Apologetics Thread!!!

Soul Winner

I think the best thing to do before defending the objections that present themselves to the Christian faith is to actually hear some objections first. So the best way to proceed with this thread is to ask skeptics, agnostics and atheists what their objections to the stories about Jesus in the New Testament particularly the account of the resurrection actually are.

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

All are welcome to respond with valid arguments relevant to this thread and all are welcome to respond to those objections but let us be civil to each other and make our points without resorting to ad hominem attacks to fellow posters or the people they cite and quote. Please stick to the arguments being made and stay on topic.

Obviously as a Christian I feel that the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection stand up very well to past and current scrutiny and would pass any test of historicity that the skeptics will throw up.

Were the Gospel writers actually recording history when they wrote the doings and sayings ascribed to Jesus? Or where their stories mere projections of divinity added over time onto the Jesus they walked and talked with acuminating in the Christ of faith we have today?

Forgive me if I cannot respond to every reply but there are many here that can adequately respond should they wish. This thread is for everyone and I will try me best to pop back and reply to as many responses that I can.

OK fire away

lugha

Let me throw in a fairly low brow, mundane problem I have with the resurrection. When seeking to understand or explain something I would generally hitch my wagon to Occam's razor, look for the most plausible explanation. The problem with the resurrection is that, in the context of how we understand how the natural world works, it has zero plausibility. People do not return from the dead. A Christian can of course accept on faith that the resurrection did in fact happen but I was genuinely astonished to find several Christian posters here denying this and insisting that personal convictions aside, the resurrection of Christ is the most plausible explanation of a historical event (presumably because of the witnesses and also because of how Christianity expanded subsequently). It is not more plausible, and just as consistent with the evidence, to suggest that the witnesses merely believed that they witnessed the resurrection of Christ?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics?

Because they are all written by the followers of a religion (not necessarily the most unbiased observers) and they describe fantastical supernatural things.

Various theories I've heard put forward is that they were pobably telling the truth because of various reasons, such as why would they lie, why would they be prepared to die if they were lying, why did the Romans not present the body etc etc

These excuses are, in my opinion, the very evidence that these are not good historical sources. No one looks at Hitlers biography and wonders "Why would he lie!? Would make no sense!", no one looks at the Jonestown deaths and goes "Jones must have been a miracle worker, otherwise why would they die for him". These excuses for the Bible are not applied to anything else, why make an exception for the Bible. Or at least why would a non-believer make an exception for the Bible?

All these discussions about the historical accuracy of the Bible always end up with Christians putting forward some what wacky, in my opinion, excuses for why these accounts, particularly of the resurrection, are valid and then demanding that they be proved wrong, which is really not where the discussion should go. If someone is claiming that something is historically accurate they should present why, not demand that someone prove otherwise.

So hopefully this thread will avoid that sort of thing, as it becomes a tedious as someone saying Prove to me God doesn't exist!

Turtwig

Edit : Oops misread thread..

Are we allowed to discuss OT stuff?

Ickle Magoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

Ironically, the idea of applying logic to supernatural events is probably the crux of the conundrum. The more fanciful and illogical the tale, the less likely I think it is to be the true version of events. When I add together who is telling the tale, their motivation for making the tale extraordinary and add it to the other supernatural events that are written in the Bible and their likelihood (eg Genesis) then I have to come to the conclusion that the NT miracles are more of the same fantasy genre as the OT.

PDN

lugha wrote: »

Let me throw in a fairly low brow, mundane problem I have with the resurrection. When seeking to understand or explain something I would generally hitch my wagon to Occam's razor, look for the most plausible explanation. The problem with the resurrection is that, in the context of how we understand how the natural world works, it has zero plausibility. People do not return from the dead. A Christian can of course accept on faith that the resurrection did in fact happen but I was genuinely astonished to find several Christian posters here denying this and insisting that personal convictions aside, the resurrection of Christ is the most plausible explanation of a historical event (presumably because of the witnesses and also because of how Christianity expanded subsequently). It is not more plausible, and just as consistent with the evidence, to suggest that the witnesses merely believed that they witnessed the resurrection of Christ?

That depends to a certain extent on your initial presuppositions.

If you start from a position of atheism, accompanied by a belief that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead, then any other explanation will be more plausible.

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

Maybe, but that opens up a whole other can of worms.
If you assume God exists and that He could raise someone from the dead, namely Himself, then you would have to ask 'why'.
Why did he resurrect Jesus? Why not just leave Him as dead as the dodo?

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

Maybe, but that opens up a whole other can of worms.
If you assume God exists and that He could raise someone from the dead, namely Himself, then you would have to ask 'why'.
Why did he resurrect Jesus? Why not just leave Him as dead as the dodo?

Sorry, I really don't get your point at all. While I can see a number of reasons why God raised Jesus from the dead, I don't follow your reasoning. Why should your failure, or anyone else's failure, to discern the reason for God's actions constitute a 'can of worms'?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That depends to a certain extent on your initial presuppositions.

If you start from a position of atheism, accompanied by a belief that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead, then any other explanation will be more plausible.

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

Some what ironically I agree with you 100%. We should not assume that it is impossible that Jesus rose from the dead.

The issue though is that not assuming this doesn't make him rising from the dead any more likely.

Given two contrasting possibilities, that Jesus did rise from the dead or that his followers merely mistakenly believed he did, the later is still miles ahead of the former in terms of plausibility.

Religious followers are mistaken about things like this all the time. If we accept that this happened merely because his followers thought it did then we should really be accepting of pretty much every religious claim going.

The only way this story gains plausibility over the far more likely explanation that his followers were mistaken as so many other religious followers have been in the past, is if you start inserting theistic assumptions (God exists, he could raise someone if he liked, Jesus could be his son)

And you then move from agnostic firmly into the theistic realm.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I really don't get your point at all. While I can see a number of reasons why God raised Jesus from the dead, I don't follow your reasoning. Why should your failure, or anyone else's failure, to discern the reason for God's actions constitute a 'can of worms'?

The agnostic viewpoint means we have to consider the possibilities and how plausible they really were e.g why these possibilities could be chosen by God.
It'd be far easier if we just assume either:
a) It's all a myth and discuss the evidence.
b) It actually happened and discuss the evidence.

Options a) and b) acknowledge the story the way it was told and simply set about proving/disproving it. The agnostic skeptic should be thorough and ask:
"Why this possibility?"

lugha

PDN wrote: »

That depends to a certain extent on your initial presuppositions.

If you start from a position of atheism, accompanied by a belief that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead, then any other explanation will be more plausible.

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

But then how are we to judge the veracity of any historical event, or any other kind for that matter?
If God may intercede in our affairs and violate natural laws (which without his intervention would be immutable) then we have no possibility of understanding anything. Perhaps the theory of gravity is all nonsense. There may be no attractive force between massive bodies, it may be an on going act of God. And we cannot discount this on the basis that there is no good reason for God to this, we are not competent to assess his motives. He may well have fabricated all our evidence for evolution to test out faith as some suggest. He may have forged historical documents, again for good reason that we cannot know. If you admit an omnipotent being who involves himself in earthly matters and if you concede that we are not equipped to assess his motives then we can have little confidence in any knowledge of science, history or anything else we acquire in this world.

Rev Hellfire

One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

For Christians, of course, this would be tied to our belief that man is made in the image of God. That image is marred through sin (hence we have ungodly emotions as will) but enough remains to explain the similarities.

PDN

lugha wrote: »

But then how are we to judge the veracity of any historical event, or any other kind for that matter?
If God may intercede in our affairs and violate natural laws (which without his intervention would be immutable) then we have no possibility of understanding anything. Perhaps the theory of gravity is all nonsense. There may be no attractive force between massive bodies, it may be an on going act of God. And we cannot discount this on the basis that there is no good reason for God to this, we are not competent to assess his motives. He may well have fabricated all our evidence for evolution to test out faith as some suggest. He may have forged historical documents, again for good reason that we cannot know. If you admit an omnipotent being who involves himself in earthly matters and if you concede that we are not equipped to assess his motives then we can have little confidence in any knowledge of science, history or anything else we acquire in this world.

Well, if you want to take that kind of opt-out you can. Maybe everything is an illusion and you're really stuck in a pod like in the Matrix.


Most of the human race doesn't have a problem with allowing for the possibility of God's existence while still weighing up the probability of various scenarios.

chozometroid

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

I don't get this "problem" you seem to have. You seem to be looking at it backwards. The question should be, "assuming such an entity exists, is it reasonable to expect the humans it creates to have some of the emotions which are commonly attributed to it?"

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Most of the human race doesn't have a problem with allowing for the possibility of God's existence while still weighing up the probability of various scenarios.

That is because most humans find it easy to view nature as a human like agent that does things for human like reasons.

That doesn't mean that this has nice neat logical consequences, quite the opposite in fact.

monosharp

Its impossible for me to comment here without mentioning the OT.

I have a deep dislike for the OT and the god/people therein. Thats all I'll say about it here since it is off topic.

As for the NT, I actually quite like a lot of the stories there and I do believe many of them contain a good moral message.

As for it been a historically accurate document, I can't agree at all. Perhaps there was a historical Jesus, I have no problem with it been true or not, but there basically isn't much evidence to support that at all.

We have other historical accounts of people referenced by two or even more separate sources which are still under a lot of scrutiny.

Altogether I don't dislike the NT, its a religious text that contains some good stories.

I do dislike the way Christianity developed since its inception and the control it had/has over peoples lives and politics. e.g > The Holy Roman Empire, JesusLand etc.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't get this "problem" you seem to have. You seem to be looking at it backwards. The question should be, "assuming such an entity exists, is it reasonable to expect the humans it creates to have some of the emotions which are commonly attributed to it?"

Why would that be the question since we aren't starting from the position of assuming this entity exists (if I'm following the point of this thread correct)?

The question should be if humans were going to imagine gods would we imagine them as being like us. And we find across cultures and religions we do. Gods are defined as powerful human like agents.

So this established (that if we are going to imagine a supernatural agent acting in nature we are going to imagine it as a human like supernatural agent in nature, this is pretty easy to show), we then look at the Christian god. And he turns out to be a human like supernatural agent who does things for human like reasons.

Now that doesn't mean he is not real. But it does put him on par with every other supernatural agent we know humans tend to invent.

There is no point having this discussion if we assume the Christian God exists and is as described in the Bible. Where exactly is the defence of Christian belief if we are all Christians to start with? This whole thing just becomes an exercise in circular reasoning.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

That is because most humans find it easy to view nature as a human like agent that does things for human like reasons.

This is like the 1,000,000th time you have stated this. It doesn't discredit belief in God one iota. If God and the supernatural exist, then surely people will have the tendency to not always see a purely naturalistic view of things.

chozometroid

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would that be the question since we aren't starting from the position of assuming this entity exists (if I'm following the point of this thread correct)?

The question should be if humans were going to imagine gods would we imagine them as being like us. And we find across cultures and religions we do. Gods are defined as powerful human like agents.

So this established (that if we are going to imagine a supernatural agent acting in nature we are going to imagine it as a human like supernatural agent in nature, this is pretty easy to show), we then look at the Christian god. And he turns out to be a human like supernatural agent who does things for human like reasons.

Now that doesn't mean he is not real. But it does put him on par with every other supernatural agent we know humans tend to invent.

There is no point having this discussion if we assume the Christian God exists and is as described in the Bible. Where exactly is the defence of Christian belief if we are all Christians to start with? This whole thing just becomes an exercise in circular reasoning.

Maybe you should read the post I quoted from, or better yet, the quote that I actually had in my post.

Originally Posted by Rev Hellfire
One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Well, if you want to take that kind of opt-out you can. Maybe everything is an illusion and you're really stuck in a pod like in the Matrix.

I'm not sure that's an opt out on Lugha's behalf.

You're basically saying that anything is possible e.g the Pod in the Matrix, the universe was created last thursday etc etc.
Would you not accept that it is far more plausible that Jesus was 'beamed' up to a spaceship and cloned by a bunch of aliens than actually resurrected?

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not sure that's an opt out on Lugha's behalf.

You're basically saying that anything is possible e.g the Pod in the Matrix, the universe was created last thursday etc etc.
Would you not accept that it is far more plausible that Jesus was 'beamed' up to a spaceship and cloned by a bunch of aliens than actually resurrected?

I'm gonna jump in here....

You are proposing that an alien took Jesus' dead tissue and grew a clone from Him, thereby created a new Jesus? Did the alien transfer memories and things too?

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not sure that's an opt out on Lugha's behalf.

You're basically saying that anything is possible e.g the Pod in the Matrix, the universe was created last thursday etc etc.
Would you not accept that it is far more plausible that Jesus was 'beamed' up to a spaceship and cloned by a bunch of aliens than actually resurrected?

No, while not starting from a presupposition of that being impossible, it does not therefore follow that it is plausible.

My point was that avoiding a dogmatic atheistic starting point will alter one's views of what is plausible. Both yourself and Lugha seem to want to argue that avoiding a dogmatic atheistic starting point makes all things equally plausible.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

This is like the 1,000,000th time you have stated this. It doesn't discredit belief in God one iota. If God and the supernatural exist, then surely people will have the tendency to not always see a purely naturalistic view of things.

It does however confuse the issue of the supernatural a heck of a lot. I mean we are wired to believe stuff yet most of those beliefs have turned out to be false. Extrapolating a little bit leaves all beliefs as being wrong.
Indeed, I would argue more for ignosticism we cannot yet define any such supernatural being that created the world and we almost certainly not created in its image.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm gonna jump in here....

You are proposing that an alien took Jesus' dead tissue and grew a clone from Him, thereby created a new Jesus? Did the alien transfer memories and things too?

Even though it's outlandish it's still more plausible than resurrection. Yep, the aliens created the perfect clone of Jesus that actually though it was Jesus.:)

Overheal

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

Well what we were taught in school. Actually an Irish Catholic school :pac: was that Historical documents, are only as strong as their references. First hand accounts, media, second hand accounts, etc.

The issue being that outside of the New Testament, there is little reference or evidence to go off of which would verify that Jesus did in fact undergo a resurrection. While there is an always growing amount of evidence that helps prove he was a man who lived over 2000 years ago, theres less to suggest that he rose from the dead.

All are welcome to respond with valid arguments relevant to this thread and all are welcome to respond to those objections but let us be civil to each other and make our points without resorting to ad hominem attacks to fellow posters or the people they cite and quote. Please stick to the arguments being made and stay on topic.

Ad Hominem is without a doubt the best term I have learned all year.

Obviously as a Christian I feel that the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection stand up very well to past and current scrutiny and would pass any test of historicity that the skeptics will throw up.

I can't offer up proof of something - I dont feel anyway - never happened. I'd at least like to suggest the burden of proof lay with the believer to provide historical backups outside of religious scripture that help verify that Jesus may have in fact undergone a resurrection.

Were the Gospel writers actually recording history when they wrote the doings and sayings ascribed to Jesus? Or where their stories mere projections of divinity added over time onto the Jesus they walked and talked with [accumulating] in the Christ of faith we have today?

Its an excellent question. The first problem as I understand it was that the Gospels were written and re-written/copied several times over the course of 30 years for some of the Disciples wasnt it? I wonder if by some chance they didnt agree to certain additions over time to increase interest in their work. I wont degrade Jesus by calling him the Balloon Boy or anything, but if you were going to tell people this guy rose from the dead and was the son of god, you get a lot more viewership, and far more people interested in your ideals and morals and your beliefs: most of which I had thought were founded in the parables.
Dont get me wrong, I've never completed the bible and have only read the scattered passage. But I was always less interested in what I might consider "The Fluff" and more interested in the Core Values that get established in those parables and such. Leaving the weeds for the harvest and all that.

I have no problem accepting that Jesus was a Man who had 12 disciples and did very charitable deeds. But I just feel the accuracy of the reports have been grossly exaggerated.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Even though it's outlandish it's still more plausible than resurrection. Yep, the aliens created the perfect clone of Jesus that actually though it was Jesus.:)

Maybe the aliens, with their advanced technology, had a way to reset/reactivate the current DNA as opposed to growing a new person through cloning.

What we currently know as being dead is only when the brain's electrical activity has ceased and is there is an inability to resume brain activity. Certainly this is only due to our limits in knowledge, and our definition of "dead" and "death" will continue to change.

Also, what makes a resurrection so hard to believe when you consider that life did not always exist? If life can come from non-life, and certainly it must(unless you believe life originally came from "potentially life-producing" particles, which doesn't change anything) then the resurrection is nothing more fantastic.

Turtwig

chozometroid wrote: »

Also, what makes a resurrection so hard to believe when you consider that life did not always exist? If life can come from non-life, and certainly it must(unless you believe life originally came from "potentially life-producing" particles, which doesn't change anything) then the resurrection is nothing more fantastic.

:eek:
You just stumped me on myself there (not sure that makes sense?)
I just realised that I always just assumed the resurrection was implausible merely because it defied common sense - a grave error.
So let's get science fiction/speculating.
If you have the exact details of the brains neurons just before the subjects death and then supposedly you posses the knowledge to re-ignite the cells then I see no reason why a resurrection wouldn't be possible.
Food for thought, thanks Chozo

Must point out though Chozo,
Life from non life is viewed as a naturalistic. If the resurrection appears so, then Jesus's ultimate feat is toned down a notch or two:p.

PDN

Malty_T wrote: »

I always just assumed the resurrection was implausible merely because it defied common sense - a grave error.

Probably unintentional - but a terrible pun nonetheless.

Turtwig

PDN wrote: »

Probably unintentional - but a terrible pun nonetheless.

*Needs Sleep*

Morbert

We're used to the natural laws being invariant. This assumption not only allows us to make sense of the world, but it has great efficacy: The assumption actually tells us what to expect, and has been affirmed by countless scientific tests. It is a trustworthy assumption (call it faith if you must. It makes no difference to me), even though we cannot be certain it is true.

The resurrection clearly violates this assumption. This doesn't mean we declare the resurrection to be "impossible", but it does mean we are very suspicious of the resurrection, and while the Biblical account certainly demands attention, we will ask for strong evidence before we relax the assumption mentioned above, which is perfectly sensible.

When I discuss the issue of the resurrection directly with Christians, they (normally) tend to take one of two attitudes. The first is to claim that historical evidence clearly points to the resurrection, and that to deny it is unreasonable. The second is to claim that it would have been "too easy" if Jesus had left clear evidence that he rose from the dead. There would be no need to take a "leap of faith" which would be bad. Both viewpoints confuse me. But this is ultimately beside the point.

I think the main problem most atheists have with Christianity is the lack of Christ in their lives. Christianity makes claims about a personal God, and if that God does not get personal with us then there is some predictable skepticism. The response to this concern is usually along the lines of "You're not looking hard enough." or "God is absent because you have sinned against Him." or "Keep searching with your heart and you will eventually find Him.", which doesn't really help with the concern. It is one thing if we are dealing with an atheist who doesn't want to believe (an anti-theist like Hitchens, for example). But if someone is genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God, but sees no sign of that God, then Christianity will be lost to them, and no amount of apologetics will change that.

lugha

PDN wrote: »

My point was that avoiding a dogmatic atheistic starting point will alter one's views of what is plausible.

Again I note my starting point which is that some Christians argue that the resurrection of Jesus from the dead is the probable explanation (as a historical fact) of the pertaining evidence. Thus an argument for the veracity of Christianity may logically start here, even though this is obviously not the first of the miracles attributed to Jesus. And like any argument, if it is to avoid circular logic, it must begin by acknowledging that all of its claims are initially just conjectures, and thereafter proceed to establish a credible case for each claim. The obvious starting position (you choose to call it the atheist position, I don't) is that we have the nature world and its rigid, invariant laws and no known supernatural forces or phenomena. The Christian apologist must make the case that an omnipotent being exists, who can, does and did manipulate (for want of a better word) these laws. If you permit, as your make your argument, that there may be an omnipotent God, then you are appealing to the conclusion of your argument to help you make it. That is circular logic.
But lets leave that problem aside and let me permit that the resurrection was possible. Was is likely?
I think it is useful to change the context of the question of the resurrection and consider the following. Imagine contemporary media reports of a primitive tribe in some part of the globe that report that one of their number has being resurrected from the dead, and you are assessing the credibility of this claim. I fully expect you would take the equivalent of what you call the atheist starting point and would probably deem the claim unworthy of assessing. You would I suggest, say that such things do not happen, there is nothing here worthy of serious consideration. (If you do not take this view, then you presumably spend an inordinate amount of time evaluating Elvis sightings, Alien abductions, ghost hunters, spirituals mediums and psychics etc.) However, suppose you were to consider a modern day resurrection, just as I might take what you might feel is a more open minded view on the resurrection of Christ and thus admit the possibility of an omnipotent being for consideration. Isn't there still, as had being pointed out, plenty of more mundane possible explanations? Mistaken identify? Deception (by the witnesses or possibly those who took their testimonies)? A curious medical, coma like event? And even if you cannot identify a cause, strange things do happen. I suspect (?) you do not accept the various Marian apparitions recognized by the Catholic church? But my understanding is that many of the witnesses to these were adamant about what they saw, and remained so throughout their life.

PDN

lugha wrote: »

The obvious starting position (you choose to call it the atheist position, I don't) is that we have the nature world and its rigid, invariant laws and no known supernatural forces or phenomena.

Obvious to who? Obvious to you and those who share your presuppositions, but not obvious to most people.

monosharp

Okay my problem with the crucifixion and resurrection.

1. Resurrection as a defining religious belief is not new, the idea was quite old before Christianity so if your 'creating' a religion, resurrection is a basic requirement at this time.

2. Jesus/God died, to save us from Jesus/God. Whatever kind of spin you put on it thats what it comes down to. It just doesn't sit well with me.

3. I don't see Jesus' death as that big a deal. So he died ? So what ? Millions of people have died, you could take out a history book and come up with thousands of people who have sacrificed themselves in far more gruesome ways then crucifixion. But the way people try to portray it is as the worst possible suffering anyone could endure. Granted it was the worst the Roman Empire could come up with as an official execution but that means very little.

In that time and society people were probably very fearful of crucifixion so naturally they seen it as the 'worst' way to go.

What exactly was so important here ?

4. Proof, or rather the lack thereof. We basically have the word of religious people written at minimum 50 years after the incident and thats it. We have no references that I am aware of.

Let me give you one example of a commonly held 'belief' that is just plain wrong. The battle of Thermopylae, 480 B.C.

Ask just about anyone thats not a historian what numbers were on both sides and they will throw up 1,000,000 Persians against 300 Spartans. A commonly held belief, a nice story but completely false.

And we have many sources for these numbers.

On the Persians total army (not the army at Thermopylae, but the total number of troops on land and sea).
Herodotus claimed that there were, in total, 2.5 million military personnel, accompanied by an equivalent number of support personnel.
The poet Simonides, who was a near-contemporary, talks of four million.
Ctesias gave 800,000 as the total number of the army that was assembled by Xerxes.

On the Greeks you have a total of about 5000 to 8000 (at Thermopylae) depending on whose sources you believe made up from around 13 different city states.

The numbers in the battle among many things are hotly debated and we have a huge amount of evidence including many references from both sides of the war, Greek and Persian.

This is why I can't take the Bible as a historically accurate document.

chozometroid

Morbert wrote: »

We're used to the natural laws being invariant. This assumption not only allows us to make sense of the world, but it has great efficacy: The assumption actually tells us what to expect, and has been affirmed by countless scientific tests. It is a trustworthy assumption (call it faith if you must. It makes no difference to me), even though we cannot be certain it is true.

The resurrection clearly violates this assumption. This doesn't mean we declare the resurrection to be "impossible", but it does mean we are very suspicious of the resurrection, and while the Biblical account certainly demands attention, we will ask for strong evidence before we relax the assumption mentioned above, which is perfectly sensible.

When I discuss the issue of the resurrection directly with Christians, they (normally) tend to take one of two attitudes. The first is to claim that historical evidence clearly points to the resurrection, and that to deny it is unreasonable. The second is to claim that it would have been "too easy" if Jesus had left clear evidence that he rose from the dead. There would be no need to take a "leap of faith" which would be bad. Both viewpoints confuse me. But this is ultimately beside the point.

Certainly natural laws(though not actual laws) are invariant. God made the universe and He had to make it work, so things do what things should do. God wants us to be able to actually live in a state of peace and go about some sort of healthy routine in our lives while learning, observing, and being able to trust our own senses (not saying they are infallible).
However, allowing for the supernatural does not necessitate our reality being one of chaos. It's only if you don't believe in God that you will find there to be a "violation" of what is normal. It's the same with any situation where something is or is not involved. If something "unknown" is involved, then something "known" will always take the credit for the effects of the "unknown." Now, some of us believe this "unknown" is in fact, a "known" and give it the credit it deserves.
I know this is a bit off the topic of the resurrection, because it does not address the actual evidence of the event, but it's something I wanted to point out.

I think the main problem most atheists have with Christianity is the lack of Christ in their lives. Christianity makes claims about a personal God, and if that God does not get personal with us then there is some predictable skepticism. The response to this concern is usually along the lines of "You're not looking hard enough." or "God is absent because you have sinned against Him." or "Keep searching with your heart and you will eventually find Him.", which doesn't really help with the concern. It is one thing if we are dealing with an atheist who doesn't want to believe (an anti-theist like Hitchens, for example). But if someone is genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God, but sees no sign of that God, then Christianity will be lost to them, and no amount of apologetics will change that.

Now, this passage is a bit saddening to me. I wonder if this truly is the case, what you say about the problem being "a lack of Christ in their lives." I certainly have a hard time believing, or accepting, that someone who is "genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God" not seeing any sign of God. I have to wonder if being open to the idea is really what it takes. Not all religous folk believe in God just because they are enthusiastic about the idea of a loving God. Perhaps the seed was not sown in the right soil, as the parable goes.

Matthew 13
3And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
4And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
5Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
6And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
8But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

(The meaning follows....)
18Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.

19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.

20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;

21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

22He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.

23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

Morbert

The violation I was referring to was the uniformity of the laws of motion in the universe, such as those governing potassium ions in Jesus's brain. They would have to temporarily change in order for Jesus to spring to life without any potential difference (voltage) across his brain. And while relaxing the assumption doesn't imply chaos, the repeated affirmation of the assumption and its efficacy means atheists are going to look for strong evidence if it is challenged.

chozometroid wrote: »

Now, this passage is a bit saddening to me. I wonder if this truly is the case, what you say about the problem being "a lack of Christ in their lives." I certainly have a hard time believing, or accepting, that someone who is "genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God" not seeing any sign of God. I have to wonder if being open to the idea is really what it takes. Not all religous folk believe in God just because they are enthusiastic about the idea of a loving God. Perhaps the seed was not sown in the right soil, as the parable goes.

[edit]-Upon initially reading the parable I thought it was placing the blame on the preachers of the gospel, but that might be a misreading. Either way, the parable seems to be addressed to people who are already Christians. It is a way of saying "you can't win 'em all." perhaps. It's a nice story but does little to engage with atheist concerns.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

OK I think I should interject at this point. Is there anyone here that objects to the Gospels as being accurate historical accounts of what the historical Jesus said and did going to give us an example of what they consider to be an accurate historical account of anything in the ancient world? And if so why do you think that it is an accurate account? What criteria has it passed in order for you to come to that conclusion?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

OK I think I should interject at this point. Is there anyone here that objects to the Gospels as being accurate historical accounts of what the historical Jesus said and did going to give us an example of what they consider to be an accurate historical account of anything in the ancient world? And if so why do you think that it is an accurate account? What criteria has it passed in order for you to come to that conclusion?

You need to define accurate here.

Well I'll go with the life of Gaius Julius Caesar as what I consider a reliable historical account but again, you must define what you mean by accurate. While I am using Caesar as my example there are many aspects of his life which we are unsure of or which are very suspect.

What can we be absolutely certain of ? General information.
What can we be 'relatively' certain of ? Quite a lot.
What is hotly debated among historians ? Much more.

Lets deal with the absolute certain first.

There was a man named Gaius Julius Caesar who was a Roman military and political leader. He was involved in political alliances which dominated and controlled Roman politics for years. Caesars military campaigns in Gaul and Britain brought him unrivaled military power and political issues in Rome eventually led to a stand-off between Caesar and Pompey who sided with the Senate. This led to the Roman Republics civil war and Caesar emerged as the absolute leader of the Roman Republic/Empire.

After assuming control of the politics in Rome, he began extensive reforms of Roman society and government. He was eventually proclaimed "dictator in perpetuity" (dictator perpetuo) which was a new title but based on an old Republic title which was a temporary role. A group of Senators led by Marcus Junius Brutus assassinated Caesar in hopes of restoring the Republic.

This information is 'absolutely certain' based on various sources and references including;

Caesar's own Commentarii on his military campaigns, and other contemporary sources such as the letters and speeches of his political rival Cicero, the historical writings of Sallust, and the poetry of Catullus. Many more details of his life are recorded by later historians, such as Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio and Strabo.

What are we relatively certain of ?

The details of his campaigns in Gaul and the history he recorded about the ancient Gauls and other peoples he encountered. (Some aspects are no so certain, see below)
The dates of various things including his birth/death, rise to power, the Roman civil war etc.
The more specific details of his life including his early career, his family and their roles, the actual interpretation of his name etc.

Whats hotly debated ?
What you might expect, his character, his health, his assassination etc.

Is that a satisfactory answer ?

Soul Winner

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good response.

For one, Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead. Nor is it claimed in the New Testament that He naturally rose from he dead. Every account of the resurrection of Jesus in the New Testament states that ‘God’ raised Jesus from the dead. Now I know what you will say to this. That Jesus was God and therefore raised Himself. But the New Testament says that Jesus (The Word made flesh) emptied Himself of His power (Philippians 2:7) thus rendering Himself incapable of raising Himself and therefore trusted that the Father would raise Him according to His promise to Him (Acts 2:24). The Father who He consistently made reference to as being separate from Himself although of the same essence as Himself. "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 for example, yet "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew 24:36. The two are holding down separate roles. So if the account in Matthew was unhistorical and only showed what the later Church would have you believe about the deity and divinity of Christ, then why does this verse in Matthew limit Christ in His knowing of future events? This is one of many verses that gives credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts regarding Jesus. If they were later fabrications invented by the early church then they would not have limited Jesus in this way, hence giving credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts.

Plus you call the eyewitnesses accounts "Dubious". But what I want to know is why they are dubious? What criteria have they failed in order to be regarded as valid eyewitness’s accounts? And can you give me an example of a valid eyewitness account to any accepted ancient historical event? And if so, to explain why that example is a good example but the Gospel accounts are bad examples.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Lets deal with the absolute certain first.

There was a man named Gaius Julius Caesar who was a Roman military and political leader. He was involved in political alliances which dominated and controlled Roman politics for years. Caesars military campaigns in Gaul and Britain brought him unrivaled military power and political issues in Rome eventually led to a stand-off between Caesar and Pompey who sided with the Senate. This led to the Roman Republics civil war and Caesar emerged as the absolute leader of the Roman Republic/Empire.

After assuming control of the politics in Rome, he began extensive reforms of Roman society and government. He was eventually proclaimed "dictator in perpetuity" (dictator perpetuo) which was a new title but based on an old Republic title which was a temporary role. A group of Senators led by Marcus Junius Brutus assassinated Caesar in hopes of restoring the Republic.

This information is 'absolutely certain' based on various sources and references including;

Caesar's own Commentarii on his military campaigns, and other contemporary sources such as the letters and speeches of his political rival Cicero, the historical writings of Sallust, and the poetry of Catullus. Many more details of his life are recorded by later historians, such as Appian, Suetonius, Plutarch, Cassius Dio and Strabo.

So you are going by eyewitness testimony then? The question I want to know is why are these accounts MORE accurate historical accounts of the life of Caesar than the Gospel accounts are of Jesus? Did Caesar cross the Rubicon? And was his crossing due to a supernatural apparition?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

That Jesus was God and therefore raised Himself. But the New Testament says that Jesus (The Word made flesh) emptied Himself of His power (Philippians 2:7) thus rendering Himself incapable of raising Himself and therefore trusted that the Father would raise Him according to His promise to Him (Acts 2:24). The Father who He consistently made reference to as being separate from Himself although of the same essence as Himself. "I and the Father are one." John 10:30 for example, yet "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew 24:36. The two are holding down separate roles. So if the account in Matthew was unhistorical and only showed what the later Church would have you believe about the deity and divinity of Christ, then why does this verse in Matthew limit Christ in His knowing of future events? This is one of many verses that gives credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts regarding Jesus. If they were later fabrications invented by the early church then they would not have limited Jesus in this way, hence giving credence to the authenticity of the Gospel accounts.

You are authenticating information in a religious text using information in a religious text, the same religious text to be precise. Don't you see our issue with that ?

Plus you call the eyewitnesses accounts "Dubious". But what I want to know is why they are dubious? What criteria have they failed in order to be regarded as valid eyewitness’s accounts?

Because they are eyewitness accounts of people in the religion who are only important because of their eyewitness accounts written down by someone else equally as unknown who is also in that religion.

And can you give me an example of a valid eyewitness account to any accepted ancient historical account? And if so, to explain why that example is a good example but the Gospel accounts are bad examples.

Are you changing the terms now ? You asked for a historical account before, now its an eyewitness account ?

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

So you are going by eyewitness testimony then?

More or less.

The question I want to know is why are these accounts MORE accurate historical accounts of the life of Caesar than the Gospel accounts are of Jesus?

Because there are many different sources written by many different people with many different opinions.

Everyone who 'eye witnessed' Jesus was a nobody before it, eye witnessed it, then became a nobody again. They all were part of the religion and were followers of Jesus. The writer of these 'eye witness accounts' is also unknown and not backed up by anything.

The people talking about Caesar are also very famous for their writings, themselves backed up by primary references from others and so on. They also have vastly differing opinions on Caesar and different roles from supporter to opponent.

Did Caesar cross the reubicon? And was his crossing due to a supernatural apparition?

Did he cross it ? Almost certainly.

Did it cross it due to a supernatural apparition ? Where did you get that information from ?

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

You are authenticating information in a religious text using information in a religious text, the same religious text to be precise. Don't you see our issue with that ?

Yes I do. But what I want to know is why you have an issue with that given that you are quick to point to other texts with equally dubious origins and yet have no issue with that at all.

monosharp wrote: »

Because they are eyewitness accounts of people in the religion who are only important because of their eyewitness accounts written down by someone else equally as unknown who is also in that religion.

Like who? Who in the NT accounts are only important because they are in the NT account?

monosharp wrote: »

Are you changing the terms now ? You asked for a historical account before, now its an eyewitness account ?

Yes, which was my point. Why are your eyewitness accounts historical and yet the NT's aren't? Simple question really.

Soul Winner

monosharp wrote: »

Did he cross it ? Almost certainly.



Did it cross it due to a supernatural apparition ? Where did you get that information from ?

Just check Wiki

"Suetonius also described how Caesar was apparently still undecided as he approached the river, and the author gave credit for the actual moment of crossing to a supernatural apparition."

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I do. But what I want to know is why you have an issue with that given that you are quick to point to other texts with equally dubious origins and yet have no issue with that at all.

I really hope you are not trying to argue that the sources giving us our information on the Roman Republic during the time of Julius Caesar are as equally suspect as the Bible. I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume there has been a misunderstanding.

Please see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

Why is the existence of Caesar absolutely certain ?

- We have multiple documents, written by multiple sources during Caesars lifetime and many more afterwards. Those sources are in turn supported by other sources. i.e > We know Cicero was real because there were multiple sources written about him. All these varying sources, from very important individuals all support and agree on some fundamental facts about an individual named Gaius Julius Caesar.
We have accounts of Caesar from external non-Roman sources including the enemies of Rome.

- We have documents written by Caesar himself which also agree with the documents written by others.

- We have Caesars name inscribed all over Roman archeological artifacts.

Like who? Who in the NT accounts are only important because they are in the NT account?

Jesus for one. During his lifetime he did nothing of any importance to anyone besides his own followers. Christianity for its first few hundred years was one minority cult among many with barely a mention in any writings of the time, besides of course the religions own documents.

All the eyewitnesses in the gospels to the resurrection, they were of no historical importance to anyone in any way besides religious and within the religion itself.

What we know about Caesar we know because of his importance in Roman politics, the writings of other important Roman politicians, the writings of his enemies, archaeological evidence both Roman and external etc.

For example we know relatively little about Pontius Pilate but still his existence is more credible than Jesus as his existence is supported by a few different sources. Details of his life however are scant to say the least.

Yes, which was my point. Why are your eyewitness accounts historical and yet the NT's aren't? Simple question really.

The following principles are cited from two Scandinavian textbooks on source criticism, Olden-Jørgensen (1998) and Thurén (1997) written by historians:

Human sources may be relics (e.g. a fingerprint) or narratives (e.g. a statement or a letter). Relics are more credible sources than narrratives.

We have more relics then we can count for Caesar.

A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.

The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate description of what really happened

The writings supporting Caesar were written during his lifetime and afterwards.
The writings supporting Jesus were written well after his lifetime.

A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source, that is more reliable than a tertiary source and so on.

We have multiple accounts of Caesar written by people who knew him. (who in turn had multiple accounts written by people who knew them)
Your eyewitness accounts were not written by the eyewitnesses.

If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

We have multiple sources for Caesar.
We have one (two, Josephus ?) source for Jesus.

The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.

We have multiple accounts of Caesar by political allies, political enemies, military allies, military enemies. We have accounts of Caesar from within and outside the Roman Empire, all during his lifetime.

The gospels are religiously biased.

If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

As with Caesar we have multiple sources with no direct interest.

Not so with Jesus. (except possibly Josephus)

We may add the following principles:
Knowledge of source criticism cannot substitute subject knowledge:
"Because each source teaches you more and more about your subject, you will be able to judge with ever-increasing precision the usefulness and value of any prospective source. In other words, the more you know about the subject, the more precisely you can identify what you must still find out". (Bazerman, 1995, p. 304).

The reliability of a given source is relative to the questions put to it.
"The empirical case study showed that most people find it difficult to assess questions of cognitive authority and media credibility in a general sense, for example, by comparing the overall credibility of newspapers and the Internet. Thus these assessments tend to be situationally sensitive. Newspapers, television and the Internet were frequently used as sources of orienting information, but their credibility varied depending on the actual topic at hand" (Savolainen, 2007).

monosharp

Soul Winner wrote: »

Just check Wiki

"Suetonius also described how Caesar was apparently still undecided as he approached the river, and the author gave credit for the actual moment of crossing to a supernatural apparition."

Please see the core points for historical accuracy in my last post.

And no, I don't accept the above.

Rev Hellfire

Some of us have to sleep, so that's why the delay in responding

PDN wrote: »

For Christians, of course, this would be tied to our belief that man is made in the image of God. That image is marred through sin (hence we have ungodly emotions as will) but enough remains to explain the similarities.

You'll need to quantify that statement; what exactly do people mean when they say created in 'his image'. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume it's not physically similar, intellectually similar or of similar ability.

Its a bit of a non-committal answer to be honest, so I'll throw it back to you to refine and narrow the scope of the answer.

chozometroid wrote: »

The question should be, "assuming such an entity exists, is it reasonable to expect the humans it creates to have some of the emotions which are commonly attributed to it?"

And clearly the answer is no. Not that it couldn't or wouldn't, but rather why would it grant these attributes solely to some remarkable apes ?

I mean if you look at the animal kingdom (and we're limiting ourselves severely here in assuming this lump of rock orbiting a star is the sole location of life in a otherwise vast universe) similar emotions have been attributed to other species, and not all of them have been of the ape family.
We're not that unique as it turns out.

Are they all created in 'his image'? By your definition they are. Which is something I can accept much easier than the idea that we're 'special' if I'm to be honest.

lugha

PDN wrote: »

Obvious to who? Obvious to you and those who share your presuppositions, but not obvious to most people.

By obvious I mean as a starting point of the argument, not as a fixed unrevisable viewpoint. If I claim that I can demonstrate perpetual motion or run a car on water then I would say the obvious starting point is that such things are absolutely impossible. If someone can demonstrate them, then our understanding of what is or is not possible is wrong and we revise them (and a lot of our science notions). If I were to take an analogous approach to yours of the resurrection, I might argue, first that one must be agnostic rather than atheistic (or whatever the word would be) to the possibility of perpetual motion. Then I might point to some rotary machine whose power source is not evident and argue, we have agreed that we will consider that perpetual motion may be possible, therefore I conclude that that is probably what is going on here. Even if I ignore the difficulty I have with the overall logic here, I contend that there are far more mundane explanations for the resurrection.

Zombrex

chozometroid wrote: »

Maybe you should read the post I quoted from, or better yet, the quote that I actually had in my post.

My bad, read the post incorrectly. Cheerfully retracted

chozometroid wrote: »

This is like the 1,000,000th time you have stated this. It doesn't discredit belief in God one iota.

Of course it does. Humans are prone to inventing a certain type of supernatural agent in nature. God looks like this type of supernatural agent. This doesn't prove God is imaginary, but it lends support to such an idea.

Saying it doesn't discredit God is some what silly in my view. It is like saying just because humans are prone to seeing faces in shapes where no face actually exists doesn't discredit the Faces on Mars theory.

chozometroid wrote: »

If God and the supernatural exist, then surely people will have the tendency to not always see a purely naturalistic view of things.

Ok, now you are doing what I though you were above.

If there is a face on Mars then surely when people look at it they will see a face. Except the only reason people thought there was a face on Mars was because they saw a pattern that looked like a face, something we regularly do when no such face exists.

So that fact discredits the face on Mars idea, just like the fact that humans invent gods like the Christian god discredits the Christian god. Not proves doesn't exist, merely discredits. You require further, non-"I see a face" evidence, because that is inherently unreliable.

Religion has the same issue. We require evidence beyond "I think God exists" evidence, because this is inherently unreliable.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.