Smuggle jews out in WW2, oppose Hitler, fight abortion. Now they talk of infanticide and now women will farm their bodies for eggs. Who again stands for human dignity? Is all this consistent teaching, so hard yet so consistent in human dignity for the poor and rich possible by men constantly and consistently for 2000 years? You see it anywhere other than the Church?

No it is not a proof, but Jesus rose people from the dead and they still left Him when they were told of the Eucharist. Now a billion people believe in the Eucharist.

Just food for contemplation. a 10 minute forum post ain’t gonna be the summa.

Just trying to give you an angle to think about, since you were kind in response.

Jesus have mercy on us

 

[Touchstone]

Thank you for the respectful post.

I am afraid I don’t see the “negative side of the ledger” unless you find yourself in disagreement with a specific teaching. Without bringing that out, I’m afraid a Catholic poster cannot bring you a defense of the teaching.

Argument through History

I am a sober 43 year old adult and yet I believe in the Eucharist. I understand your difficulty.

Is that not its own proof though? The teaching on the Eucharist has been central from the begining and Catholicism is a billion strong. A billion people believe God is “under the appearance” of bread? So much so they refrain from “free love” (so to speak) and many go to a martyrs death?

That is something to consider. But an ex-colleague of mine who I keep in contact with is a devout Muslim and he makes the very same points. How could a billion Muslims be wrong? What would motivate so many faithful to be martyrs unto death in preserving their deen? I don’t think the “it’s too big to be false” argument holds much weight on it’s own terms – it’s a textbook example of the ad populum fallacy. But when you consider the size of competing claims, that idea fairly collapses, I think. Logically, at least one of the two claims of Catholicism and Islam must be wrong (since they are mutually contradictory with respect to their authority). It is necessarily true, then, that a billion devout followers, complete with battalions of willing martyrs-unto-death, are deluded. It may not be the Catholics who are mistaken (and it could be both Catholics and Muslims!), but the argument you present cannot hold any weight, as we have an example of massive delusion one way or the other.

I would be foolish to grant that weight, as I would be similarly obligated to grant the same weight to the claims of Islam. That has me endorsing the Eucharist-transubstantiation-as-true (RCC) and Eucharist-transubstantiation-as-false(Islam) simultaneously. That’s a problem, no?

So much testimony. Yes anecdotal. But so much? And so complex and so old a belief set living to match the times, but constant. Of the world but not part of the world. Human Vitae held the answers for us to arm ourselves in the new world sexuality in constancy to faith. Not an easy answer, but a hard one that rings true. Grant Henry VIII a divorce? nope. Hard indeed, but true. Smuggle jews out in WW2, oppose Hitler, fight abortion. Now they talk of infanticide and now women will farm their bodies for eggs. Who again stands for human dignity? Is all this consistent teaching, so hard yet so consistent in human dignity for the poor and rich possible by men constantly and consistently for 2000 years? You see it anywhere other than the Church?

Um. Hitler, the RCC… that’s not a good story, despite some heroic and inspiring stories of Catholics at that time. Institutionally, it’s a profound and lasting stain, the history of Hitler’s Nazi regime and the Catholic Church.

That’s just a nitpick, though. In any case, whatever I think of the teaching, it isn’t probitive to the historicity of the Resurrection. I can’t see how any of that would tilt things toward an affirmative answer toward a historical resurrection, as a historical matter. I’ve said upthread that I grant that a religious conviction that Jesus was God is more than sufficient to convince the Christian that the Resurrection actually happened. But that is not a judgment made on historical grounds, but is instead justified on said religious convictions. I concede that if you already think Jesus was God, you will very likely think the Resurrection was historical, no matter what the evidence is. If Catholics and Christians would represent their convictions that way, I’d not object. It’s only when the pretense is made to historical conclusions for the factuality of the Resurrection in historical terms that I think an objection should be launched.

No it is not a proof, but Jesus rose people from the dead and they still left Him when they were told of the Eucharist. Now a billion people believe in the Eucharist.

I understand. But a billion people around the globe pray to Mecca five times every day because that’s what Allah told Mohammed must be done when Mohammed was taken by Jabreel to al Quds on the “Midnight Journey”, and taken from Jerusalem up to Heaven to meet Allah. By your measure here, I ought to consider affirming transubstation, and I ought to be praying towards Mecca five times a day, and I suppose planning a haj.

Just food for contemplation. a 10 minute forum post ain’t gonna be the summa.

I know you or others will take this wrong, but I don’t think the *Summa *is that high of a bar. But I thank you for a thoughtful post, all the same.

Just trying to give you an angle to think about, since you were kind in response.

Jesus have mercy on us

-Touchstone

P.S. “The Catholic”, I’m not ignoring your posts, just wanted to snap off this post quick to MichaelTDoyle – my reponse to your posts will take a bit to get together.

 

[Touchstone]

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.

OK. I think the important point to raise here is that all sorts of fantastic accounts are available in hearsay form, and many cases, if you accept that there is an miracle-working deity in the mix, that is the easiest explanation.

Whenever you have a deity available as an explanation, that’s your easiest explanation. A ‘natural’ explanation cannot win, because it is constrained by it’s ‘naturalness’. For example, for the Resurrection accounts, we have all the questions William Lane Craig shotguns out there in a debate: why would the apostles steal the body? Why would these guys die for a lie? Where was Jesus’ body on the fourth day, if He wasn’t resurrected? Etc.

An historian, or anyone who has to try and establish the best theory for what happened in a non-miraculous way just can’t hope to compete with “Goddidit”. Miracles are unbeatable, as nothing needs to be explained – they are unexplainable by their very nature (a miracle is some kind of violation of physical law/natural order).

So, it’s way easier to just say “yep, Jabreel whisked Mohammed away to Jerusalem on that miraculous night in 619CE”. No cleanup or explanations necessary. It’s only if you insist on extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims and thus look for plausible/non-fantastic explanations that you have to work at it? Why would Mohammed make that up? Was it a hallucination? Just an outright lie? These questions are hard to answer, and if you just agree that it was a miracle, it all just disappears as an onus – poof.

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.

Yes, this is a very important general point. It applies to evolution/creation and a number of other questions as much as it does to the Resurrection:

**When “God” gets to compete as an answer, it always wins. It cannot be beaten. No natural answer can possibly compete with “Goddidit”, as “Goddidit” is by definition the most efficient answer to any and all questions.
**
If that isn’t clear, name a phenomena, and see if you can provide a natural answer that can compete with “Goddidit”. I think you cannot. A muslim friend points out that he doesn’t even need to entertain even the most basic phenomena in natural terms, like gravity, a rock falling from my hand to the ground. Allah makes the rock fall, and it’s consistent every time because that’s just Allah’s will. An all powerful God beats any law-based explanation.

So, an important point here is that, if you assume God exists, and wants to have X happen, there cannot possibly be a more “probable” answer. The matter is settled.

For historical analysis, that produces all sorts of absurdities. Historical questions become nothing more than a referendum on “what God wants”. Did the sun really stop in the sky for a couple hours to let Joshua finish of the slaughter of his enemies? Well, it’s not even a trivial challenge for God, and if that’s what God wants, then yes, certainly, that’s what happened. No alternative can compete.

It really gets crazy, then, when I grant the same courtesy to my Muslim friend as I grant to you, and assume that Allah exists, and wants Mohammed to visit Jerusalem on his way up to Heaven to meet with him. Given Allah’s reality, and his choice of Mohammed as his Messenger, the “miracle” answer wins hands down. Not even a contests. Just ask any Muslim, if you don’t believe me.

I’ll stop here, and continue in a later post, thanks!

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

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.

Right, at least until such time as the divine becomes verifiable in natural terms (which it very well could, if the divine is real). But there’s a huge difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, and historians necessarily depend on methodological naturalism, and have no use for metaphysical naturalism, methodologically. Think of a court of law, if that’s not clear. Do you suppose a court is “methaphysically naturalistic”? No, it’s naturalism is methodological, necessary for the practice of law, justice based on evidence. If you claim to the court that "God (or a demon) made you do X, do you suppose the court is somehow metaphysically prejudiced against you in finding your claims vacuous? No, it’s just a conspicuous lack of evidence for anything that would be admitted as “God” that requires it to be dismissed, as a matter of method.

Same thing happens in historical forensics, and in scientific inquiries.

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.

No, it really is a worst case scenario, if God is accepted as an actor on the scene. Everything is thus subjectivized, and predicated on religious predilictions. How would you resist a “miracle defense” by an accused criminal? Or the claims of Mohammed, or Buddha (who supposedly walked on water long before Jesus tried it)? If God or gods are acceptable, then there ARE NO MORE HISTORICAL CRITERIA, but instead, only RELIGIOUS CRITERIA.

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. There are not credible eyewitness accounts for the Resurrection, either. Nor are there any independent sources corroborating the claims. I affirm that these claims are offered as factual claims, meant to be taken as fact, unlike Aesop’s fables, but we have no trouble finding claims that are similarly presented as fact, not fable, by their claimants. Mohammed, and his followers, for example, do not represent the “Midnight Journey” as fable, but as a “factual miracle”. Same for Joseph Smith, Jr. and his use of the Ummim and Thummim to translate the Golden Plates. Those examples also do not come with anything but hearsay, and hearsay from vested interests, just like the NT claims of the Resurrection. In the Joseph Smith Jr. case, at least there are eyewitness accounts of the miracle actually happening – witnesses relate seeing Smith peer into his hat with the miraculous stones and use them as miraculous mnemonic devices enabling him to translate the Golden Plates. That’s a much more direct form of witness than anything we have of the Resurrection.

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

I’ll do my best.

-Touchstone

 

[Touchstone]

The Catholic:

                      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.

Ok, this is really poor:

• Why can’t these accounts be explained away as legendary development? That makes zero sense, in light of the alternatives being contemplated. On one hand, you have the bringing back to life of a man THREE DAYS DEAD, and on the other, you have the “legendization” of Jesus as a resurrected man happening in say, a dozen years, where you might expect 20 or a whatever a full generation would be.

It’s absurd to say that legends cannot be developed in whatever time frame was available, and at the same time accept, in the alternative, the claim that a man three days dead came back to life. Totally nuts, as a matter of history.

Of course, that’s not what’s happening. What’s happening is the equivocation on “probable” I spoke of in my last post. If you assume God is available as an explanation, “Goddidit” wins, hands down. So what you have is this:

a) on naturalistic terms, the time frame of development for the legend of Jesus’ resurrection is a difficulty.

b) on supernaturalist/Christian terms, God can do anything, easily, so there is no difficulty in accepting the claim of Jesus’ resurrection.

That’s totally self-indulgent as a means of evaluation. To be consistent, you would have to say something like this:

a)** on naturalistic terms,** the time frame of development for the legend of Jesus’ resurrection is a difficulty.

b) **on naturalistic terms, **the idea that a man came back to life after being dead three days is utterly preposterous, maximally fantastic.

In that approach, you are judging both explanations on equal terms. And of course, the Resurrection isn’t even on the playing field if it must compete on natural terms.

Or, you could put it this way:

a)** on supernaturalist/Christian terms**, idea of legendary development is completely unneeded, problematic.

b) on supernaturalist/Christian terms**, **God can do anything, easily, so there is no difficulty in accepting the claim of Jesus’ resurrection.

Again, we are now assessing both explanations on the same terms at least. And of course, if you accept Christian assumptions about God’s existence, his powers, and His agenda, it’s game over, no contest in favor of “resurrection”.

All of which indicates that supernatural explanations and natural explanations are wholly incompatible. Or more precisely, supernatural claims are invincible against natural explanations, and miracles are absurdities when judged in naturalistic terms. This means that “historical analysis” ceases to be historical analysis as soon as supernatural explanations are given any credence at all. Supernatural explanations will win any contest. The decision about any historical question in that case is reduced to the question of what theology the inquirer endorses.

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.”

I think there’s little to no reason to suppose that any execution effort by the Romans, if one was made, was not successful. The overwhelming evidence is that the Romans were adept at successful executions, and we have no reason to think otherwise.

That said, I have to observe that there are no indisputable facts. Anyone who’s dealt with Young Earth Creationists or Holocaust deniers can give you vivid testimony supporting that idea. But if we were to have these two alternatives in front of us:

a) Jesus wasn’t actually killed on the cross, and his execution failed to cause his death

or

b) Jesus came back to life after being dead three days.

Then a) wins, hands down. Even if we have no evidence to directly establish this, it’s at least plausible, where b) isn’t the least bit plausible, at least not without granting Christian axiology up front.

Why? There are many of reasons. First of all it’s recorded in the gospels.

Ok, but that’s decidedly not a good reason, anymore than the miracles of Apollos recorded by Herodotus are validated by virtue of being recorded. In all of this, there is the analysis of plausibility. What is claimed? How plausible is that claim, based on what we understand of how nature works, how people behave? Extraordinary things can and do happen, but they demand commensurate documentation, else they are more plausibly explained as fictions, or misrepresentations. We don’t suppose that when Herodotus records that Apollos caused the peaks of Mt. Parsnassus to break of the mountain and fall on the barbarians marching on Athena Pronaia, that such a miracle occurred by the power of Apollos. Why? Because it’s totally implausible, a fantastic report – even in light of the fact that the writings of Herodotus were primarily and self-declaredly historical.

Maybe if you go look up the raining down of the peaks of Parnassus on the barbarians at the sanctuary of Athena Pronaia, you could tell me if you accept those miracle claims as miracles-in-fact, and if not, why not?

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

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.Right, and an elementary part of that scrutiny is the test for plausibility. In the Iliad, we find Paris in a duel with Menalaus, and just as Menelaus is moving in for the kill, the goddess Aphrodite intervenes with a miraculous “save” of Paris, spiriting him away to safety just in the nick of time. What do we do with this? Do we throw out the whole story because the goddess Aphrodite and her miraculous intervention was invoked? No, because other parts of the story are eminently plausible, and at least in modern times, we have some significant archaeological evidence that corroborates at least some basics of the narrative – the existence of Troy, for example, which was long thought to be more legend as a place, than fact.

But any historical scrutiny implies a thorough scan of the narrative for plausibility, basic coherence with our understaind of physical law and natural constraints. And on this point, the Resurrection fails, and fails spectacularly.

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!

I agree. I think the existence of Jesus, the man, and his crufixion for sedition agains the state by the Romans is quite uncontroversial as a matter of history. It’s wholly plausible, and the witnesses we have are sufficient to have us conclude Jesus was probably a historical figure, was probably executed, and almost certainly killed by the Roman crucifixion. There’s just not a very high plausibility bar there to clear – all those historical elements do not stretch our credulity far at all.

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.”

Agree. The cruelty and sadism of the practice, as horrifying as it is, isn’t just plausible, it’s quite predictable given the circumstance and setting. The Romans, like so many other empires, knew the value of terror, and rule by fear. Even in modern times, we see that psychology at work – whole segments of a village hanged, and left hanging by Nazis, or closed in a church and burned alive as a message of terror to suppress rebellion and to assure obeisance. The more violent and horrifying, the better, for the monsters bent on using that psyschology toward their own ends.

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.

Right. I don’t have any time for the idea that the crucifixion, if there was one, was ineffective. I’ll even go one step further, and say that all of that history, gory as it is, creates trouble for the whole idea of Jesus’ burial in any tomb at all, or interment anywhere immediately or under “merciful” terms. The whole point of crucifixion was terrorizing humiliation of the criminal, a vivid, horrifying display of the fate of any who sought to undermine Roman authority. So, not only is it awkward to suppose that they were not successful in killing him, it’s awkward to think they let his body be taken down, washed and placed in a tomb, arranged by some Joseph of Arimathea or no. The natural extension of the crucifixion is dumping the body in a common burial site, or really just a dump, out at the edge of town, where the criminal’s body lay, decomposing in shame and humiliation, food for stray dogs.

One of the weak joints of the story is the sudden adoption of “sportsmanship” on the part of the Romans once the coup de grace was delivered to the convict.

In any case, you can rest with that issue in talking to me. I’m fine affirming that any crucifixion of Jesus was thoroughly effective in killing him.

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.

Yep, we’re in accord on this.

-Touchstone

 

[RobbyS]

Right, at least until such time as the divine becomes verifiable in natural terms (which it very well could, if the divine is real). But there’s a huge difference between methodological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism, and historians necessarily depend on methodological naturalism, and have no use for metaphysical naturalism, methodologically. Think of a court of law, if that’s not clear. Do you suppose a court is “methaphysically naturalistic”? No, it’s naturalism is methodological, necessary for the practice of law, justice based on evidence. If you claim to the court that "God (or a demon) made you do X, do you suppose the court is somehow metaphysically prejudiced against you in finding your claims vacuous? No, it’s just a conspicuous lack of evidence for anything that would be admitted as “God” that requires it to be dismissed, as a matter of method.

Same thing happens in historical forensics, and in scientific inquiries.

No, it really is a worst case scenario, if God is accepted as an actor on the scene. Everything is thus subjectivized, and predicated on religious predilictions. How would you resist a “miracle defense” by an accused criminal? Or the claims of Mohammed, or Buddha (who supposedly walked on water long before Jesus tried it)? If God or gods are acceptable, then there ARE NO MORE HISTORICAL CRITERIA, but instead, only RELIGIOUS CRITERIA.

There are not credible eyewitness accounts for the Resurrection, either. Nor are there any independent sources corroborating the claims. I affirm that these claims are offered as factual claims, meant to be taken as fact, unlike Aesop’s fables, but we have no trouble finding claims that are similarly presented as fact, not fable, by their claimants. Mohammed, and his followers, for example, do not represent the “Midnight Journey” as fable, but as a “factual miracle”. Same for Joseph Smith, Jr. and his use of the Ummim and Thummim to translate the Golden Plates. Those examples also do not come with anything but hearsay, and hearsay from vested interests, just like the NT claims of the Resurrection. In the Joseph Smith Jr. case, at least there are eyewitness accounts of the miracle actually happening – witnesses relate seeing Smith peer into his hat with the miraculous stones and use them as miraculous mnemonic devices enabling him to translate the Golden Plates. That’s a much more direct form of witness than anything we have of the Resurrection.

I’ll do my best.

-Touchstone

Well, we think that the supernatural is “real.” That does not mean that the scientific method can really handle it. I am more impressed by the necessary limitations on science starting with the fact that it is the work of a limited being. Why are the “intuitions” of modern science and better than those of, say, Greek science, or the knowledge base of Chinese technology? One argument is that modern science is founded on the whole western experience of monotheism. More than that on the Christian notion of Creation of being from nothing. Historically science is the application of mathematical models to observation. But that presupposes an observer who is --at least as a class–omniscient, masters of a technique that will lead to a threory of everything. Given however that we humans are more or less infinitesmally small beings in a universe that is virtullay unlimited and moral among things that ate virtually immortal, or contrarily, enormous beings that are hugely more vast than the
tiny beings that constitute us, or given that our mathematical models are quite limited in scope and we can’t decide how much they owe to their “truth” and how much is the product of our minds, one can wonder how much of it IS real.

 

[Leela]

IWhen 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?

Good point, Touchstone. There is a well-known phenomenon of people dieing for what they “know” is true but actually just isn’t so. It’s called Islamic suicide bombings. I imagine the Christian matyrs were no less sincere in their beliefs as the Muslims that strap bombs to their chests, and both firmly believed they would be rewarded in Heaven, but neither example gives any credulity to the extraordinary and contradictory claims of Islam or Christianity. No one should have any doubt that it is possible for someone to die for a belief that is just plain wrong.

Best,
Leela

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Do not Islam and Christianity deal with the same subject? Islam is wrong, but not wrong in that there isa merciful omnipotent God Who is One.

Islam is an heretical offshoot of Christianity (Catholicism). Its beliefs and teachings were after Christianity and a kind of mockery of Christianity. However, it touches the same truths, ie God the Father. It is a mockery in that people die for hate not love, in murder not in saving lives, not separation of Church and state, but wedding them with the sword.

For the purposes of your argument, I’ll steal it and say that worshippers of Islam just provide further proof of the power of the Gospel, even when stolen and warped. Even through the distorted lens of Islam, the Gospel truths of God is merciful and loving hold such amazing power that can be twisted to violence. All the more reason Christ founded a specific Church. He knew His power.

So the main argument that Islam being wrong contradicts anecdotal proof that Christianity is right can be shown through history that it is a twisted branch of Christianity-Judaism and is in fact further proff of the power of the Gospel. The eternal truths hold a great power and if twisted hold a great negative power.

 

[The_Catholic]

"William Lane Craig shotguns out there in a debate: why would the apostles steal the body? Why would these guys die for a lie? Where was Jesus’ body on the fourth day, if He wasn’t resurrected? Etc."

All very good questions that I believe “logically” that wondering whether the Apostles attempted to steal Jesus’ Body from those who forseen a possible event (the Jews and Roman guards), **far **outweighs by tenfold wondering if Mohammed was miracuously “whisked away.”

** “I think the important point to raise here is that all sorts of fantastic accounts are available in hearsay form, and many cases, if you accept that there is an miracle-working deity in the mix, that is the easiest explanation.”**

Ah yes, the dreadful “hearsay” argument Do a study of Daniel B. Wallace’s seminars called “The Gospel According to Snoopy.” He demonstrates in how texual criticism can succeed in reconstructing a missing text. Among six generations of copies, the scribes make mistakes, intentionally and unintentionally, and by the end, the original text is reconstructed with only three missing words. His lessons (which in detail are quite complicated) are done all the time. The point? He says: “If people who know nothing about texual criticism can reconstruct a text that has become terribly corrupted, then isn’t it likely that those who are trained in texual criticism can do the same with the New Testament?”

The Hearsay argument sounds catchy, but is extremely faulty.

"For historical analysis, that produces all sorts of absurdities. Historical questions become nothing more than a referendum on “what God wants”. Did the sun really stop in the sky for a couple hours to let Joshua finish of the slaughter of his enemies? Well, it’s not even a trivial challenge for God, and if that’s what God wants, then yes, certainly, that’s what happened. No alternative can compete."

VERY well taken point. Though I think you misunderstand me, MY point is that on a typical basis, the non-believers (historians/scientists), even by the end, NEVER consider the Divine, NEVER allow that while it’s “possible” that it could have happened this or that way (the frightened, weak mebble apostles who just saw their Lord violently put to death, and fled, suddenly grew angry and stormed their Lord’s burial place and stole His body), it’s still, because of all the faulty evidence of how unlikely a naturalist explanation could apply, it seems more likely in the end that Jesus, “somehow” really did rise from the dead.

 

[Touchstone]

Do not Islam and Christianity deal with the same subject? Islam is wrong, but not wrong in that there isa merciful omnipotent God Who is One.

Except that you must equivocate on what “mericful” means, and that Christianity’s Three-in-One commits shirk, the highest form of blasphemy against Allah, who really is one (“desist!” says the Qur’an to all who speak of the Trinity, “far exalted is Allah above having a son!”, I think that’s a good point.

Islam is an heretical offshoot of Christianity (Catholicism). Its beliefs and teachings were after Christianity and a kind of mockery of Christianity. However, it touches the same truths, ie God the Father. It is a mockery in that people die for hate not love, in murder not in saving lives, not separation of Church and state, but wedding them with the sword.

This is a very peculiar rendering of Islam. Speaking of Allah as a “father”, or capable of being a father (see Sura 37:151, or better yet, ask your neighborhood Muslim!) is to blaspheme Allah, so I think that “same truth” is not a “same truth” at all, but rather a point of dogmatic contradictions. The other “mockeries” are good points of contradiction, as well. So what are the “same truths”, again?

For the purposes of your argument, I’ll steal it and say that worshippers of Islam just provide further proof of the power of the Gospel, even when stolen and warped. Even through the distorted lens of Islam, the Gospel truths of God is merciful and loving hold such amazing power that can be twisted to violence. All the more reason Christ founded a specific Church. He knew His power.

Sure. Why not just take the route of Cornelius van Til, and go all the way? You see, really, atheists are just more evidence for God’s existence, and their very rebellion just underscores God’s reality. You know what they say: if there was no God, there’s be no such thing as an atheist!!!

So the main argument that Islam being wrong contradicts anecdotal proof that Christianity is right can be shown through history that it is a twisted branch of Christianity-Judaism and is in fact further proff of the power of the Gospel. The eternal truths hold a great power and if twisted hold a great negative power.

Ok, so you’ve busted Christianity down to its lowest common denominator with Islam, which I think you will find if you go look is quite a bit lower than what you’ve presented above. So all I’ve established is the problematic nature of that which doesn’t fit in the “lowest common denominator” between Christianity and Islam. Great, I’ll take that – that’s basically the whole of Catholic orthodoxy, right there (see how much of the Nicene Creed your neighborhood Muslim would affirm, if you doubt that).

But now that you are willing to walk out on that plank, we’re not nearly finished. We factored in Islam. Next up, Siddhartha Gautama, the Bhudda. 400 million adherents worldwide, predates Jesus by 600 years, and not even one all-powerful god, merciful or no. I await the application of the “lowest common denominator argument” to the new set {Christianity, Islam, Buddhism}. Maybe Hindu is next up after Buddhism, eh? 900 million Hindus can’t be wrong, or all wrong, anyway!

Do you see where this bit of cleverness leads?

-Touchstone

 

[The_Catholic]

Hi Touchstone, (can I please steal your name )

Obviously, I disagree with you. I see there being plenty of evidence and eye witness for the Resurrection, what I had already written seems pretty clear to me, much more beyond Joseph Smith and Mohammed claims. You seem to be wrapped up by “there are just too many religions existing and too many miracles taking place, therefore they ALL must be false,” idea, which suceeds in taking plenty away from God. Also, let me make one thing clear, I do not believe that ONLY the miracles of Christianity are real. I also believe the miracle stories in many other religions as well, though that’s a side thing to debate or talk about. But Going back to the Resurrection not having any credibility, well, even when I fell away, or was an atheist, I still found it quite credible from the points I made. Doesn’t mean it’s true, no, but indeed credible. And there are more points to be made. Want to check a good site out, go here: answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/

"Ok, this is really poor:

*** Why can’t these accounts be explained away as legendary development? That makes zero sense, in light of the alternatives being contemplated. On one hand, you have the bringing back to life of a man THREE DAYS DEAD, and on the other, you have the “legendization” of Jesus as a resurrected man happening in say, a dozen years, where you might expect 20 or a whatever a full generation would be. **

It’s absurd to say that legends cannot be developed in whatever time frame was available, and at the same time accept, in the alternative, the claim that a man three days dead came back to life. Totally nuts, as a matter of history."

LOL, whoah is me I guess it is only my Faith then which causes me to see these things as highly credible peices of imformation. I don’t think it’s “really poor” at all. Obviously you’ve blown me to dust in this , but I do not see it as that. I am very impressed by the evidence for the Resurrection and I don’t think Jesus became a legendization. You appear very . . . eager, if not desperate to prove the realm of the Spirit just by no means *cannot *be real, so you, like many, no matter how much evidence there is in favor of the Faith, it all can simply be explained away. I guess it comes down to let he who has eyes to see.

"One of the weak joints of the story is the sudden adoption of “sportsmanship” on the part of the Romans once the coup de grace was delivered to the convict."

It was typical for every convict, not only Christ, to be treated as such. And I find no difficulty in allowing His body to taken away and buried rather than left for the dogs. Pilate did not originally desire his death to begin with.

"Right, and an elementary part of that scrutiny is the test for plausibility. In the Iliad, we find Paris in a duel with Menalaus, and just as Menelaus is moving in for the kill, the goddess Aphrodite intervenes with a miraculous “save” of Paris, spiriting him away to safety just in the nick of time. What do we do with this? Do we throw out the whole story because the goddess Aphrodite and her miraculous intervention was invoked? No, because other parts of the story are eminently plausible, and at least in modern times, we have some significant archaeological evidence that corroborates at least some basics of the narrative – the existence of Troy, for example, which was long thought to be more legend as a place, than fact.

But any historical scrutiny implies a thorough scan of the narrative for plausibility, basic coherence with our understaind of physical law and natural constraints. And on this point, the Resurrection fails, and fails spectacularly."

Again, too many miracles–must ALL be false

These stories, such as Paris vs. Menelaus, do not hold up against the first 4 “proofs” or credible accounts of the Resurrection I listed, not to mention the following Epistles, the conversion of St. Paul, the testimony of women, and letters of the New Testament, to the spread of Christianity, and the influence of the Church Fathers.

I don’t know why Touchstone, but this has just never really bothered me. The roots of Christianity appear so dramatically different than the mythologies you’re listing, I’d still say that–DID say that before even being a Christian. I guess I just don’t buy into the “too many miracle stories and too many religions means ALL is false” hypothesis.

 

[The_Catholic]

**"But now that you are willing to walk out on that plank, we’re not nearly finished. We factored in Islam. Next up, Siddhartha Gautama, the Bhudda. 400 million adherents worldwide, predates Jesus by 600 years, and not even one all-powerful god, merciful or no. I await the application of the “lowest common denominator argument” to the new set {Christianity, Islam, Buddhism}. Maybe Hindu is next up after Buddhism, eh? 900 million Hindus can’t be wrong, or all wrong, anyway!

Do you see where this bit of cleverness leads?"**

Oh dear LORD gazes up to Heaven–AHH how could I do that, He’s not really scientifically up You are REALLY obsessed with the mutli-miracle/religion hypothesis, wow.

YThis is not a mock, in fact I like and respect you Touchstone, but do you think these things have never been talked/debated/argued about by christians before hand? Do you include yourself as one of the “brains” who gets to “think” and all us old fashioned do-whatever-people-tell-us’ers are ignorant?

 

[Touchstone]

"William Lane Craig shotguns out there in a debate: why would the apostles steal the body? Why would these guys die for a lie? Where was Jesus’ body on the fourth day, if He wasn’t resurrected? Etc."

All very good questions that I believe “logically” that wondering whether the Apostles attempted to steal Jesus’ Body from those who forseen a possible event (the Jews and Roman guards), **far **outweighs by tenfold wondering if Mohammed was miracuously “whisked away.”

I can’t tell which way you see the “tenfold” leaning. Do you see the Apostles’ contemplated role in a theft/hoax as 10 times more likely than Mohammed’s making up the Midnight Journey experience, or 10 times less?

In any case, would you agree that absent evidence for the “gods” for each side, that both “hoaxes”, however difficult they are, are more plausible than the actual claimed events (a magic horseride to Jerusalem, then up to Heaven and back, the coming back to life after three days dead)?

Ah yes, the dreadful “hearsay” argument Do a study of Daniel B. Wallace’s seminars called “The Gospel According to Snoopy.” He demonstrates in how texual criticism can succeed in reconstructing a missing text. Among six generations of copies, the scribes make mistakes, intentionally and unintentionally, and by the end, the original text is reconstructed with only three missing words. His lessons (which in detail are quite complicated) are done all the time. The point? He says: “If people who know nothing about texual criticism can reconstruct a text that has become terribly corrupted, then isn’t it likely that those who are trained in texual criticism can do the same with the New Testament?”

The Hearsay argument sounds catchy, but is extremely faulty.

I think we crossed wires, there. By “hearsay”, I wasn’t talking about the preservation of the text. For the purposes of this conversation, I’m happy to stipulate that the texts we have now are letter-perfect copies of the texts as written. As it happens, I think that textual criticism does help restore any scribal or transmission errors, but understand that this tends to complicate things for the narrative rather than help it. But no matter here, that is not an issue for me on this question.

By ‘hearsay’, I mean that we only have the testimony of individuals, and individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome and reception of the story. If you ask any litigator how valuable that kind of testimony is in a court of law, you’ll get a clear confirmation of my objection. Talk is cheap, and talk from parties with conflicts of interest is really problematic. In the case of the Jesus cult, we have a group of followers steeped in a desperate, apocalyptic mindset. This is a very shaky foundation for just slightly controversial claims. For something as fantastic as coming back to life after three days dead, it’s just about worthless as a matter of objective history. Think of what we grant to the accounts of other miraculous claims from Hindu or Greek history/myths. Those come also via hearsay, hearsay discounted by vested interests.

VERY well taken point. Though I think you misunderstand me, MY point is that on a typical basis, the non-believers (historians/scientists), even by the end, NEVER consider the Divine, NEVER allow that while it’s “possible” that it could have happened this or that way (the frightened, weak mebble apostles who just saw their Lord violently put to death, and fled, suddenly grew angry and stormed their Lord’s burial place and stole His body), it’s still, because of all the faulty evidence of how unlikely a naturalist explanation could apply, it seems more likely in the end that Jesus, “somehow” really did rise from the dead.

Here’s the problem, and this is a point that Ehrman makes eloquently. While we can say a “resurrection miracle” is a logical possibility – and it certainly is, and cannot be ruled out – it’s so fantastic and so implausible that even when we keep it on the list, it always sinks to the bottom of the list. So, I would say it’s on the list, but it’s never near enough to the top – nor should it be, based on it’s fantastic and utter implausible nature – to actual get reasonable consideration as the best explanation, the historical conclusion.

Imagine for a moment, that we had a “god” figure available to us, via natural evidence. This god-character has a physical body, performs all manner of incredible, amazing “miracles”, all in plain view of scientific instrumentation and as many witnesses as can be crammed in to the scence. Ever year on Easter, this god-character chooses an individual has died in the last month, and performs a “resurrection miracle”. The resurrected person is routinely worked over by skeptics and investigators, and year after year, the “miracle” checks out; the resurrected person was certainly dead, verified died by multiple locking means of checking, and the resurrected person passes all tests for being the previously dead person with flying colors – DNA, memory, appearance, the whole package.

NOW, you have something to work with. After 122 years of this god-character performing and annual Easter resurrection, and stumping all the best efforts of science and skeptics to explain it away as a hoax or a natural event, you have something to work with evidentially as precedent for the NT claims. It’s not a slam dunk still, but that little vignette should give you an idea of what I mean by the prospects whereby such a claim as the NT makes might be in a practical position to carry the question.

But that what if also puts the “real world” in stark relief by contrast. Our world is nothing like that, evidentially. Going by the evidence we do have, the “resurrection hypothesis” just can not avoid being at the bottom, judged on the evidential merits.

-Touchstone

 

[The_Catholic]

**"Imagine for a moment, that we had a “god” figure available to us, via natural evidence. This god-character has a physical body, performs all manner of incredible, amazing “miracles”, all in plain view of scientific instrumentation and as many witnesses as can be crammed in to the scence. Ever year on Easter, this god-character chooses an individual has died in the last month, and performs a “resurrection miracle”. The resurrected person is routinely worked over by skeptics and investigators, and year after year, the “miracle” checks out; the resurrected person was certainly dead, verified died by multiple locking means of checking, and the resurrected person passes all tests for being the previously dead person with flying colors – DNA, memory, appearance, the whole package.

NOW, you have something to work with. After 122 years of this god-character performing and annual Easter resurrection, and stumping all the best efforts of science and skeptics to explain it away as a hoax or a natural event, you have something to work with evidentially as precedent for the NT claims. It’s not a slam dunk still, but that little vignette should give you an idea of what I mean by the prospects whereby such a claim as the NT makes might be in a practical position to carry the question.

But that what if also puts the “real world” in stark relief by contrast. Our world is nothing like that, evidentially. Going by the evidence we do have, the “resurrection hypothesis” just can not avoid being at the bottom, judged on the evidential merits."
**
On this point, I completely agree with you.

 

[The_Catholic]

**"I can’t tell which way you see the “tenfold” leaning. Do you see the Apostles’ contemplated role in a theft/hoax as 10 times more likely than Mohammed’s making up the Midnight Journey experience, or 10 times less?

In any case, would you agree that absent evidence for the “gods” for each side, that both “hoaxes”, however difficult they are, are more plausible than the actual claimed events (a magic horseride to Jerusalem, then up to Heaven and back, the coming back to life after three days dead)?"
**
Which seems more logical to believe, or to consider? Is the Resurrection story is true, does it have better historical data to back it up? How likely is it that the apostles stole Christ’s Body, or the reason for the conversion of St. Paul, or the testimony of women–for such a miraculous claim. No one is saying the Christ simply just “woke up,” and that was that. Rather, one has to consider all the events transpiring and *why *the transpire?

Mohammed, and his “magic horseride,” well what persecution and critique can we find in favor of that?

On the point with Mr. Bart, as long as the Resurrection still being “on the list,” even if it’s at the bottom, then that’s fine with me, I expect it rather. Just a slong as the Divine is not entirely kicked out all together.

 

[The_Catholic]

"By ‘hearsay’, I mean that we only have the testimony of individuals, and individuals who have a vested interest in the outcome and reception of the story. If you ask any litigator how valuable that kind of testimony is in a court of law, you’ll get a clear confirmation of my objection. Talk is cheap, and talk from parties with conflicts of interest is really problematic. In the case of the Jesus cult, we have a group of followers steeped in a desperate, apocalyptic mindset. This is a very shaky foundation for just slightly controversial claims. For something as fantastic as coming back to life after three days dead, it’s just about worthless as a matter of objective history. Think of what we grant to the accounts of other miraculous claims from Hindu or Greek history/myths. Those come also via hearsay, hearsay discounted by vested interests."

Then by “hearsay” you include the wittness who claimed to see Christ Resurrected. Again, I don’t see any comparison with Christianity and other religions such as Hindus or Greeks. Christianity, all together, seems quite logical and “down to earth” to me. And again, I don’t deny every other miracle or supernatural event in other religions. I think, and have always thought that there are, many in fact. but it doesn’t put a bruise on my soul.

In court this talk would be nonesense? Well, today, yes of course. If it really happened, then back then no. But we have no way of judging that do we? This is where Faith comes in, and I don’t mean empty blind faith, but Faith with so many things in favor of it as I have already listed.

I feel . . . sorry for you. I’m sorry, I hope this doesn’t offend you, but I do. I feel a sif my brother in the Lord has gone astray, and I want to get on my knees before you and weep for you. Strange I know, but it’s what the Spirit has filled me with. I will pray for you my fallen away brother, and maybe one day you will return to the Truth.

P.S. I just wanted to end saying "Christianity is quite distinct in that it rose from a Jewish background, which is monotheistic, and it centers around a historical figure who was put to death in a barbaric manner, which is attested in both Christian and non-Christian sources. I believe that the accounts about Jesus in the pages of the New Testament weren’t distilled from fanciful stories about mythological deities. St. Peter wasn’t reprting rumors or speculation, and he certainly wasn’t trusting his future to the likes of Zeus or Osiris. He was only interested in the real Jesus, which he himself, along with so many others witnessed."

May God bless you hugs

 

[Touchstone]

Hi Touchstone, (can I please steal your name )

Well, if we traded for a time, that certainly would create some interesting impressions around here, and elsewhere, wouldn’t it?

Obviously, I disagree with you. I see there being plenty of evidence and eye witness for the Resurrection, what I had already written seems pretty clear to me, much more beyond Joseph Smith and Mohammed claims. You seem to be wrapped up by “there are just too many religions existing and too many miracles taking place, therefore they ALL must be false,” idea, which suceeds in taking plenty away from God.

Hmm. I do think they are all false, but not for this reason. My argument hear I think is really only effective when contemplated by a theist. That is, the Christian will say:

“Hmmm, my belief in miracles X, Y, and Z seems arbitrary when juxtaposed against my disbelief in these other miracles *A, B and C. *What distinguishes my support for *X, Y, and Z *seems to be their religious affiliation of the miracle, versus that of miracles *A, B, and C. *That suggests that I’m judging miracles according to the brand name, rather than the evidence.”

From an atheist standpoint, the “competition” between competing miracles under different brand names doesn’t dispel miracles as a category; atheists generally reject those claims on a “standalone”, materialist basis. But for the Christian, or Mormon, or Muslim, the similarities are dislocating, when looked at objectively. Some of those miracles may be real, but there’s no way to tell based on the evidence. On an evidential basis, there’s a disturbing parity at work, which makes the support for any particular “brand name” of miracles appear to be capricious.

Also, let me make one thing clear, I do not believe that ONLY the miracles of Christianity are real. I also believe the miracle stories in many other religions as well, though that’s a side thing to debate or talk about.

Well, OK, let’s press that. Do you believe Mohammed got transported to al Quds by Jabreel, then up to Heaven to meet God in 619CE? If not, why not? Or how about the miraculous translation of the Golden Plates by Joseph Smith, Jr.? If you want to skip the debate for another thread, fine, but how say you on those two?

But Going back to the Resurrection not having any credibility, well, even when I fell away, or was an atheist, I still found it quite credible from the points I made. Doesn’t mean it’s true, no, but indeed credible. And there are more points to be made. Want to check a good site out, go here: answeringinfidels.com/answering-skeptics/

Ok, thank you for the link. I’ve not been to that site before, and it looks to have some interesting content to digest – particular some debate commentaries I’ve not seen before.

As for the resurrection account remaining credible if you were to become an atheist, I’m happy to accept you at your word. But it does raise the question: what is your criterion for ‘credible’, then? And more importantly, how does it select for the Resurrection, and not Buddha walking on water, or Mohammed ascending to Heaven to talk to God one hot summer night? Or maybe you would accept those, too, as “untrue”, but credible?

-TS

(continued soon…)