Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2
- Status
Too late, I’ve already devoured 3 Portuguese tarts I made on Sunday.
But my custard making requires some work.
Ok, no more Gary Abletting.
- Moderator
- #2,802
The tomb being empty is not evidence of resurrection. I myself have stood in an empty tomb in Jerusalem. Do I suppose that because it is empty that the original occupant was resurrected from the dead?
Paul's claim is unverifiable: Paul is making a very safe bet. He knew that no one he was speaking to or writing to would have the means and inclination to check up his claims. To have checked Paul’s claims would have required a lengthy and expensive journey, and then hunting around for the early church and trying to find the, now elderly, remnants of this group to verify these claims.
And it's not as if we don't have other religious leaders making fantastical claims in this era. Alexander of Abonoteichus started his own religion in about AD 160: Glycon was the god, and Alexander was his prophet.
Having circulated a prophecy that the son of Apollo was to be born again, Alexander contrived that there should be found in the foundations of the temple to Aesculapius, then in course of construction at Abonoteichus, an egg in which a small live snake had been placed. In an age of superstition Alexander had little difficulty in convincing them of the second coming of the god under the name of Glycon. A large tame snake with a false human head, wound round Alexander's body as he sat in a shrine in the temple,gave "autophones", or oracles unasked. The numerous questions asked of the oracle were answered by Alexander in metrical predictions. In his most prosperous year he is said to have delivered nearly 80,000 replies, concerning bodily, mental, and social afflictions. Alexander found believers from Pontus through to Rome through pretended arts of soothsaying and magic and was revered and consulted as a prophet by many notable individuals of his age.
Alexander tricked so many people into thinking he could perform miracles that they successfully petitioned the government to print coins with the image of Glycon on them. Even when the educated skeptic Lucian revealed Alexander’s tricks, his believers only defended Alexander all the more, sometimes violently.
Paul makes it clear that his experience of meeting Christ was visionary.
I Corinthians 15.
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
If Paul saw Christ, then he does not differentiate between his experience and that of the experience of others who "saw" before him. By his own testimony Paul's was clearly not a physical encounter and it is not clear that the others were physical either.
Paul was writing 20 years after the events he relates.
These people think so.
Is there any reason to believe that miracles actually occur? Or in the end can any "miracle" be explained by naturalistic causes. It's easy to speculate about the supernatural. Any claim can be made and it offers no way to check its methods or facts for accuracy.
The cause of lightning was once thought to be God's (or the gods') wrath, but turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God's wrath or intelligent meddling/intevention, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all.
“Probably”
Yeh, let’s see that work in a court of law and evidence.
May I enquire Roy, what do you believe is the greatest piece of individual evidence for the existence of the Yeshua, lamb of god, son of the Abrahamic god, or the son of Mary and Joseph, The Nazarene.
Let’s leave his superhero aside.
Did he exist as an agent?
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
The quote from Josephus is often claimed to be the strongest evidence, yet is likely fraudulent.
Of course, so is the Tacitus claim.
But my question was directed straight at Roylion, what is the most believable piece of evidence for Yeshua existing?
In your opinion?
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Supernatural claims can often be tested through scientific methodology. James Randi has done so many times.
In Mark 16: 18, the bible claims "they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Those are supernatural claims that can easily be tested scientifically.
- Jun 14, 2013
- 13,076
- 15,680
- AFL Club
- Essendon
I'm a strong antitheist who gets along well with many religious people including several right-wing fundamentalist Christians.Probably misled by your own admission: to-wit "Can I just enquire as to the claim made in bold, speaking as an anti-theist and also someone whom is militantly anti religious?"
I guess "anti-theist" and "militantly anti-religious" fits the definition fairly comfortably.
Hoisted with one's own petard.
Recognizing the dangers posed by faith/religion and seeking to oppose religion for the betterment of society is a perfectly reasonable and admirable position to take.
If they pass the scientific test then they aren’t miracles. Yes you need science to prove miracles.
The tomb being empty is not evidence of resurrection. I myself have stood in an empty tomb in Jerusalem. Do I suppose that because it is empty that the original occupant was resurrected from the dead?
Paul's claim is unverifiable: Paul is making a very safe bet. He knew that no one he was speaking to or writing to would have the means and inclination to check up his claims. To have checked Paul’s claims would have required a lengthy and expensive journey, and then hunting around for the early church and trying to find the, now elderly, remnants of this group to verify these claims.
And it's not as if we don't have other religious leaders making fantastical claims in this era. Alexander of Abonoteichus started his own religion in about AD 160: Glycon was the god, and Alexander was his prophet.
Having circulated a prophecy that the son of Apollo was to be born again, Alexander contrived that there should be found in the foundations of the temple to Aesculapius, then in course of construction at Abonoteichus, an egg in which a small live snake had been placed. In an age of superstition Alexander had little difficulty in convincing them of the second coming of the god under the name of Glycon. A large tame snake with a false human head, wound round Alexander's body as he sat in a shrine in the temple,gave "autophones", or oracles unasked. The numerous questions asked of the oracle were answered by Alexander in metrical predictions. In his most prosperous year he is said to have delivered nearly 80,000 replies, concerning bodily, mental, and social afflictions. Alexander found believers from Pontus through to Rome through pretended arts of soothsaying and magic and was revered and consulted as a prophet by many notable individuals of his age.
Alexander tricked so many people into thinking he could perform miracles that they successfully petitioned the government to print coins with the image of Glycon on them. Even when the educated skeptic Lucian revealed Alexander’s tricks, his believers only defended Alexander all the more, sometimes violently.
Paul makes it clear that his experience of meeting Christ was visionary.
I Corinthians 15.
5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
If Paul saw Christ, then he does not differentiate between his experience and that of the experience of others who "saw" before him. By his own testimony Paul's was clearly not a physical encounter and it is not clear that the others were physical either.
Paul was writing 20 years after the events he relates.
These people think so.
Is there any reason to believe that miracles actually occur? Or in the end can any "miracle" be explained by naturalistic causes. It's easy to speculate about the supernatural. Any claim can be made and it offers no way to check its methods or facts for accuracy.
The cause of lightning was once thought to be God's (or the gods') wrath, but turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it's all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God's wrath or intelligent meddling/intevention, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all.
You said the tomb wasn’t empty. I didn’t say it proved the resurrection. Just wondering what evidence there is of a non empty tomb other than miracles are impossible.
This is the ask a Christian thread so you will have to take miracles as a given.
Last edited:
Well that’s miraculously convenient then isn’t it?
Miracle:
noun
noun: miracle; plural noun: miracles
- an extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.
- Moderator
- #2,812
The evidence is flimsy. That provided by Josephus and Tacticus is problematic for different reasons which I've explained elsewhere.
However that is not to say that Jesus definitely did not exist, its not a stretch to accept that there likely was a preacher claiming to be the Messiah and that as a result they were crucified by the Romans for sedition or being a public nuisance. Josephus certainly mentions that in the first century before the destruction of the Temple a number of Messiahs arose, promising relief from the Roman yoke, and finding ready followers. Philo Judeaus who lived at the time of when Jesus was reputed to have lived mentions the following in his work Flaccus VI written between AD 38 - 47.
(36) There was a certain madman named Carabbas ...this man spent all this days and nights naked in the roads, minding neither cold nor heat, the sport of idle children and wanton youths;
(37) and they, driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him;
(38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.
(39) Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris!; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;
- Apr 1, 2008
- 3,525
- 638
- AFL Club
- Geelong
- Other Teams
- Monbulk, Upwey, Strathmore, St Alba
Likewise.
There is much to dislike within religion and these need to be addressed. There is much to dislike about taxation or politics, but we should concentrate on removing the demons amongst the angels rather than a 'baby/bathwater' scenario. Reform, but don't destroy is all I'm saying.
- Moderator
- #2,814
The empty tomb story is regarded widely by scholars as a fiction.
According to New Testament historian Bart D. Ehrman, "an empty tomb had nothing to do with it [...] an empty tomb would not produce faith." According to Ehrman, the story of the empty tomb was needed to underscore the physical resurrection of Jesus, but is it doubtful that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea. He argues it is unlikely that a member of the Sanhedrin would have buried Jesus; crucifixion was meant "to torture and humiliate a person as fully as possible," and the body was left on the stake to be eaten by animals; criminals were usually buried in common graves; and Pilate had no concern for Jewish sensitivities, which makes it unlikely that he would have allowed for Jesus to be buried
Geza Vermes, often acknowledged as one of the greatest scholars on the historical Jesus also notes that the empty tomb and the apparitions are never directly associated to form a combined argument for the resurrection, but acknowledges that the story is an early tradition even if it is incoherent. Vermes rejects the literal interpretation of the empty tomb story as being proof of the resurrection. He also points out that the story of the empty tomb conflicts with notions of a spiritual resurrection.
See above. An empty tomb is not proof of a miracle.
Yep.
Josepheus was born 37 AD and Tacitus was born 56 AD. Would have been pretty hard for them to be eyewitnesses to JC given the crucifixion supposedly occurred between AD 30 to AD 33.
The late Geza Vermes wrote this paragraph in Jesus the Jew: A Historian’s Reading of the Gospels (p. 41):
“
in the end, when every argument has been considered and weighed, the only conclusion acceptable to the historian must be that the opinions of the orthodox, the liberal sympathizer and the critical agnostic alike—and even perhaps of the disciples themselves—are simply interpretations of the one disconcerting fact: namely that the women who set out to pay their last respects to Jesus found to their consternation, not a body, but an empty tomb.”
How do we know that the tomb wasn’t empty to begin with?
We don’t ...but as I have been saying .. the evidence is pretty good it’s just that it’s a miracle. What evidence from 2000 years ago of the impossible will be enough.?
“Michael Grant, who did not believe in the resurrection, argued that:
..the historian … cannot justifiably deny the empty tomb. True, this discovery, as so often, is described differently by the various Gospels – as critical pagans early pointed out. But if we apply the same sort of criteria that we would apply to other ancient literary sources, then the evidence is firm and plausible enough to necessitate the conclusion that the Tomb was empty.[2]”
.
Assuming this is true it's a bloody big leap to then suggest that just because the tomb was empty that resurrection was the answer to the missing body.
Grave robbers, ghouls, necrophilia or no body was there in the first place as cc suggested as a possibility.
ghouls...Scooby Doo where are you ?
So you would need accounts of people seeing Jesus etc.
So you have empty tomb , written accounts of people seeing a resurrected Jesus etc. All good reasons for a 2019 Christian to see that as evidence of a resurrected Christ. If it was good enough for the apostles in the first century than why not now etc
Is it evidence for an atheist or a non Christian.. obviously not. This is the ask a Christian thread though.
Can we expect any suprises from the MRO this week?
- Moderator
- #2,822
Christian apologists base their conclusion that a supernatural divine intervention is the best explanation of the (supposed) resurrection of Jesus on four "facts"
- After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
- On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
- On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
- The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
Any naturalistic explanation, no matter how crazy it may seem, is much more probable, not to mention plausible, than the divinely orchestrated miraculous resurrection story.
Here's another more naturalistic explanation of the above same "facts".
1. Jesus survives his short stay on the cross after being pronouced dead by Roman soldiers (there were examples of crucified people who did survive the cross according to Josephus and numerous well-documented declarations of death by medical professionals that turned out to be incorrect. One can therefore reasonably propose that a first century Roman soldier, as well as Jesus’ disciples, could have mistakenly assumed Jesus was dead)
2. Jesus is discovered to be barely alive by the few followers who retrieve him.
3. Fearful because they have illegally retrieved a condemned man, they carry out a decoy burial in a tomb.
4. Jesus dies soon after, and is buried quietly in an anonymous grave.
5. Rumor of his survival reaches his followers, as well as the Romans
6 The Romans open the tomb and find it empty, except for burial linen used in the decoy.
7. To sooth their grief the disciples seize on the rumor of Jesus’ survival and encourage each other to hear the voice and see the image of their master in others in the manner that Paul did on the road to Damascus.
Although the probability of the scenario proposed above is low, it is surely far larger than the supernatural one. It does not require Jesus to survive his crucifixion and meet his followers, or, if Jesus died, to have his body stolen, or be removed from the tomb after the Sabbath and reburied in a lower class graveyard. One only need propose that Jesus was still alive (barely) when taken down from the cross and envision how events most likely would unfold from there, taking into account the "facts".
Last edited:
I like it .. a lot of thought has gone into that.
So you have a given a low probability scenario to discount a supernatural event.
I think that just emphasis the integrity of the beginnings of the Christian Church.
So if any of you atheists are thinking of jumping ship ..get on board the Christian train because it’s got a pretty water tight story to go with it.
- Moderator
- #2,824
As I said even a low probability scenario is still more probable, not to mention plausible, than a supernatural explanation.
Proselytizing openly now?
As I said, the four "facts" I mentioned previously are based on the premise that the New Testament presents us with an unvarnished historical record - in other words Biblical inerrancy. This is hardly an incontrovertible or unassailable assumption, given what else is claimed in the New Testament, the internal inconsistencies between the accounts, questions of dependency and that the accounts were hardly composed by unbiased observers and cannot be externally verified when it comes to their core claims about Jesus, his life, death and supposed resurrection.
There's also the question of why a supernatural explanation is the best explanation of the "facts' (even allowing for the facts are correct, which is hardly hardly an incontrovertible or unassailable assumption. Why is that considered the case?
Well done . So because supernatural/miracles etc are impossible and no matter the evidence any natural explanation no matter how improbable will still be better.
Yet you say you aren’t an atheist. So you are still open to supernatural events ?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
