This is my reply to an article by S. Joshua Swamidass, entitled
Science is full of trust-like faith. We believe grand, counterintuitive things because we trust the accounts of trustworthy sources.
But unlike religious faith, the "scientific" things are empirically demonstrable. That doesn't mean that every theory purporting to be "scientific" is empirically demonstrable. Dark Mater/Dark Energy are foolish concepts and "discovered" for no other reason than the explain why the universe doesn't appear to have resulted from a "big bang".
That is true. Energy and Matter are just different ways of expressing the same thing. There is no such thing as energy in the absence of matter, or matter in the absence of energy.Mass is energy.
Eistein's theory of relativity is less empirically demonstrable than the existence of trees, and otherwise is hardly relevant to the issue of Jesus' resurrection.Time slows with gravity and acceleration. The earth…
Science is full of trust-like faith. We believe grand, counterintuitive things because we trust the accounts of trustworthy sources.
And many times people are idiots for setting forth as "scientific" certain theories utterly lacking in empirical demonstration, such as dark matter/dark energy. I don't "trust as true" anything that is not empirically demonstrable. Now rack your brain trying to think of "truths" that aren't empirically demonstrable, but which are "obviously" true anyway. YOu should start by saying "you can't even prove your own existence!", so those watching the discussion can recognize the stupid trifling sophistry you are willing to engage in just so you don't have to admit that Jesus' resurrection is lacking in evidence.
But only tentatively. I don't see a reason to doubt the speed of earth's revolving around the sun...but at the same time, I wouldn't bet my life that this scientific statement is necessarily the truth.Mass is energy. Time slows with gravity and acceleration. The earth moves around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour. Two black holes merged 1.3 billion years ago, sending gravitational waves through space that arrived last year at LIGO. In principle, this is all reproducible, but just in principle. If we personally verified and reproduced every experiment ourselves, science would grind to a complete halt. Yes, we emphasize evidence. But we usually trust the scientific consensus.
And again, all of the issues you raise are matters that were capable of at least some degree of empirical observation that didn't require assessing witness credibility. They are thus not analogous to Jesus' resurrection, which you don't demonstrate unless you find in favor of the credibility of the alleged witnesses. Figuring out how fast the earth revolves around the sun doesn't require the investigator to engage in the nearly frivolous enterprise of trying to establish the identity and credibility of alleged authors from 2,000 years ago.
Yes, we are skeptical and regularly challenge accepted theories. But we usually trust other scientists’ reports of what they have seen.
And we are stupid to do so unless we see an empirical basis for those modified theories, a basis that doesn't require us to make a judgment call about the scientist's credibility or lack thereof. The scientific consensus that Jupiter exists does not depend on any one scientist's credibility, and it is too absurd to believe the consensus is the result of conspiracy. So my trust in the scientific consensus that Jupiter exists, has more empirical warrant than does somebody else's "trust" that "Matthew" was telling the truth in saying Jesus rose from the dead (Matthew 28).
And there are also scientists who graduated from Brigham Young University...who despite their academic credentials, still put full faith and trust in the accuracy and historicity of one of the biggest confirmed religious frauds known to man, the Book of Mormon. So I fail to see how "I'm a smart guy over in this area" is supposed to have relevance to "I also put trust in certain religious claims". Otherwise, atheism should be considered true, because many are scientists are academics themselves. My advice is to avoid trying to connect "I'm a smarter-than-average person" with "therefore the religious views I've chosen to put faith are, are more than likely true".I am a scientist. Still, on Easter, I celebrate that Jesus rose from the dead about 2,000 years ago.
This event, in first-century Palestine, is the cornerstone of everything.
No, there is a possibility that Christians discount but which remains a possibility nonetheles: that Jesus was the true Son of God, but fame went to his head, he ended up displeasing God, and so while much of his teaching is from 'God', he did not rise from the dead. That couldn't be the case if Jesus himself is God, second person of the Trinity, of course, but plenty of ancient Christians believed that Jesus was just a normal human being whom God specially selected to BECOME the Messiah. That's called adoptionism, and the idea that Jesus didn't become God's son until his baptism is attested to by the phrase "this day have I begotten thee" which is an early and widespread textual variant for Luke 3:22. Metzger doesn't do a very good job trying to characterize that variant as secondary, but admits it is the Western reading prevalent in the first 3 centuries:
here's a blog that discusses the introductory issues. Swamadiss continues:The Western reading, “This day I have begotten thee,” which was widely current during the first three centuries, appears to be secondary, derived from Ps 2.7. The use of the third person (“This is…in whom …”) in a few witnesses is an obvious assimilation to the Matthean form of the saying (Mt 3.17). (Textual Commentary, 4th rev. ed. 2002, p. 112-113)
In the same way that trust-like faith in science is connected to evidence, so is the faith I have in the Resurrection.
But not empirically demonstrable evidence. To trust that somebody did something 2,000 years ago requires a finding that the source, one or more persons who wrote about it, are trustworthy. We don't need to "trust" scientists in that sense when we adopt their views on most things today, unless of course we water down "scientific" so that it can even refer to claims for which there is no evidence whatsoever...like Dark Matter.
The best explanation is that the resurrection of Jesus was mere legendary embellishment over time. If two facets of Christian scholarly consensus are true (i.e., Mark is the earliest gospel, and he didn't intend to write anything after 16:8), then the earliest form of the gospel did not contain resurrection appearance narratives. No, you cannot speculate that maybe Mark "chose to exclude" these while yet believing such stories were true. In light of how strongly these support Mark's goal of showing Jesus to be the divine son of God, and in light of your own admission that Jesus' resurrection is the most important of all Christian events, it is highly unlikely that Mark believed the resurrection appearance narrative stories to be true but yet "chose to exclude" them. You lose your religion where you lose the historicity. Historicity turns on how probable one's explanatory theory is.What is the evidence from which grew my trust? A brief and incomplete outline is included here.[1] This evidence is not an answer, but it raises the question. All we need is curiosity.1. Without the physical Resurrection, two thousand years of history are left begging for explanation, like a movie missing a key scene.
You have no reason to appeal to the popularity of the resurrection belief in the last 2,000 years, except because you are trying to argue from popularity to truth. That's called the ad populum fallacy.No other event in all recorded history has reached so far across national, ethnic, religious, linguistic, cultural, political, and geographic borders.
So did the popularity of heretics like Marcion.No doubt because most people back then simply trusted what a religious leader said, without caring to, or being able to, seriously check on the veracity of his claims. The fact that the physical resurrection of Jesus is the form of Christianity that became most popular, does not testify to it's truth, otherwise, the fact that the false religion of Marcion and other forms of Christian Gnosticism grew by leaps and bounds to the point of being perceived by Irenaeus and other early fathers as a legitimate dangerous threat to the church, should be considered when assessing how true they were...which is, of course, stupid.The message spread with unreasonable success across the world.
Any religious group that caters to the needs of the poor and illiterate, would likely spread without political or military power.During just the first few centuries, it spread without political or military power,
The political opposition to pre-4th century Christianity would also have been against all its forms, such as Marcionism. It isn't like it was only the bodily resurrected/Trinity/JesusIsGodAndWasARealFleshAndBloodMan version of Christianity that was perceived to be a threat. That is, your logic suggests that Marcionism, by growing in popularity despite political opposition, was surely the truth.prevailing against the ruthless efforts of dedicated, organized and violent opposition.
They didn't, their gullible followers decided to make more of it than it really was. For example, Benny Hinn is not responsible for his own popularity and success, its actually the dumb fucks who find him to be greater than he really is, who are responsible for his popularity.How did a small band of disempowered Jews in an occupied and insignificant territory of ancient Rome accomplish this unequaled act?
[2] What happened so many years ago that reframed all human history?
Wrong, NOTHING in the OT predicted anything about Jesus. Would you like to give it a try? What, maybe Daniel 9 contains an "amazingly accurate prediction" of Jesus? Jesus is the best explanation for the "Suffering Servant" in Isaiah 53? Good luck.2. With dates established by radiometric analysis, prophecies from centuries before Jesus’ birth predict his life, death, and resurrection.
One thing you won't be doing is pretending that you can demonstrate that the OT predicted Jesus' resurrection...despite your own belief that the resurrection was the highlight of Jesus' messianic purpose.
[3] The great scientist Blaise Pascal identifies this as the “tangible proof” for people who want evidence that God exists. These prophecies include specific details that Jesus and His followers could not control. For example, before the Romans invented crucifixion, Psalms 22:16 described the piercing of Jesus’ hands and feet.
1 For the choir director; upon Aijeleth Hashshahar. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have You forsaken me? Far from my deliverance are the words of my groaning.2 O my God, I cry by day, but You do not answer; And by night, but I have no rest.3 Yet You are holy, O You who are enthroned upon the praises of Israel.4 In You our fathers trusted; They trusted and You delivered them.5 To You they cried out and were delivered; In You they trusted and were not disappointed.6 But I am a worm and not a man, A reproach of men and despised by the people.7 All who see me sneer at me; They separate with the lip, they wag the head, saying,8 "Commit yourself to the LORD; let Him deliver him; Let Him rescue him, because He delights in him."9 Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb; You made me trust when upon my mother's breasts.10 Upon You I was cast from birth; You have been my God from my mother's womb.11 Be not far from me, for trouble is near; For there is none to help.12 Many bulls have surrounded me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled me.13 They open wide their mouth at me, As a ravening and a roaring lion.14 I am poured out like water, And all my bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; It is melted within me.15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, And my tongue cleaves to my jaws; And You lay me in the dust of death.16 For dogs have surrounded me; A band of evildoers has encompassed me; They pierced my hands and my feet.17 I can count all my bones. They look, they stare at me;18 They divide my garments among them, And for my clothing they cast lots.19 But You, O LORD, be not far off; O You my help, hasten to my assistance.20 Deliver my soul from the sword, My only life from the power of the dog.21 Save me from the lion's mouth; From the horns of the wild oxen You answer me.22 I will tell of Your name to my brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.23 You who fear the LORD, praise Him; All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, And stand in awe of Him, all you descendants of Israel.24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard.25 From You comes my praise in the great assembly; I shall pay my vows before those who fear Him.26 The afflicted will eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever!27 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations will worship before You.28 For the kingdom is the LORD'S And He rules over the nations.29 All the prosperous of the earth will eat and worship, All those who go down to the dust will bow before Him, Even he who cannot keep his soul alive.30 Posterity will serve Him; It will be told of the Lord to the coming generation.31 They will come and will declare His righteousness To a people who will be born, that He has performed it.(Ps. 22:1-30 NAU)
An examination of the original context of Psalm 22 indicates is says things totally inconsistent with a "Christian' view of Jesus:
the speaker complains that God doesn't answer his cries (v. 2) despite the fact that theologically, the Father and Son have exactly the same will
the speaker metaphorically characterizes himself as "a worm and not a man" (v. 6), when in fact theologically Jesus is the ultimate Man, and as such, not only do we never find him talking shit about himself like this in the gospels, it is doubtful, on theological grounds, that Jesus would speak this way about himself. Would God, second person of the Trinity, describe himself as a worm?
the speaker says of God "you have been my God from my mother's womb", and in context, the author was the sinner David, who thus meant it in the sense of himself being a sinner who worships God.
The speakers prays for God to deliver him from the "sword", and again states his is troubled by dogs (v. 20). Conservative Christians, with their bullshit high Christology, do not believe Jesus would ever seriously ask the Father to be spared from death the way David was requesting in this Psalm.
The speaker prays to be delivered from the metaphorical lion's mouth (v. 21), and of course, to be bitten by a lion is to be pierced. And since the "lion" that does the piercing is metaphorical in this context, so is the piercing effect mentioned in the immediately previous context of v. 16. Again, the sense of "piece" that is meant in context, is clear...and it's manifestly not the "drove nails into his hands and feet" stuff.
Even Christian scholarly works admit that the Christian sense stems solely from the Lxx, the original Hebrew did not support it, so there is the additional problem of why the Greek is imparting more Christian meaning to the text than was originally present:
Finally, the sense of "pieced my hands" isn't meant literally by the Psalmist, for it is no less metaphorical than the the human enemies he characterizes as lions, bulls and dogs. So now we have the problem of the Christian interpretation taking what was originally mere metaphor, and insisting it was literal...all because they need to have their OT "predict" Jesus with "amazing accuracy". Sorry, I sleep well at night, not worrying in the least whether Christianity has the least substance to it.
In Psalm 22:16 (21:17 LXX) we read: “they pierced my hands and feet.” It is true that the reading of the (possibly corrupt) MT would not have suggested this correspondence (“as a lion my hands and feet”), but elsewhere in the passion story references to Psalm 22 employ the Greek version. If the passion narrative depended heavily on the creative role of the OT, we would have expected “passion prophecy” to have rendered this connection explicit.
No, the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is spoken of by the 7th century b.c. Isaiah in past tense terms, and only Christians inist that using the past tense to predict the future is "reasonable". Furthermore,Isaiah 53 is a particularly important prophecy that lays out the story of Jesus and the meaning of the Resurrection (Isaiah 52:13-53:12). Is this evidence of an Intelligence outside our time confirming Jesus’ authority?
the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 "opened not his
mouth". Well, did Jesus open his
mouth during his time of affliction and oppression? Yes, read John 18:33 ff. Finally, even Christian commentators admit this exactly how to interpret Isaiah 53 has produced a storm of scholarly controversy ever since Christians began using it, and it doesn't make good sense to use a biblical matter embroiled in scholarly controversy to "prove" something, indeed, the commentary sets out to show fulfillment of the passage by servants/sufferers who lived hundreds of years before Jesus, a thing a Christian commentary would never do if Jesus were the "obvious" fulfillment of the passage:
The bibliography on this topic is enormous, indicating the great interest in the subject and the lack of agreement on it. The interpretation of these passages and the discussion of identification (who is the sufferer?) have continued at least from the first century (Acts 8:34) until now...This commentary will show that “the sufferer passages” are distinct from “the servant passages” sufferer and the servant are not the same person and that the in the Vision. Israel and the Persian emperor (Cyrus or Darius) are called “the anointed” or “the servant of Yahweh” (See Excursus: Identifying the “Servant of Yahweh”). But the sufferer in 50:4–9 and the dead sufferer in chap. 53 is more likely to be a leader in Jerusalem (perhaps Zerubbabel) who has been executed before the arrival of authorities sent by Darius.Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 25: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 34-66. Word Biblical Commentary (Page 227). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.
Swamidass continues:
You gain nothing by noting that Jesus was real.3. Jesus was a real person in history who died. Several manuscripts from multiple sources, including Jewish historians, describe a man named Jesus who lived and was executed.
[4] Specific details reported about His execution confirm.“Blood and water” spilled from a spear wound in His side. He really died and was not merely unconscious.[5]
Never mind that conservative Christian scholars like Craig Evans, by denying that Jesus ever actually mouthed many statements attributed to him in the gospel of John, therefore views the gospel of John as not necessarily setting forth actual history, but theological interpretation.
Which is irrelevant to the Christian scholarly consensus that mark was the earliest gospel, and that Mark didn't write anything after verse 8, necessarily implying that the earliest gospel author either did not know about, or did not trust in the reliability of, any resurrection appearance narrative.4. The early accounts of the Resurrection and prophecies predicting it were reliably transmitted through history.
As of 2014, more than 66,000 early manuscripts are known, orders of magnitude more than other ancient texts. Many are carbon dated to before Jesus’ time on earth and the first few centuries after. We see accounts nearly unaltered in the earliest manuscripts.[6] A pattern of consistency emerges. There are variations in the manuscripts, but nothing invalidates the reliability of the Resurrection accounts.
Except Mark's screaming silence. Apparently, the original gospel story was merely that the women found out from some anonymous man or angel that Jesus rose from the dead...and that's all. the original gospel story did not contain resurrection appearance narratives. And if Mark is the earliest of the gospels, then the later gospels having such narratives points toward typically expected legendary development, by which stories increase in detail and drama over time with each retelling. No wonder some dumb ass Christians have "suddenly discovered" that the Christian scholar consensus is wrong, and that Matthew, with his resurrection narrative, was the earliest of the gospels.
forgers can make up embarrassing details for the purpose of increasing the drama of the narrative or the lesson learned at the end, therefore the "criteria of embarrassment" is of limited utility at best.5. Accounts of the Resurrection include inconvenient and unflattering details,
That Matthew and Luke embellish, modify and change Mark, is accepted by even "inerrantist" Christian scholars, who also admit they changed his text because they thought Mark's wording would support unorthodox theology:that make most sense as attempts to reliably record what had happened, free from embellishment.
But if Mark's statement should not trouble contemporary Christians (i.e., Mark's wording is not reasonably susceptible to supporting low Christology), then what motiviated Luke to omit it and Matthew to "tone it down"?Mark 6:5 This statement about Jesus’ inability to do something is one of the most striking instances of Mark’s boldness and candor. It is omitted by Luke 4:16–30 and toned down by Matt 13:58. The statement should not trouble contemporary Christians. God and his Son could do anything, but they have chosen to limit themselves in accordance to human response.
If Matthew and Luke believed, like today's inerrantists, that Mark's choice of wording is not reasonably interpreted in a way supporting low Christology, then how could Matthew and Luke have been motivated to tone it down? If it's not a problem or a potential problem, it doesn't need a solution, does it? And how can you believe the gospel authors espoused "biblical inerancy" (i.e., that Matthew and Luke viewed Mark's text as without error and inspired by God exactly the way Mark wrote it), when modern-day inerrantist Christian scholars are admitting that Matthew and Luke changed or "toned down" Mark's wording? If YOU had been using Mark's text to help you construct your own gospel, would YOU have changed his wording the way Matthew and Luke did? Or would your being an "inerrantist" prevent you from making any changes to the divinely chosen wording in the source material?Mark 4:38 Not a few have compared the sleeping of Jesus and Jonah. It is, however, a mere coincidence and in no way implies that the story is modeled upon that of Jonah or a passage in Psalms, such as 89:9; 106:9; or 107:23–25. Jesus’ sleeping does suggest confidence in God (cf. Ps 3:5; 4:8; Prov 3:24). Furthermore Jesus’ sleeping is one of many indications in Mark of his humanity. The disciples’ question strongly rebukes Jesus and is another example of Mark’s candor, which Matt 8:25 and Luke 8:24 tone down.
Swamidass continues:Mark 5:31 The disciples’ sarcastic reply is an example of Markan candor that is omitted by Matthew (cf. 9:20–22) and toned down in Luke (8:45).
They aren't quite as bad as the 2nd century pseudepigrapha (gee, I wonder where the 2nd century Christians ever got the idea that utterly fictional narratives about Jesus stood a fair chance of being believed by Christians, if in fact 1st century Christians cared only for historically accurate source material? And that Matthew, Luke and John are fabricating in their resurrection accounts was already shown by the Christian scholarly consensus which says Mark author of the earliest gospel, did not write anything about the resurrection appearances. Since it is not likely Mark would "chose to exclude" the evidentiary details of the most important aspect about Jesus (his resurrection), Mark's silence isn't because he is "choosing to exclude" such a story, he is silent about Jesus actually appearing to anybody because Mark did not know of, or did not trust in the reliability of, any so-called resurrection appearance story. No trifle of "maybe this or maybe that" can take this historical justification for skepticism and make it unreasonable.They do not fit expectations of a fabricated account.
Many Christian scholars think Paul's story of the resurrection witnesses in 1st Corinthians 15 draws on a very early creed, and Paul mentions no women.For example, women are the first witnesses of the Resurrection.
That is bullshit, the law required a woman to give testimony in some cases, Deut. 25:9, and regardless, the NT books do not appear to be written to convince unbelievers, but to convince those already in the faith (i.e., those who have already decided to break away from worldly ways of doing things and adopt new ways...and in 1st century Judaism/Christianity, there were women whose testimony was considered of supreme importance: the prophetesses or daughters of Philip (Acts 21:8). Even before Christianity, Judaism often honored the word of a woman (Ezekiel 13:23). Priscillia took part in instructing the zealous but ignorant Apollo in correcting his Christian preaching (Acts 18:25).In a culture that did not admit the testimony of a woman as valid evidence in court,
In short, the gospels were primarily written for those who already adopted the Christian faith, and therefore, were written for those who did not agree with secular view that the testimony of women was worthless.
this detail is surprising. Likewise, all the disciples, the leaders of the early Church, flee as cowards when Jesus is taken.
Which is consistent for followers who aren't convinced their leader can do serious miracles, but not consistent if we assume, as Christians must, that the disciples believed Jesus' miracles were genuinely supernatural. If they were, those miracles would have given them every reason to be "amazingly transformed" no less than their alleged seeing Jesus risen from the dead would have. More gospel baloney that has features more consistent with fiction than fact.
A literary device to make their subsequent transformation all the more bold and dramatic.6. After Jesus’ violent death, His followers were frightened and scattered.
Baloney! There is not enough information about exactly how the original apostles died, to justify your conclusion that they sustained their faith against murderous opposition. And Mormonism sustained murderous opposition, even opposing the American Military in the 19th century, but does their succeeding against the odds impress YOU? Then why should Christianity's success against the odds impress anybody else? For the unfortunate few who seem to think James Patrick Holding's "impossible faith" bullshit answers this criticism, it doesn't. Richard Carrier, who actually has a Ph.d in history and thus knows what he is talking about, has trounced Holding's thesis, which is probably some of the reason why Holding now hides his rejoinders behind paywalls:Then, something happened that grew a strong, bold, and confident belief that resisted sustained, murderous opposition.
Holding has configured his website so that the place I normally access it from, will not allow me to see anything but unreasdable raw html, but the google cache still provides the evidence that Holding doesn't want his reply to carrier to be known unless you pay for it:
See the bottom of that page.
- Reply to Robert Price
- Reply to Richard Carrier [Donation Required]
Swamidass continues:
Fuck you, the available historical evidence does not permit dogmatism on how willing the original disciples were to become martyrs. What are you doing, parotting Josh McDowell.Unlike other movements with executed leaders, once they came back together they did not replace Jesus with one of his family members. Their resistance was entirely non-violent and devoid of political power. Yet they were all suddenly willing to die for what they saw.
Indeed, what change was responsible for Peter becoming a Judaizer after Jesus allegedly rose from the dead?What changed them?
14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? (Gal. 2:14 NAU)Swamidass continues:
That's about as stupid as asking "Why was there not evidence at the time to undermine the belief of the Mormons in the 1800's?" There obviously was, but they found continuing in Mormonism and the practical benefits of it to somehow be a stronger motive than in whether it was actually true.Why was there not evidence at the time to undermine their belief?
Good question, since it was precisely his own brothers and immediate family who found his claims during his earthly ministry to be unworthy of credit:What convinced them that Jesus was inconceivably greater than his family?
1 After these things Jesus was walking in Galilee, for He was unwilling to walk in Judea because the Jews were seeking to kill Him.
2 Now the feast of the Jews, the Feast of Booths, was near.
3 Therefore His brothers said to Him, "Leave here and go into Judea, so that Your disciples also may see Your works which You are doing.
4 "For no one does anything in secret when he himself seeks to be known publicly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world."
5 For not even His brothers were believing in Him. (Jn. 7:1-5 NAU)
20 And He came home, and the crowd gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal.
21 When His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, "He has lost His senses."
22 The scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, "He is possessed by Beelzebul," and "He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons."
23 And He called them to Himself and began speaking to them in parables, "How can Satan cast out Satan?
24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
25 "If a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand.
26 "If Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but he is finished!
27 "But no one can enter the strong man's house and plunder his property unless he first binds the strong man, and then he will plunder his house.
28 "Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter;
29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin "--
30 because they were saying, "He has an unclean spirit."
31 Then His mother and His brothers arrived, and standing outside they sent word to Him and called Him.
32 A crowd was sitting around Him, and they said to Him, "Behold, Your mother and Your brothers are outside looking for You."
33 Answering them, He said, "Who are My mother and My brothers?"
34 Looking about at those who were sitting around Him, He said, "Behold My mother and My brothers!
35 "For whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother." (Mk. 3:20-35 NAU)
I've been asking "apologists" for years how they explain how to reconcile their belief that all of Jesus' miracles were genuinely supernatural, with the gospel facts they are forced to admit are true, namely, that Jesus' immediate family were so unimpressed with his claims/works that they didn't believe him. If his miracles were real, their unbelief impeaches their credibility, should they surface later as believers. If they refused to believe because Jesus' miracles were false, kiss your religion goodbye. Hence, apologists don't have a lot of wiggle room as long as they admit the above-cited two passages about Jesus' own family refusing to believe his claims, are historically true.
7. More than just a fact about our past, the Resurrection creates a connection to God that is perceived by people from all times, cultures, socioeconomic statuses, personalities, and metal capacities, across the last 2,000 years of history. Its reach includes some of the most famous scientists: Blaise Pascal, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Gregor Mendel, Asa Gray, Michael Faraday, James Maxwell, Santiago Ramón y Cajal, and Francis Collins. Is this unmatched reach and influence a sign of a living God working His purpose in history?
Ad populum fallacy. You cannot argue or imply a truth by referring to the fact that it is popular, or accepted by a bunch of smart important people in history.
Irrelevant, Isaiah 53 contains details entirely inconsistent with the Jesus of the gospels, so it doesn't matter if we grant that Isaiah made this "prediction" in 700 b.c. or in 100 b.c.Some of the evidence here is established by scientific methods. For example, radiocarbon dating demonstrates that Isaiah 53’s prediction that Jesus “see the light of life” after dying was written at least 100 years before His birth.
However, the question of Jesus gently beckons us out from science’s limits, into a reality where love, beauty, goodness, and relationships are real. In the question of the empty tomb, science itself reaches its hard limit. It points to something beyond itself.
Not if you infer all that is reasonable to infer from the Christian scholarly consensus that Mark was the earliest of the 4 gospels and that 16:8 is the last of Mark's own writing.
1. The Resurrection is God’s direct, supernatural action in a specific physical event in history. The obvious finality of physical death (both in modern science and to the ancient world) serves to highlight the role of God in this moment. We never consider God’s action in science, so we cannot even ask the question without opening our minds to things beyond science.[9]
And thus opening our minds to things beyond empirical demonstration. Now google "William Lane Craig" and then come back here and tell me that I believe in numbers even though I can't demonstrate them empirically.
Jesus himself never taught any such thing, so Paul was likely engaging in the sin of going beyond the word of the Lord here.2. The entire Christian faith hinges on the physical Resurrection of Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:14,17),
We also don't propose any "gateway to another dimension" to explain the Bermuda Triangle.but no “Resurrection mechanism” for science to study is proposed.
As a mechanism-free singular event that defies all natural laws, we are well outside science’s ability adjudicate facts and understand evidence.
Precisely why we should view any science-contradicting testimony as total bullshit.
yeah, with the resurrection story representing that stupid mule she met at the bar, who makes all those mid-might promises to her when she's in the mood, but who later fails to deliver.3. The question of the Resurrection is more like an opportunity to fall in love than a scientific inquiry.
Precisely the reason why we should be suspicious that it is not capable of dispassionate resolution.There is evidence, but the Resurrection cannot be studied dispassionately.
And if the Easter Bunny is real, this is going to embarrass a lot of mature adults.[10] If Jesus really rose from the dead, it reorders everything.
The final verdict for me is that you appear to have learned your entire resurrection spiel from Josh McDowell, the one Christian apologist most notorious for avoiding debate and peer-review like the plague.Just like falling in love, in changes our view of the world.The final verdict, for me, is that the Resurrection makes sense through the lens of history.
If it keeps you from doing crime, more power to you. What's false become beneficial to society if what's false keeps you in line. Religion is the opiate of the masses. Sleep tight.I find the Creator of all that science studies comes to us in this way.
"but not definitive"? How does it feel now that you've said something to make most of your other conservative Christian friends view you are ignorant, weak, or deluded by Satan?The evidence is compelling, but not definitive.
Faith in Jesus is reasonable and is certainly not without evidence.
So? Rejection of the resurrection of Jesus is certainly reasonable and not without evidence. Your article has done nothing to tip the balance of historical probabilities in favor of the Christian view.
So, we are left with an invitation. Will we too believe? Will we be curious? Will we respond with trust?
And get caught up in all the ceaseless theological arguments that constantly divide Christians against each other? FUCK YOU. I cannot be a Christian because I'm the kind of guy who actually takes my beliefs seriously.
