We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response

[Cato]

Translation: Randy's a carbon based blob of confirmation bias.

How does that concept apply here at AF where you all accept and believe everything that a fellow atheist posts while automatically dismissing anything posted by a theist?

Doesn't this forum exist (in part) as a support group for non-believers?

This is demonstrably false; easily so. Atheists here disagree on any number of things daily.

[Ben Davis]

---

Earlier this month, atheist blogger Daniel Baxter posted at his site, Aractus Puphlicus, an entry entitled, "We can be certain of NO resurrection", in which he asks a number of questions and raises some objections which he feels are strong reasons to reject the resurrection of Jesus as historical fact.

In this thread, I would like to respond to these questions and objections in order to illustrate their insufficiency for justifying such a conclusion.

Baxter will be quoted and in black; my reply will be in blue.

We Can Be Certain of NO Resurrection
By Daniel Baxter
http://blog.aractus.com/we-can-be-certai...urrection/

The cornerstone of Christianity is the resurrection of their apocalyptic patriarch Jesus. Jesus actually had much less to do with Christianity than you might think. Paul was significantly more influential to the birth and spread of Christianity as we know it than Jesus was. And not Just Paul – John the Baptist, Simeon Peter, and James the Just all may have been more influential than Jesus himself was. Two entries ago I showed you that it was James Peter and Paul who changed the rules in 50AD – 20 years after Jesus had died. Many Christians argue that “Jesus changed the Old Testament order”, but Jesus does no such thing. Jesus in fact says in Matthew 5:17-18 “Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished.” Most Christians don’t even know what a Jot or Tittle is. Jot is the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and sometimes you see this translated as ‘iota’ as if Jesus is talking about Greek – when in fact he is clearly talking about Hebrew. Tittles are tiny marks at the ends of Hebrew letters – they aren’t found in Greek or other scripts. So this statement that Jesus gives in Matthew 5:17-18 is very strongly in support of keeping the Law of Moses – it couldn’t be much stronger. It wasn’t Jesus that said you don’t have to keep the covenant of circumcision – that was James 20 years later. It wasn’t Jesus that said you can eat meat with blood in it – that was Paul 25 years later.

“But there was an empty tomb” … seems to be the strongest arguments Christians have for the historicity of the resurrection. The priest at my ex-church would always proclaim that Christians can be certain of the resurrection historically because it was the only logical and sensible explanation for why the tomb was empty three days later. His argument was that if the Romans stole it then they would have displayed it publicly to put an end to the rumours of resurrection and break the spirit of his followers. That argument is probably fair enough. If the Jews stole it they would have done the same thing. And if the disciples stole it then why would they believe in a resurrection? And why would they risk breaking the Roman Seal (an offence punishable by death) to steal the dead body of their saviour? How would they have overcome the Roman guard? They didn’t have the means or the opportunity or the motive to pull off such a stunt. And finally he, and many other Christian leaders and apologists would make the claim that there is overwhelming historical evidence to prove the resurrection of Jesus.

You have laid out the arguments that Christians might make for believing the resurrection reasonably well. The empty tomb is one of five minimal facts that are accepted by nearly all New Testament scholars, and while it may or may not be the strongest of the group, the empty tomb does raise a few questions that must be answered by the skeptics. I’m pleased to see that you agree that the arguments made by believers are “fair enough”. Let’s take a look at the “problems” which you have with these arguments.

Here are the problems. Firstly we know nothing about the man who took the body in the first place and who owned the tomb: Joseph of Arimathea.

Actually, we do know a few things:

1. 1. he was a wealthy man (cf. Mt 27:57)
   
2. 2. he was a member of the Jewish ruling council (Mk 15:43)
   
3. 3. he was a secret disciple of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:57, Jn 19:38)
   
4. 4. he asked Pilate for the body of Jesus (cf. Mt 27:58)
   
5. 5. he buried Jesus by wrapping Jesus’ body in a linen cloth, placing it in his own tomb (caved out of rock) and rolling a stone over the entrance. (Mt 27:59-60)
   

It could simply be that Joseph had the body taken out of his tomb and put elsewhere – in an ossuary, or in a grave, or maybe he had the body embalmed, or perhaps even cremated.

Since Pilate knew that JoA had asked for the body, doesn’t it seem likely that once the disciples began to claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, Joseph, a member of the ruling council, would have been the FIRST person that the Jews and the Romans would have wanted to interrogate? Joseph was a disciple, but what reason would he have had to hide the body from the authorities or to lie about how he disposed of it? The Jews believed in the coming of a messiah—but not one that would be hanged on a tree.

Maybe he handed the body over to the family of Jesus and they did one of those things – on Sunday evening before the morning and before it was “discovered empty”.

I presume you meant Saturday evening (after the Sabbath had ended). If Joseph did give the body to Jesus’ family or hide the body from the authorities, then there is the question of whether a conspiracy of such magnitude could be maintained. This is unlikely.

It’s even possible that the disciples went to the wrong tomb.

Unlikely. Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of Joses and Nicodemus were all present at the burial. If the disciples HAD gone to the wrong tomb and begun proclaiming that Jesus was alive, the Jewish authorities only had to follow JoA to his own tomb, remove the stone which would still be securely in place, and look in to see the body still inside.

Maybe a grave-robber took the body for the jewellery or other valuables that had been placed in the tomb alongside Jesus. He was buried in a wealthy person’s tomb and the tomb was guarded by the Roman guard – so they must have been guarding it for a good reason.

There is no account of “jewellery (sic) or other valuables” being placed in the tomb. Jesus was buried in haste because the Sabbath was approaching quickly at sunset.

But assuming that the grave robber was unaware of this, how would the robber have slipped past this Roman guard, moved the stone without waking any of them (assuming they were caught napping), and robbed the grave undetected?

Further, if the robber was aware of the fact that someone had been buried in the “wealthy person’s tomb”, would they not also have known that the body belonged to a man crucified that very day? And how much wealth would be expected from a crucified criminal?

+++

I will continue with the rest of Baxter's blog soon.

---

Hi Randy,

I know you're addressing the blog directly but for me it's far more simple: no-one survives total brain death. Never, in recorded medical history, has there been a verifiable case of 'someone coming back from the dead'. In fact, we can demonstrate that the closer a person is to total brain death (i.e. the longer the amount of time spent with no brain activity before resuscitation), the greater the damage done to the brain and the greater the chance of physical & mental handicap when revived. There's no reason to accept the proposition that someone was 'resurrected'.

But let's, for a moment, follow your assumption that Jesus was resurrected. What does that tell us, in the context of the bible as the only 'record' of the event. Well, I like what Chris Hitchens had to say about it:

Nor, if I was to see him executed one day and see him walking the streets the next, would that show that his father was God or his mother was a virgin or that his teachings were true, especially given the commonplace nature of resurrection at that time and place. After all, Lazarus was raised, never said a word about it. The daughter of Jairus was raised, didn’t say a thing about what she’d been through. And the Gospels tell us that at the time of the crucifixion all the graves in Jerusalem opened and their occupants wandered around the streets to greet people. So it seems resurrection was something of a banality at the time. Not all of those people clearly were divinely conceived. So I’ll give you all the miracles and you’ll still be left exactly where you are now, holding an empty sack.

[Crossless2.0]

Randy wrote (quotes from two posts):

Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.

and:

Heh...funny how archaeology keeps finding stuff that proves rather than disproves the Bible, isn't it? If they find Arimathea (like they have found Sodom and Gomorrah), what will your excuse be then?

With regard to the first quote, would "adequate", "convincing", "undeniable", sufficient", or "confirmed" serve as synonyms for "coercive" evidence? If not, why not? Are you really still beating the God respects our freedom too much to provide compelling evidence for the more outlandish things we are supposed to believe in the Christian scheme drum? You know that dog won't hunt.

As for the second quote, why speak of excuses? If archaeologists ever do locate Arimathea, what of it? Has anyone ever said that there is no contact whatsoever between Biblical narratives and history? Why would the discovery of Arimathea make the Gospel accounts more compelling? So a place may someday be found to have existed and some guy is said to have come from there. Big deal. It wouldn't suggest anything about the truth or falsehood of the resurrection stories in the Gospels. And isn't the resurrection the point of this thread?

[robvalue]

How does that concept apply here at AF where you all accept and believe everything that a fellow atheist posts while automatically dismissing anything posted by a theist?

Doesn't this forum exist (in part) as a support group for non-believers?

This is demonstrably false; easily so. Atheists here disagree on any number of things daily.

This just goes to show Randy hasn't bothered to look any further than a few posts and subforums. Of course all atheists are going to agree that Christianity is unconvincing, by definition. I've suggested to him and others that they actually try and engage with us by stepping out of the preaching circle and into the rest of the forum, but no interest has been shown. He's only here to preach at us.

[Reforged]

Considering your picture I would of thought you would be concerning yourself more with the potential extinction of the honey bee and how that would set off a chain reaction that would be devastating to the eco system and could even collapse it entirely but you know...
I guess fictional zombies are cool too... a little last year but whatever.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Considering your picture I would of thought you would be concerning yourself more with the potential extinction of the honey bee and how that would set off a chain reaction that would be devastating to the eco system and could even collapse it entirely but you know...
I guess fictional zombies are cool too... a little last year but whatever.

It's the Georgia Tech mascot. I almost went to college there on scholarship, before I decided on USAFA.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]As for the rest, I'm spending my time discussing something that I believe in. You, however, are spending YOUR time discussing something that you apparently don't believe in.

Which one of us is "wasting" his life?

I'm discussing something that I know - that religious people of different creeds have mutually exclusive claims and no evidence for any of them. 

You're wasting your time trying to rationalize your particular brand of magical thinking and putting on a pretense of academic diligence, by cherry-picking from what other emotionally invested apologists happened to have published on the internet. It's a futile task - and strictly unnecessary one, since even the vast majority of believers admit that the idea is to believe without evidence - or indeed despite copious evidence to the contrary.

But I don't actually believe there is an absence of evidence. I simply state that for YOUR benefit since YOU believe there is no evidence.

Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive credible evidence that FORCES you to believe convinces anyone who's not already emotionally invested in the belief.

There - I corrected that statement for you...

[Minimalist]

Poor Randy...still falling hook, line and sinker for the xtian forgery mill.  Well, you have the brain power of a carp so I guess it is fitting in your case.

[Esquilax]

Esq-

This is fair. We will ultimately have to decide what to do with the accounts of magic.

Consequently, I think it is reasonable to establish several other things first:

1. Jesus existed.

I'm a bit shaky on this one, but willing to grant it for the sake of argument. I think the lack of contemporary references to Jesus is strange, given his supposed importance at the time, but it also doesn't matter to me, because the existence of a guy and the accuracy of the claims made about him are different questions.

2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by eyewitnesses.

I guess, though we do need to keep in mind the time difference between the purported events and the time they were written about too.

3. The gospels WERE written by eyewitnesses or people who had access to them.

And now you've lost me, because the gospels are anonymous.

4. The gospels are reliable in the minor details that can be verified through internal evidence, external corroboration, archaeological support, etc.

This is an irrelevant point, because a book can make ten true mundane claims and then make an eleventh false extraordinary one. Prior true claims do not make additional claims within the same reference true, and each claim needs to be examined on its own merits. Reliability does not equal infallibility.

IOW, at some point, one's opinion of the gospels crosses over from incredible to credible. Once you can honestly say, "You know, I think these guys may have been telling the truth", then faith is not far away.

Except that there's still a big difference in how one should approach mundane claims versus extraordinary ones, and that influences how one interacts with the bible. Mundane claims can be supported by textual accounts, so for basic archaeological or historical claims I'm willing to run alongside that train for a bit without issue. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and no amount of textual reference can cover for that, mainly for the reason that, if I were to lower my standards of evidence for supernatural claims to "it was written about in an otherwise reliable book," then I'd be forced to also accept numerous other claims that aren't sufficiently supported. Hell, I could easily write a book that's ninety nine percent accurate account, and one percent completely fabricated supernatural account, and under your standards, where mundane reliability is sufficient to establish supernatural events, that book would be entirely believable.

When someone can knowingly write a false story and still trip your conditions for a true account, there's something wrong with your standards.

But I don't actually believe there is an absence of evidence. I simply state that for YOUR benefit since YOU believe there is no evidence.

Sure, that's fine. But the "absence of evidence..." deal is still flawed for the reasons I explained, meaning that if you're saying it for my benefit, it doesn't really benefit anyone.

Oh, there IS evidence, alright...lots of it. But not coercive evidence that FORCES you to believe.

Coercive evidence is not a thing; you're failing to take into account human stubbornness. There is no amount of evidence that could "force" anyone to believe anything, because human beings are remarkably creative when it comes to finding ad hoc workarounds for their untrue beliefs. We can literally go into space and see that the Earth is round, but we still have the flat earth society. We've been to the moon, but there are still folks who seriously think that it's a demonic hologram and not in the sky at all. Airports definitely exist, yet I can show you youtube videos of guys insistent that all aircraft are actually demons in disguise and carry no passengers.

Evidence does not force belief. No matter how strong what you present is, you'll always find people willing to re-route to retain what they already believe. All evidence can do is induce rational people to change position based on their pre-existing belief that it is best to rationally consider evidence and the variables surrounding it and alter their beliefs accordingly. This idea that a certain amount of evidence- that I would simply call "sufficient evidence"- would somehow make it impossible to disbelieve is simply wrong, and it's weird to see so many christians saying otherwise when you can find an equal number of christians asserting that if the bible says that 2+2 equalled five, they would believe that over the blindingly obvious evidence that it is otherwise.

[Nay_Sayer]

I can only conclude that you are willfully being dishonest, at this point.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. Our discussion has been so much better than that to this point.

When are you going to stop following false gods and accept FSM into your life, I don't want you to boil for 500,000,000 years.

RAmen