On Hell and Forgiveness

[polymath257]

Let's change this question slightly.


Would writings about such an event many decades after that event, of uncertain authorship[1], from a superstitious society[2], used for political benefit[3], with differing accounts by different authors with the story growing over time[4], be considered enough evidence to say such an event occurred?

If the event happened in public view, was recorded with modern equipment, where the individual in question canbe shown to be dead unquestionably, and then was alive later, then there would be enough evidence to say that we need to investigate this phenomenon further to understand what happened. Would it be evidence for a deity? No.

Well, if you want to move away from my hypothetical, fine.

1. Why do you think the authorship was uncertain?

Because they are quite uncertain. Most of the writings were certainly NOT made by those claimed in the titles.

Certainly the people at the time knew who wrote the gospels.

No, most people had no idea who wrote the texts they were reading.

Do you think they were left on a doorstep? Was Paul (a well established author) certain that Jesus rose from the dead?

Paul most certainly never met Jesus. So, no, he was not certain. In fact, his teaching directly contradict those of other writings.

2. Superstitious society? Isn't that question begging?

Not at all. Look at the prevalence of mystery religions during that time and region. it was *clearly* a very superstitious society. Christianity just falls into the general pattern.

Do you imagine that the people of the NT didn't know the difference between people who survived crucifixion and those that did not?

I think they had no idea whether the events happened or not. Most of those reading had no connection to the authors or to the region.

3. Political benefit? 100% the opposite. Most early church leaders had hard lives with bad endings.

According to legends, which are mostly fictional. The period when the texts were collected was long after the time of the described 'events' and the collection was done at the approval and instigation of the emperor.

4. Different accounts by different authors is EXACTLY what you want. No evidence of growing over time.

The earliest texts of Mark have no resurrection. Matthew and Luke have one, but with differing details. Those three are clearly written with a common source (gospel of Thomas?) John has a complex theology. That is the growth of a legend, pure and simple.

We can skip to the end--you can't win this argument. The most you can say is that there is not enough evidence for YOU to believe. Fine. I don't doubt that--however I do doubt you are even familiar with the contents. What you cannot say is that it is not evidence for other's belief in God. Because in order to do so, you would have to prove it wrong--but that is simply not possible. 

Your second paragraph just proves your question begging reasoning you employed from the beginning: miracles don't happen, the NT does not contain miracles so there is no evidence of miracles.

The vast majority of scholars who study this regard the texts as questionable at best. Except for *some* of the writings of Paul (who did not witness the teachings of Jesus or the resurrection), the authorship is uniformly in doubt.

Comparison with other superstitions at the time shows remarkable similarities (gnosticism, neo-platonism, Dionysian mysteries, etc). That adds to the overall skepticism that should be part of any textual analysis.

And, given the range of beliefs people have had over history, it is a good idea to take any stories of a supernatural with a large grain of salt. if the rest of the evidence is questionable (and it is in all cases), it can properly be rejected, just as we do claims that the God Pan directed Julius Caesar across the Rubicon.