I've been reading about the resurrection and whether it was a literal historical event or whether the gospels were written 'midrashically' to use the term from John Shelby Spong. I find his argument the most persuasive, but if he's right, then I don't know what to make of the resurrection. I am not a Christian (yet) but I am exploring the religion and don't know what to make of all this. If you also don't believe that the resurrection involved the literal reanimation of Jesus's body from the tomb, etc, I would be very interested to know what the resurrection means to you and what you believe happened.

Hi punk,

I am not sure where I stand on whether Jesus' dead body was actually resurrected, but I am inclined to think not. I am a liberal Christian, who never thinks the Bible needs to be taken literally, with enormous respect for the writers and the experiences/insights that inspired them.

There are two plausible possibilities, for me. The first is that Jesus' body died and by some essentially supernatural process, became alive again. He visited the disciples to reassure them that death is not the end, that God was triumphant after all, that they were still his friends even after they had been scattered by fear, and that they could carry on where he left off, without fear of the kind of treatment he had accepted.

The second is that the disciples, in their fear and disillusionment, somehow found strength to meet together again, and experienced, in that togetherness, the presence of Jesus. Whether this was a psychic phenomenon (the Thai people, among whom I lived for 3 years, see ghosts that Westerners cannot see, and sometimes jointly see the ghost) or just a recognition that a certain kind of interaction and feeling was exactly what they had experienced when Jesus was bodily present, so that the language of resurrection made sense as an account of what was happening, I don't think matters. This, I suspect, is Spong's version, essentially (I haven't read Spong on the subject but I know how he approaches things).

There are problems with both. The first ('literal') version is undermined to some extent by Paul's treatment in I Cor. in which he cites his own vision of Jesus as essentially no different from the appearances to the other disciples, as well as by (minor) differences between the accounts. A disputed "early version" of Mark omits the resurrection in its ending. The Emmaus road story suggests a possible interpretation, that something happened which was not at first recognized as Jesus' presence but was afterward interpreted as it. And then there is the whole problem of the supernatural, which I must confess I have had no encounters with. As a method of disclosure, the version we have doesn't seem designed to bring about the church in a planned or carefully managed way, but seems instead to involve Jesus minimally involving himself, just enough to show that he was alive, but not interpreting and teaching, showing himself to crowds, or confronting the authorities with his indestructibility.

The second, however, requires us to interpret one of the foundations of the faith as an elaborated legend, so that numerous disciples who were in a position to know had to agree to the story. The Mark issue calls into question how unanimous the interpretation was, but it is difficult to say whether written versions were ever disputed. If so, why did not the differences between Gospel accounts create controversies? Furthermore it directly contradicts the parts of the story in which the authors confront alternate interpretations (the disciples go to check the tomb, the risen Christ eats with them). Whoever wrote these accounts either really believed them to be accurate or was at pains to make them seem to be written by someone who thought they were accurate.

The odd thing is, I don't really think it matters. Not only are we admonished by Christian teaching not to believe because of miracles, but Paul, for example, omits the supernatural when saying what was important in Christian faith. He never cites any of the miracle stories, for example, except the Resurrection. God evidently did not have a plan in which convincing us by demonstration of the supernatural plays much role. The sensible approach is to recognize that in those days there were lots of "supernatural" events (earthquakes, etc.) and the important thing was to understand what they meant. In that context, Christians may have felt free to invent stories of the supernatural for the sake of their meaning. So, the meaning is the point either way. I have posted lots on this subject.

The story is either a myth, a metaphore or a little bit of both.
I think that interesting as the story is, looking back at the time it was told and the need of the diciples to believe Christ was still with them holds the key. It must have been quite a shock to see him "die".
And as the words of Jesus repeatedly hint toward reincarnation perhaps a literal form was needed by the disciples.
On a personal note, I really don't think it happened. But the belief in it is essential for Christians to elevate Christ above his "just another prophet" status.

Hi Punk

My first question is what are you reading, the Bible is the inerrant word of God so start with any of the Gospels. Don't worry about what Spong (I haven't read him) says or any other human for that matter, read the Bible, get a concordance and a Bible Dictionary. Try Blue Letter Bible.com for a start.

The most important thing is do you know what he died for and what was the purpose of the resurrection. You will not get this from any author outside the Bible everyone else is just speculating or working for their agenda.

Jesus literally died and was literally ressurected if people don't accept that then why follow Him.

Obtain a foundation in Jesus and make your decision based on prayer, the Bible and your repentant heart not what others tell you about some intellectual argument.

On judgement day we stand alone.

I will quote the Bible only once

Acts 17:11

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so

Check read pray and beware of decievers.

If I really recommend any I would recommend Cliffe Knechtle as one of the few balanced people to read or listen to he would have been a Berean.

punk_kimono

you said:
"I am not a Christian (yet) but I am exploring the religion and don't know what to make of all this"

I would suggest allowing your perfectly natural scepticism over things such as resurrection to rule your decisions. You say that you are exploring Christianty - why? Why not explore something like Cosmology or Particle Physics or Mathematics or Philosophy or Biology or Stamp Collecting or Composing Electronic Music or any of a million other things that will add value to your brain.

Somebody else here has suggested studying the bible. I don't know how old you are but assuming that you are going to live for another 50 years and you read an average of two books a week - you have time to read just over 5000 books from the millions of books that have been published and will be published during the rest of your life. Don't waste a single second on the bible - it isn't worth it.

"It isn't worth it"

God Bless You

If you have arrived at that conclusion based on your own journey ok that is your right. Please do not tell someone to not waste a single moment on it. Let them experience it for themselves. I have read other books too, quite a lot in fact but my Bible is not just a "Book" it is my life. Punk please read plenty of books just as I said get your foundation and beware deceivers.

punk_kimono says "The Resurrection - if not historical fact, then what????"

Historical fiction.

Cheers

Fact.

The gospels are far more reliable that people like to concede and the circumstantial evidence is quite suggestive. If we did not have a bias towards materialism inculcated in us by the culture of today I think it would be clear to most that the historical evidence points strongly towards there being a physical resurrection. If you want to study it more I'd recommend The Historical Reliability of the Gospels by Craig Blomberg.

Hope this helps.

"I have posted lots on this subject."

And each one was worth the effort, Harry. I've said it before and I'll say it again: you, sir, are a scholar and a gent.

Sorry, David, but the historical evidence doesn't even point strongly towards the character Jesus as related in the bible even existing at all. So it cannot follow that there is strong historical evidence of Jesus's resurrection.

In another thread, you have suggested that you are happy to discuss things given that one "has the humility to at least consider the possibility that I may be onto something, just as you may also be".

Let's look at this: in order for *you* to enter a discussion with *me*, I have to acknowledge that you might be right and you will also acknowledge that I might be right. The problem here is that these are not equal partners - although they do sound as if they might be. The difference is that everything you believe does not automatically exclude what I believe - whereas what I believe *does* by definition exclude your beliefs. Thus you can encompass the reality of science within your beliefs but I cannot extend the reality of science to include your supernatural fantasy. Thus, even to entertain the possibility of your being "on to something", as you put it, compromises rationality.

This is not lack of humility, this is realism.

All I'm saying, Ian, is that there needs to be an engagement. If I am not willing to consider what you are saying and vice versa we will never even make contact.

Now what you are highlighting is an epistemological issue, if I understand you rightly. And here, I think, I have a more robust stance. You suggest that rationality is the only epistemic virtue, which is manifestly untrue. You don't use pure reason to induce that your wife loves you or that (if you're a positivist) the data that reaches from the world is accurate. Instead you infer. You use reason, but you do not exalt it. So i'd suggest that besides reason we require an element of faith (not blind but analogous to induction). This faith sees recurring evidences and infers truths from them (similar to the scientific method). This is the epistemology on which my faith is grounded and also many of your day-to-day beliefs I suspect, though you may not admit it.

Now as to the historical evidence for the resurrection. I'd say the copious and diverse gospel extracts clearly support an early date of writing, while the styles and content also suggest a degree of authenticity. In addition, we have to consider why would these writers fabricate these things if they did not believe them? They lived in an oppresive, conservative society where deviating from Jewish beliefs was anathema. And they went on to die for these 'fabricated' notions. Their lives do not paint the picture of con-artists.

So now we should ask if they really believed this, what convinced them. And I'm convinced the only answer to this is the resurrection. This argument may seem fatuous when so simplified but I lack the time to say more.

I'd also draw attention to other documentary evidence: Josephus (obviously partially corrupted); Tacitus; Pliny; Thallus (via Julius Africanus).

As I am sure you are aware, the scientific method requires that the "inferred truths" be tested by experiment and falsified if possible. If one so chose, one could test whether one's wife loved one and draw an appropriate probability-based conclusion, dependent on the results of the tests. Your faiths are untestable in that they are unfalsifiable and thus are not subject to the scientific method.

Your response, while eloquently worded, suffers from exactly the same fundamental problem as that which I observe in the writings of countless other Christian apologists in that it is grounded on what you want to be true. However, the basic point is as simple as this: either there *is* a God in the Christian sense, or there isn't. Everything else - resurrections, virgin births, crucifixions, original sin, heaven, hell, the devil etc. etc. is predicated on that simple alternative. The reason you believe it is because you have faith - in the face of the absence of a single shred of any evidence. And the reason there is no evidence is because the appearance of a Universe with a God is identical to the appearance of a Universe without a God.

The reason I do not believe is because I see no reason to believe - God adds nothing but complications. I do not deny that I have faith - I have lots of it - in many things. But everything in which I have faith is theoretically (if not practically) testable.

The authenticity of the Gospels is irrelevant. They are stories written by humans - who were as influenced by what they wanted to be true as are you yourself - and, before you say it, as am I. I want it to be true that there isn't a God and my beliefs stem partly from that. As a realist, I would accept the existence of God - in whatever definition - if such existence were to be incontrovertibly demonstrated. What would it take for you to give up your belief in God?

"the basic point is as simple as this: either there *is* a God in the Christian sense, or there isn't."

Very true Ian, though what I don't understand is why you are opposed to Him.
If you don't believe and on Judgement Day find out you were wrong, what is your Plan B?

I am not a scholar and do not wish to be I just read the scriptures and allow God to teach. I believe your statement that the authenticity of the Gospels is irrelevant. If you don't believe in Jesus Christ then whats the point in arguing the rest.

Believing in Christ is not believing what we want to be truth, it is truth Jesus said what he meant and meant what he said. One day you will need Him and unlike everything else, He will be, ready to welcome you.

Pinner

You said:
"If you don't believe and on Judgement Day find out you were wrong, what is your Plan B?"
Well, of course, since I don't believe, then there will be no Judgement Day. However, just to explore the illustration, if it turns out that I am wrong, then I am wrong - full stop. Pascal's Wager doesn't work because you can't fake a belief, just in case.

I am not "opposed to God". I just see no necessity for God. As far as I can see, religious faith is, generally, a bad thing and the sooner the human race collectively realises this and comes to its senses, the better.

I agree, Ian, that the basic question is that of the existence of God. What we believe about Jesus and the gospels will largely depend on our views of the supernatural and our concept of revelation. So lets turn there first.

I'd suggest that there are four compelling arguments (which I favour) for the existence of God:

1) The Kalam cosmological argument. This is of islamic origin but can be used in defence of all monotheism. The premises are as follows: (a) Everything that comes into existence has a cause; (b) The universe came into existence; (c) the cause with the most explanatory power for the universe's existence is God. The conclusion here is that God exists.

Now this argument requires an extensive defence just to get running. Premise (a) may be attacked by reference to quantum fluctuations where particles apparently come randomly into existence. This is a weak argument however as it has been shown that the proviso to these particles appearing is that they "disappear with sufficient haste". They emphatically do not linger for 14 billion years. Another weakness is that this argument speaks only to the creation of minute particles, certainly not the universe at large. So I suggest that the truth of this premise is empirically verifiable. I'd also say that the idea of a "singularity" hardly helps your argument here. It seems a cop-out. Isn't this just a meaningless word to explain something that you can't explain without a cause because it can't happen without one?

Now to the third premise (I assume you'll concede the second). The idea of a "necessary being" is here posited. I'm convinced that God has more credibility than any other explanation. He satisfies the requirement of a first cause and solves the "goldilocks enigma" (Davies) (the second argument to which I will turn in a minute). So in one act these two massive improbabilities are explained. So in this I infer God as the best explanation.

And as for the question, who made god? the answer is obviously nobody as he falls outwith the scope of premise (a). There was never a time when he was not. Indeed, there was, apparently, never time at all, prior to the big bang.

2) Second is the teleological argument. Now, before you all have a go at me, I am an evolutionist and interpret genesis 1-2 as an allegory, just as theologians have at least since Augustine. I am not grounding this argument in biological terms where the anthropic principle provides your rebuttal. Rather, I'll appeal to the broader physical truths about the universe that allow for life, against odds no one can argue with (thus the fatuous invocation of the multiverse hypothesis for which surely there is no reasonable other than that we just don't want God). Consider just one such example: were there an alteration in the ratio of the expansion and contraction forces at Planck time (10^-43 seconds after the origin of the universe) by as little as 1 part in 10^55 the universe would have expanded so rapidly that galaxies would never have formed or it would collapsed in on himself. I think this is strong evidence that there is intention involved in this process. Perhaps you cannot justify it with the scientific method, as you have rightly said. But evident truths such as this point beyond themselves.

I don't have time to discuss my other two arguments. Suffice to say the two above, I feel are the strongest (though they may here be too condensed). In fact, I'd say after looking at all the evidence that these two argument alone main a strong cumulative case for the existence of something behind the universe.

Now I also agree with you that we all believe what we want. This is manifestly true. However, the implications you draw from it seem to restrict discussion. I think that just because we want something to be true, we may still have confidence in our beliefs. This is because there is only so far we can go in believing what we want. We still have to convince ourselves, so long as we value our concept of truth (which we must!). Now for some of us, convincing oneself can be quite an easy thing. But I think that in my own case if I was not genuinely convicted of the truth of something, because it seemed reasonable, coherent, consistent, empirical (in that it draws upon evidence and is certainly not contrary to any), and explanatory, I simply could not happily hold to it. Perhaps I esteem myself to highly however.

As for your question of what it would take for me to "change my mind" the answer is simple: I would have to be convinced that, on balance, my beliefs are unlikely to be true. As I said, the acid test, if you like, is the standard of truth. I must be convicted that I am following the truth or else my conviction unravels whether I want it to or not.

Any comments will be appreciated.

David,

Thanks for you extended reply - again eloquently worded. I'll address your
arguments in the order you presented them.

1) Your presentation of the Kalam cosmological argument is flawed in that it does not state specifically your point c) - that the most likely cause is God. All the argument asserts is that there is a First Cause. This may appear to be a minor objection but it fundamentally torpedoes your personal thesis. There may well be a First Cause but to define it as God and endow it with the characteristics of the Christian God or the Islamic God or any other God does not follow from the original premises - even if they were true.

I will concede that the cosmological argument appears to make sense - in fact, it seems at first sight to be common sense. However, as you have shown, it is predicated on a premise that can be shown to be false. It doesn't matter how fleeting the existence or how minute the resulting particles are - if there is a counter-example to the premise, it IS a counter-example. The premise IS false. You can't just conveniently ignore it because it doesn't seem to be big enough.

At the moment, we do not know how the Universe came into being. The best theory is that it somehow snapped into existence as a singularity and in the process, "existence" itself came into being. This is so counter-intuitive that I can perfectly well understand why it is not satisfactory and also understand why the creating process should be labelled "God". Personally, I am happy to leave it at "we don't yet know" but I have faith that one day we will. However, even if were to be true that God created the Universe, it does not follow that God needs to exhibit the characteristics ascribed by Christianity. Why do you believe God would be interested in humans? Perhaps this is in one of your other two arguments?

However, the main objection to the cosmological argument and in my view the one that invalidates it totally is that it is simply not necessary. Why not simply assert the Universe itself as the First Cause? The Universe spontaneously happened - without cause, and if it hadn't, we wouldn't be here to discuss it. This is as valid as the God hypothesis.

2) You can't simply dismiss the multiverse or any other theory as "fatuous" just because you disagree with it. By that token, the God theory is equally fatuous. In any case, while the Multiverse theory may or may not be correct, it is not necessary for the countering of the "fantastically minute probability" argument. If all possible values of all the physical constants that define the nature of the Universe were independent and equally likely, then something as strange as Multiverses or chains of Universes would perhaps be the only alternative to the idea of somebody's hand guiding things. However, this is not a reasonable proposition. The suggestion that all the possible values are equally likely is itself extremely improbable. While we do not yet know enough about the processes by which a Universe is formed to be certain, there seem to be indications that the values of some of these constants are mutually dependent.

Of course, this does not entirely dispose of the "guiding hand" argument in itself - indeed, it may turn out that our Universe *was* designed and constructed by somebody. We can already write computer programs that simulate Universes so it is not entirely unfeasible that eventually we could actually design and create a physical Universe - so if we could do it, there is no reason to suppose that it hasn't previously been done. However, this does not invoke God - merely a sufficiently advanced technological civilisation. This would of course raise the question where did they and their Universe come from?

I would contend that you have not answered my direct question about what it would take for you to change your mind. You replied "I would have to be convinced that ... my beliefs are unlikely to be true". OK, then what would it take to convince you that your beliefs are unlikely to be true.

Ian, I'll try to do justice to your comments but I have only a few minutes.

Firstly, I agree with the first flaw you pointed out in the the cosmological argument: that it does not argue for God as such. This is one of the main reasons that I like to bring the teleological argument: the appearance of 'intention' in the order of things would suggest that something loosely resembling God had a 'design'. But I agree wholeheartedly, you cannot infer the Christian God in any of this. Principally, this is because the Christian religion depends on the idea of revelation. We would not know God if he had not revealed himself. Arguments from natural theology merely supplement those from revelation and are not intended to tell us about who or what God is in any detail. Rather I use them to argue for the coherence of the Christian religion in explaining reality at large. What I am trying to demonstrate is that this notion of God, as revealed in the Bible, fits with reality. It is coherent, consistent and convincing, at least to me.

I agree with the flaw you see in the first premise of my argument also. But this is no great hindrance. We should just amend the premise to: (a) nothing stable that has come into existence, exists without a cause. This is empirical and I'm quite happy to base my argument on the amendent. Now on the topic of empiricism I'm not convinced you're being honest about the need for a cause. Surely every empirical example ever taken suggests that the universe does indeed need a cause. I am unaware of anything else in existence being its own "first cause", as you put it. In view of this, I appreciate that you see this matter as one for which you haven't yet got an explanation. However, I see this as a sort of faith. All of this data can be seen as pointing to the existence of God and I feel that ruling this option out simply because it is not within the bounds of your epistemology is, ultimately, misguided.

I'm afraid I have to leave it there. I'll try to finish the post later.

David A. Nelson,

"I'd suggest that there are four compelling arguments (which I favour) for the existence of God"

At the risk of stating the obvious, it is worth noting that none of these 'proofs' are successful. It is a simple truism that we have no proof that any such being exists.

The question then becomes whether we can successfully identify the flaws in the arguments. Judging by your assessment of the Kalam cosmological argument, you can see one flaw but haven't given it sufficient weight. Once you acknowledge uncaused events, the argument collapses. This isn't the only problem with this argument, by the way.

"There was never a time when he ('God') was not. Indeed, there was, apparently, never time at all, prior to the big bang."

And, if you had thought about it, this causes the second premise of the Kalam argument to collapse. You will note that this applies to the universe too! There was no time at which it did not exist. Therefore, can you talk about it coming into existence?

"I'm convinced that God has more credibility than any other explanation."

This is a recurrent problem for theistic arguments: they hardly ever specify which demons, aliens or gods may be implicated. As you point out, the Kalam argument is of Islamic origin, but gives no indication whether Islam should be adopted in preference to Christianity. In a similar way, the design arguments point more naturally to polytheism - where, indeed, they had their roots.

"thus the fatuous invocation of the multiverse hypothesis for which surely there is no reasonable other than that we just don't want God)"

The multiverse hypothesis is actually more parsimonious than having just one universe. If we want to argue that there is only one universe then we need additional hypotheses to justify why there should only be one.

An omnipotent, creative deity would have no need to 'fine-tune' anything. As such, the fine-tuning arguments are better seen as arguments against the existence of god.

Hi punk,

The resurrection is a very old metaphor for the rising of the sun after its three-day lull at the lowest point of the sky in December. Christianity is not the only religion with this imagery - far from it.

JA, see my amendment of the first premise of the Kalam argument and my proposition on the uses of revelation over natural theology in my last post (just above yours). I also think that only that which is outside of time does not need a cause. Surely, anything in time requires a cause, because it came to be. This brings us right back around to the second premise and validates the idea that God requires no cause.

Additionally, I'm not sure how the design arguments point to polytheism. Perhaps you could explain before I comment on this idea further.

"If we want to argue that there is only one universe then we need additional hypotheses to justify why there should only be one."

Surely this is not true. I'd think a fundamental tenet of your 'rationalism' is that you only believe in what you see; what you need to believe in. There is no reason to suppose other universes; no requirement to prove a negative, where there is no evidence. The onus is clearly on you to prove that there are other universes if you so contend.

What's more, I'd say the multiverse hypothesis is singularly uneconomical. It is complicated solves only one of two problems: design, and not cause. In fact you now need to explain the existence of not one but many (perhaps infinite) universes. Perhaps you can use inflationary theory to do this, but either way you have only solved one problem and posited something far more complicated than God, who has a lot more explanatory power.

"An omnipotent, creative deity would have no need to 'fine-tune' anything. As such, the fine-tuning arguments are better seen as arguments against the existence of god."

I'm afraid I have no idea why you would say this. If God wants life to exists in the universe, he will make it in such a way as to ensure life can, and will, exist. Perhaps it is the expression 'fine-tune' that is misleading you. I don't really believe God fiddled with dozens of measures to ensure his universe could support life. Rather I think he simply created it in such a way as to make sure this would be the case.

Hope this helps.

David,

Well, let's look at it this way: it is not the same thing to say that "everything in the Universe has a cause" and "the Universe has a cause". Since, by definition, the Universe *is* everything, the statement that everything has a cause is included within the definition of the Universe. Causality is itself a property of the Universe. Thus, the Universe is not subject to causality because causality is a consequence of the Universe's existence.

So, by this argument, it is entirely reasonably to assert that the Universe is it's own cause.

I disagree. You mistake my causality premise for a material claim when I'm actually trying to establish a metaphysical principle. So I'm not saying "everything in the Universe has a cause". I'm say "everything that comes into existence (and stabilises) has a cause". Perhaps you are right though. We're just drawing parameters where we want now. However, as I've said, I do think that causation is temporal and that all things in time require a cause including the universe. That seems to me to make sense.

David,

Then we must agree to disagree in this case. However, it doesn't matter because the bigger question remains - how do you justify endowing the creating entity with the characteristics of the Christian God?

As i mentioned previously the concept of revelation is central here. If we are simply arguing from first principles or natural theology the conclusion that the Christian God exists is totally unwarranted. But once the idea of revelation is brought into play, the case becomes altogether different. So what I'm arguing for here (and I know you won't like this) is that the Bible as a document is reliability to the extent that we can trust its testimony on matters of reality (primarily spiritual, but also historical).

Now, this would be a manifestly ridiculous claim if we retained our bias against the supernatural, miracles etc. But once we allow that there may be a God, as we appear to have done, then that bias can do nothing but cloud our vision. So the question becomes, does the Bible square with what we know of history? On balance my answer is that it does. It is internally consistent and corresponds to reality. In addition, I find it existentially satisfying (though I will of course not use this as an argument).

Now the problem we've reached at this point is that we have a massive text to analyse. We may indeed find a discussion of this topic impossible. But perhaps I have said enough already for some rebuttal.

David,

You said
"What I am trying to demonstrate is that this notion of God, as revealed in the Bible, fits with reality."

I think this is the key point from which our disagreement stems. I do not think that *anything* is *revealed* in the bible. It is a collection of stories - some pleasant, some unpleasant, some (very few) with a whiff of historical plausibility, most demonstrably fictitious.

I trust that you are intelligent enough not to fall for the circular argument that the bible proves the existence of God because the bible is inspired by God. Can you please expand on the "revealed" notion and how you see it fitting with reality? How can the bible be the word of God when it has to assume that in order to prove that it is the word of God?