lpetrich

However, Richard Carrier has presented <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/" target="_blank">some very good reasons</a> why Jesus Christ's resurrection never happened. For starters, the Gospels grossly contradict each other on the details, suggesting that their writers made up the details as they went along. Also, someone rising from the dead and appearing only to his followers is a piddling, tiny sort of miracle compared to what an omnipotent being could do.

Think of what you believe about every religion but yours. Do you believe that the experiences of followers of all other religions are nothing but hallucinations and dreams?

Like the ability to cure disease by exorcism and the laying on of hands? Why not demonstrate that and empty all the hospitals by curing their patients and making them jump out of bed?

BLoggins has misstated what's been happening -- it's actually less and less that gets attributed to various deities. Lightning has long been attributed to various deities and demons, and in early modern times, ringing of church bells was thought a very effective way to repel lightning. However, it got many bell-ringers killed by -- guess what? Theologians agonized over why God would strike his favorite buildings, or else let them get struck by wicked demons.

But about 250 years ago, Benjamin Franklin noticed that lightning looked like a giant electric spark, and he tested the electricity hypothesis with his famous kite experiment. Since he had been working on the properties of electricity, he thought of a way to protect against lightning: a metal rod that will conduct lightning away. Lightning rods became widely adopted, though owners of churches were slow in doing so; however, godless, materialistic rods proved more successful in protecting against lightning than faith in God.

Most important in what way? The Gospels are not histories; they are hagiographies, like all those biographies of medieval saints who would work lots and lots and lots of miracles.

Descriptions from various people who are not out to sell a religion with their accounts of JC's resurrection; people who show critical sense in their historical writings.

Josephus's references are very controversial offhand remarks that tell us little, and the other references could easily be picked up from the early Christians' claims. And gixxer750, I think that you'll enjoy Lucian of Samosata's description of the early Christians.

They often didn't die, and those who did had died for refusing to worship the official gods of the Roman Empire.

Simply asserting that Matthew had been an eyewitness does not make the author of that Gospel an eyewitness.

Greco-Roman religion had numerous legendary heroes who were the offspring of various deities. Consider how Romulus and Remus were the sons of a god and a virgin -- just like Jesus Christ. Even various historical figures with human fathers were imagined to have divine paternity: Apollo for Pythagoras and Plato and Zeus for Alexander the Great.

Stories which made their human fathers join Joseph in being cuckolded by gods!

However, that fits Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile to the letter; in that composite biography, the hero eventually gets rejected by the gods or by his people.

It is, however, contrary to the behavior of those who follow eccentric religious movements; there are always some who stand by their leaders even when doing so results in disaster.

Roman historians were interested in LOTS of things, including the doings of distant parts of Rome's realm.

He had had an epileptic fit or something -- which changed him from a zealous opponent to a zealous proponent. Paul was not what one would call a disinterested witness.

Actually, there are better reasons. David Hume, 250 years ago, pointed out that reports of miracles had become rare when he had lived -- a conclusion still valid. Consider all the miracles that medieval saints had supposedly worked, and consider how the Vatican has to scrape the bottom of the barrel for miracles to attribute to recent would-be saints.

So either miracles have stopped happening or would-be chroniclers of miracles have shown more critical sense.

Hume also proposed this criterion for taking a reported miracle seriously: if the miracle's not happening would be an even bigger miracle.

So you accept the existence of deities of other religions, such as those of Mt. Olympus?

Also, "normal" people can have hallucinations and visions; I've experienced some rather weird dreams that would seem like I'm in another world.

Many miracles are either phenomena that follow known natural laws, or else are figments of the imagination. For example, our bodies have a fair amount of self-healing ability, and many diseases eventually get cured on their own. Furthermore, psychosomatic diseases can be cured by pure suggestion.

"Answered prayers" I'm not impressed by; if one remembers only the seemingly answered ones, one will get a great track record. Especially if the seemingly answered ones are events that would happen if one had not prayed.

However, others can and do make similar claims for religions and sects that you consider false.

However, deities of various religions have a tendency to communicate only with those religions' followers. The Virgin Mary and saints only communicate with Catholics and the like, Allah only communicates with Muslims, Hindu deities only communicate with Hindus, the deities of Mt. Olympus only communicate with Hellenic pagans, etc.

So if Mr. G. went on strike, the Universe would collapse?

However, a deity-less Universe is a simpler hypothesis; one less entity to explain.

The same can be said about the sacred texts of other religions.

BLoggins02

Can't we all just get along??!!?? ;-)

Seriously, I'm pleased that we've been able to have a civil conversation without resorting to name calling and intellectual dishonesty on either side.

*cough*randman*cough*

lpetrich said most of the stuff I wanted to say, and I realize that we could argue ad nauseum about this stuff, but I think we're both learning something so....

Several things here:

1) Yes, anthropologists have some pretty strong evidence that all cultures have or had a supernatural belief of some kind. Note that this does not neccessarily mean "God". The Yanomamo of South America, for example, believe in ancestor worship and spirits that inhabit people and objects, but they wouldn't know what you meant if you asked them "Do you believe in God?"

2) It's not arrogant and they aren't delusions. If you came to me and said you saw the baby Jesus in a manger on your kitchen table this morning, I would probably call that a delusion. However, people using simplistic explanations for things they cannot explain and to soothe the fear of the unknown is not delusional... just human nature. Yes, I am saying that ALL people suffer from a chronic tendency to anthropomorphize things that are not readily explainable in non-human terms. This includes me, so really I'm not being arrogant here (although I have been known to be before ).

3) Your mind has a funny way of reinforcing your beliefs. When I was a kid, I used to stay up on christmas eve trying to listen for Santa. Every year, I swore up and down I heard sleighbells and reindeer hooves on the roof. Did I?

4) As far as Agnosticism/Atheism, I don't want to open that can of worms, except to say that I would be more likely to make the statement "I don't know if God exists or not, but he sure hasn't said anything to me about it" than the statement "There is no God". The latter is Strong Atheism (otherwise known as "big A" Atheism). The former is either weak atheism, or non-theist agnosticism. Some agnostics say it is "impossible to know if God exists", or they may say the question is meaningless. This would be more of a noncognitivist position. So, are we tired of -isms yet?

(for the record: Ecclesiastes is probably one of my favorite books in the Bible)

As to your question: why do you think? If you are mortal, what does eternity equal? Immortality. Eternity is a meaningless hope if you're not around to witness it. It is no secret that living things want to stay living. Animals are rather instinctual about it (rather preferring not to get eaten), whereas humans are also very cerebral about it. We don't want to die! Since we very obviously DO die, many hope that perhaps there is more to death than death. Perhaps death is a transition to another life (a rebirth if you will). Again, this simply goes back to the fundamental desire of NOT WANTING TO DIE. Hey, I don't want to die, because that would really suck. Some Christians say that non believers have it easy (on earth anyway) for some reason, but I suggest the opposite. If I'm convinced that when I die, that's it (Which would be a perfectly valid common sense observation in the absence of another human telling you about religion), then that's obviously not a very pleasant thing for me to come to terms with.

Fair enough. I concede this point.

And if you can do so, more power to you. I cannot, simply because the scant evidence that we do have does not even begin to counter the reality that the ressurection claim contradicts almost everything we know about natural law and process. [cliche]Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.[/cliche]

Amazing? Absolutely. Awesome? Certainly. But miraculous (as in divine)? Developmental emryology explains how an embryo can physically develop from a single cell. Scientific work by people such as Stephen Wolfram (the creator of Mathematica) have done marvelous work showing how the recursive application of incredibly simple rules can create patterns and designs as or more complex than anything the universe has created (including us). So let me ask you, if every single facet of a baby's development is explainable via natural processes, what exactly is there left for God to do?

You make it sound like we're not inviting him to a cocktail party It is true that the beginning of the universe is SIMPLY explained by positing a Creator, but this hasn't really explained anything at all. Let's assume that tomorrow God showed up and rearranged the stars in the sky to read "I exist, and I created you" in every language. Well, there'd certainly be a lot of converts on this board! But we'd still want to know "but how did you do that?" Because saying God did it explains nothing except God did it.

Also, why is it simpler to posit an intelligent creator of an unintelligent universe? Surely you are conceding that there is at least one thing in existance (God in your case) which has either always existed (i.e. exists outside of time, which some theists like to say) or created itself. Well, why is it simple for this extremely powerful and extremely intelligent God to have this property, but not at all simple that there is simply no such thing as "nothing" and that the universe itself has always existed? Certainly the universe itself with its non-intelligence would be an easier thing to posit as "always being there".

Quantum physics has shown us that it is possible for matter and energy to come "from nothing", so why is it so impossible for this to have happened to the universe?

As has been pointed out, if you'll do some research into biblical scholarship you will find that there is no indication that any of the Gospel was written by eye witnesses. And we know that Paul himself was not a witness to the ressurection.

Also, contrary to the beliefs of most Christians, this whole concept of a dying and ressurecting godman who was born on Dec 25, performed miracles, and was resurrected on Easter for the purpose of saving mankind is FAR from an original Christian concept. If the concept already existed (which we know it did) the whole argument that this was simply too strange to have been made up simply goes out the window.

If Hell is merely the absense of God, and God wants to send me there because I wasn't willing to accept such incredible claims based on a translation of a translation of an interpretation of 2000 year old second hand biased testimony, then maybe that's where I need to be.

Ruy Lopez

To gixxer 750

quote:
What is wrong with the idea that Matthew (an eyewitness) wrote an authoritative text 30 to 40 years after the death of Christ from his own notes and recollections?

Plenty and a dead wrong statement. I just dropped in and I hope you don't mind.

Matthew, the disciple, according to tradition, did not write the gospel attributed to him. He was probably dead by 85 CE or unable to read and write due to failing eyesight.

The New American Bible, 1991 edition, states the following in the introductory to Matthew's gospel: "The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew is UNTENABLE because the gospel is based, in large part, on the gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus (Matthew) would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association."

The NAB continues: "Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after 70 AD, Matthew was composed certainly after that date, and probably at least a decade later since Mt's use of Mk presupposses a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post 70AD date is confirmed within the text by MT. 22,7 which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem."

Although,I am willing to answer point by point any biblical citation to prove a believer's assertion, don't you think you cannot prove a biblical belief by quoting the bible? That's like a tautology. A mountain of scholarly work which is not too different from the study of fossils demonstrates that tne Bible is not a historical account. The OT is the Jewish EPIC literature narrating origins up to the goal of a righteous temple state in Jerusalem. Epics contain folklore and myths like Beowulf, LOrd Randall and Camelot. The NT is literature dealing with a failed messianic aspiration with an invented victorious or triumphant ending. (Anyway who will believe a loser).

It is not sensible for intelligent people engaged in rational endeavors to prove a biblical belief with biblical passages.

tony

davidH

I'd just like to add some stuff here.

If you read what I wrote in another topic about whether the whole story of Jesus could have been made up it may be of some help.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000084&p=7" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000084&p=7</a>

Also on page 8. So it may be of some help.

Saying that I'll sumerise it here;

Do you think that if that story had been made up so many people in Isael would have come to Christ and become Christians?

If you went into your own town and started telling people there that there was this man in your town that healed people and made people rise from the dead - but that the authorites killed him and yet on the third day he rose from the dead.

What would the reaction of those people be?

"oh, really?! Well then how come I never heard about him?" - would be the general one.

The Gospels list towns where Jesus did the miracles....you think word in Israel wouldn't get out that this was a big fake?!
There would have been no believers at all!! Infact the person who wrote the gospels would have been hunted down by pilate for making him out to be a terrible judge - succombing to the people's wishes.


The one other thing that convinces me of the truth of what happened is that the old testiment tells of Jesus coming. The Jews had the Torah and prophets - way before Jesus came - there was no way that they could have known. Yet the prophecy is there - not vague - as soon as Jesus died all those passages came to light.

That convinces me more than anything. Because no man could have done that so accurately, therefore there must have been a God who is not limited to the boundaries of time, or is able to control everything.

That is an omnipotent God.

That is why I believe, no other religion has told the future like the Bible.

If you have never read the prophecies BLoggins 02 and the others then you must read them.
They aren't vague as some people try and shrug them off - they are afraid of the truth and will choose to ignore it.

I don't know why you felt uncomfortable with yourself BLoggins 02 when you were a Christian, cause I have never felt better.
I know that I am free, I have seen God's power - it's amazing.
I'm sure Gizzer750 will agree with me, he too will have probably read the prophecies.

BLoggins02

DavidH: I appreciate your reply, some thoughts:

You're ignoring the evidence that the earliest "Christians" were Gnostic Pagans who intended the Jesus story to be allegorical like all of the other Osiris/Dionysus/Mithra godmen. There is evidence that literalism appear MUCH later (perhaps 1 to 2 centuries later). I'm not an expert on this, and I'm not suggesting that it is the correct history and others are wrong, but I am saying that you are ignoring evidence that does not coincide with a literal interpretation of Q[Mk].

In fact, I did some armchair research and am currently writing a paper about the 50 or so most important messianistic prophecies (to Christians). Trust me, they only prophesize a Christian Christ if you're already convinced that they do, it takes some serious creative interpretation for some of them. Also, I've found that most prophecies are shown as fulfilled because a NEW TESTAMENT writer says "And thus is prophecy x of the OT fulfilled." This does not a prophecy make.

And why do you think I don't want Christianity (or some other form of theism) to be true? I think it would be nice to go to heaven and get to live forever and be in the presence of the creator of all existance and get to be with my loved ones. That's a really nice thought. Unfortunately, wishing something to be true does not make it so.

Because *GASP*, I'm not you. I felt uncomfortable simply because I could not believe in God no matter how hard I tried. I love how people talk about God's power. Reggie White once claimed it was a miracle that God healed his legs. That's great, I wonder why God cares more about a millionare making it to his next Packers game than the millions of children dying in third world countries simply because they need rain

I'm sure he would, being that he's a Christian. I tell you what, I'll take the bait. Give me an example of what you think are THREE of the most accurate prophecies in the OT concerning the coming of Christ, and I will show you why 70% of the world's population is going to burn in hell for all eternity because they don't buy it.

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>

Eudaimonist

DavidH,

There are people today who believe in Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster, alien spacecraft, alien abductions, channelers, psychic readings, etc, etc, etc. Credulity knows no bounds with some people, even in this modern age.

Keep in mind the cultural tone of the first century Hellenistic/Judaic world. They had dozens of competing mystery religions. They lived in an age of uncertainty and instability, where many were eager to believe in Savior gods and supernatural occurances.

Yes, I think that the people of that time were not generally hardened skeptics, but were eager to believe just about anything.

NOGO

A resurrection of a dead man is an extraordinary event. One which is hard to take as historical unless rather extraordinary evidence is given.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This simle rule is followed by everyone in day to day living.

Is the evidence of Jesus' resurrection extraordinary? Let's see. This is from memory.

Matthew:
Mary comes to the tomb on Sunday morning. It is dawning. The tomb is sealed. There is an earthquake. An angel descends from heaven and rolls of the stone away and comes to sit on it.
He tells Mary that Jesus is not there and to go to Galilee where he will meet them. Mary leaves afraid but happy to know that Jesus is ok. She meets him on the way back to town.

John:
Mary comes to the tomb it is still dark and the tomb is open and empty. Mary thinks that Jesus' body has been stolen. She leaves the area with that tought. On the way back she meets Peter and John. The three return to the tomb. After checking the empty tomb the men leave. Mary is left behind and meets a man whom she thinks is the gardener. She still thinks that the body was stolen and then recognizes Jesus.

These two stories are so different that they are NOT reconcilable. They cannot both be true. One of these two gentlemen simply made the story up or maybe both were made up.

If this event is historical then why is it that someone along the way did not say "no no no that version is wrong this is the way it really happened?"

If this event is historical why did one of these two gentlemen think that he could simply fabricate a story and pass it off as true?

This evidence is not only NOT extraordinary to match the extraordinary claim; it is contradictory. When a detective is doing an investigation and witnesses contradict one another then he does not believe any of them. The idea is not only that some witnesses are lying but also that they must have a reason to lie.

Why did one of the two Gospel writers fabricate the resurrection story?

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Ruy Lopez

Quote Bloggins02:

"Also I've found out that most prophecies are shown as fulfilled because a NT writer says (And thus is prophecy x of the OT fulfilled)".
-----------------------------------------

There is another reason for the seeming fulfillment of OT prophecies in NT accounts--composing made to order stories after the fact with the aid of hindsight.

How was Jesus made to appear as descended from David? Simple. Tha authors of Matthew and Luke? constructed a genealogy tracing the begats from David to Joseph. Of course they could not even do a good job. Compare the two gospel genealogies and you will see glaring differences. After this mistake, the NT compounds the problem by saying that the Holy Spirit fathered the child through a virgin. What happened to the David/Joseph line?

Another example of how the trick is done. In the synoptics, Jesus is described as predicting the destruction of Jerusalem forty years later, which has an effect of enhancing Jesus to the level of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The NT writers can't make a mistake because the gospels were written after 70 CE with clear hindsight.

You can examine the other "prophecies" and you will find a natural explanation. The idea is to tailor-made NT stories to agree or fulfill OT accounts. That Jesus died is no prophetic fulfillment. Thousands also were executed including charlatans, seers, and rebels.

Bracer

Quite right. It's trivially easy to write of a "prophecy" coming true after the fact.

It's also worth pointing out how the NT writers got things wrong a number of times, like the famous mistranslation of "virgin" instead of the correct "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14. The author of Matthew even has Jesus somehow riding into Jerusalem on the back of both an ass and a colt, because he misread a bit of poetic repetition in Zechariah 9:9.

If that's not proof they were writing events to fit the prophecies, I don't know what is.

ex-preacher

It seems to be there are at least four hurdles that a purported prophecy-fulfillment must overcome:

1. the prophecy must have occurred prior to the fulfillment

2. the prophecy must be specific, intentionally prophetic, and improbable of being fulfilled in the ordinary course of events

3. the fulfillment was not staged for the specific purpose of fulfilling a prophecy (example: Jesus riding in on a donkey to consciously fulfill such a prophecy)

4. there is proof that the fulfillment actually ocurred and was not invented by later believers

In carefully studying hundreds of supposed prophecy/fulfillment passages in the Bible, I have yet to encounter one that successfully jumped all four hurdles.