The terrifying thought of no afterlife

[Persimmon Hamster]

St. Matthew 7:6.

So let me get this all straight.  You enter into an atheist forum, what, expecting to find some easy converts?  And then for anyone who isn't won over by your sermonizing alone, you whip out that old chestnut and openly liken them to sub-human creatures?  Sounds like the perfect strategy for success to me!

What do you see as the basis of truth?

Also If you adhere to a strictly scientific standard for belief, there will always be a more logical explanation than the supernatural. You will not come to the faith by intellect alone. It is a journey of the heart that must be lived.

I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.  You are the very one who himself just said in this very thread that there is verifiable, extra-Biblical evidence in support of the resurrection.  I have said a couple of times now that if you presented any examples that held water you might gain some traction.  And yet here we are, with you still clamming up.  I am forced to add "liar" to possible descriptions of your character.  Next time, if you don't mean it, try not saying it.

[Ihateyoumike]

Why do I think of this clip everytime I read an Achronos post?
[youtube:2gwxxwzv]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZuEMkwF9ZU[/youtube:2gwxxwzv]

[Achronos]

I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.  You are the very one who himself just said in this very thread that there is verifiable, extra-Biblical evidence in support of the resurrection.  I have said a couple of times now that if you presented any examples that held water you might gain some traction.  And yet here we are, with you still clamming up.  I am forced to add "liar" to possible descriptions of your character.  Next time, if you don't mean it, try not saying it.

Alright alright I'll cave. Well, I know you won't read all of this, but I'll post it anyway, if for any other reason than you might try to say no one came "come up with any responses." Also the following is my collection from various sources.

“If Jesus remained dead, how can you explain the reality of the Christian church and its phenomenal growth in the first three centuries of the Christian Era? Christ’s church covered the Western world by the fourth century. A religious movement built on a lie could not have accomplished that…All the power in Rome and of the religious establishment in Jerusalem was geared to stop the Christian faith. All they had to do was to dig up the grave and to present the corpse. They didn’t.”  -   Henry Schaefer III, Ph.D. (1944- ), Professor of Chemistry and Director at the University of Georgia

“I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead.”   - Thomas Arnold (1795-1842) Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University

“The evidence for the resurrection is better than for claimed miracles in any other religion. It’s outstandingly different in quality and quantity.” - Anthony Flew, Ph.D. (1923-2007) British Philosopher, atheist and author

"I am the resurrection and the life.”
Jesus of Nazareth (3-35) Jewish peasant and prophet

Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
-  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.
-  When the phrase “most scholars” is used, this is accurate and not an assumption.  Dr. Habermas conducted a study of every scholarly work on the resurrection, published since 1975, in French, English and German, creating a table of each scholar, their work, and their position, resulting in a 500-page document.
-  Given that most people reject the Bible, it will not be used in any other manner, than simply being a work of ancient literature.  On top of that, we will only use those portions that are so strongly evidenced historically, that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, skeptic or otherwise.  So if (and when) you come across a biblical reference for something, and your gut says, “Hey, that’s from the Bible, it can’t be trusted,” keep in mind we are only using portions that hardly any scholar publishing works over the last 40 years would reject.
-  Historical data, such as archaeological finds, documents, and eyewitness reports, are all we have to tell us of events that occurred and people who lived in antiquity.  When sifting through all of this, certain principles (seen below) are applied by historians to determine if something is historically reliable:
•   Multiple, independent sources support historical claims.
o   When an event or saying is attested by more than one independent source, there is a strong indication of its historicity.
•   Attestation by an enemy supports historical claims.
o   If testimony affirming an event or saying is given by a source who does not sympathize with the person, message, or cause that profits from the account, we have an indication of authenticity.
•   Embarrassing admissions support historical claims.
o   An indicator that an event or saying is authentic occurs when the source would not be expected to create the story, because it embarrasses their cause and weakens their position in arguments with opponents.
•   Eyewitness testimony supports historical claims.
o   Eyewitness testimony is usually stronger than a secondhand account.
•   Early testimony supports historical claims.
o   The closer the time between the event and testimony about it, the more reliable the witness, since there is less time for exaggeration, and even legend, to creep into the account.

Basically, since we don’t have a certified video record of what occurred in antiquity, these principles are commonsense guidelines for evaluating the written record of something that is alleged to have happened.  It is all we have to go on…
-  The approach taken can be described as a “minimal facts” approach.  Meaning, we consider only those data that are so strongly attested historically, that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones.  The facts presented, in this case, must meet two criteria: (1)They are well evidenced (multiple independent sources) and (2)nearly every scholar (remember Habermas’ laborious study) accepts them.

In reality, no fact or theory finds total agreement or disagreement.  Skeptical scholars are notorious for disagreeing with one another.  Extreme, radical positions can always be found.  If we look hard enough, we will find people who deny that even we exist.  Thus, the “minimal facts” approach includes what nearly all scholars hold as authentic.  Seldom can we speak about what all agree upon, for seldom do they all agree….
So, what are the facts?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

That Jesus was executed by crucifixion is recorded in all four gospels.  However, a number of non-Christian sources of the period report the event as well.
•   Josephus writes, “When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified…”
•   Tacitus reports, “Nero fastened the guilt (of the burning of Rome) and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace.  Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate.”
•   Lucian of Samosata, the Greek satirist, writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this dayâ€"the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account.”
•   Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to his son from prison, comments, “Or what advantage came to the Jews by the murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven away from them?”
•   The Talmud reports that, “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged.”
The highly critical scholar of the Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, writes, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”

Fact Two:  Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.

There is a virtual consensus among scholars who study Jesus’ resurrection that, subsequent to Jesus’ death by crucifixion, his disciples really believed that he appeared to them raised from the dead.  This conclusion has been reached by considering data that suggest 1) the disciples themselves claimed that the risen Jesus had appeared to them, and 2) subsequent to Jesus’ death, his disciples were radically transformed from fearful, cowering individuals who denied and abandoned him at his arrest and execution to bold proclaimers of his resurrection.  We’ll take a look at a number of ancient sources that lead to this conclusion.

They claimed it.  Paul provides very strong evidence for establishing the resurrection claims of the original disciples (remember, he wasn’t one).  He reported that he knew at least some of the other disciples, even the “big three” of Peter, James and John.  The Book of Acts reports that the disciples and Paul knew and fellowshipped together.  Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:11 that whether “it was I or they, this is what we preach,” talking about the resurrection.  Paul knew them personally and says they claimed Jesus rose from the dead.  Yes, this is from the Bible, but remember in our minimal facts approach, we’re treating the NT as any other book, and beyond that, are only entertaining the data that is well evidenced and accepted.  Virtually no one doubts the authenticity of Pauline authorship here.  Plus, Paul is a source independent of the original disciples.

Aside from Paul’s writings, we have oral tradition.  Remember, the ancients did not have our tools for recording and passing along information, like tape recorders, video cameras, etc., and the individual copies that could be made by hand couldn’t reach very many people, never mind the fact that most of them couldn’t read them if they did.  They relied heavily on oral tradition.  And a key point about oral tradition is that it had to exist prior to the NT writings in order for the authors to include them.  So this takes us back to some of the earliest teachings of the Christian church.

An example of this is found in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (A.D. 55).  He said, “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”  How do we know this was an oral creed of the early church?
•   “Delivered” and “received” communicates that Paul is giving them a tradition he himself was given.
•   It contains indicators of an Aramaic original:
o   Fourfold use of the Greek term hoti is common in creeds
o   “Cephas,” is Aramaic for Peter (he obviously knew his real name)
o   The content of the text contains parallelisms
o   The text contains non-Pauline terms (he used words he doesn’t use anywhere else)

Many critical scholars believe that Paul actually received this creed from the disciples themselves (Peter and James) when he visited them in Jerusalem, because he uses the word historesai in Galatians 1:18-19 (his account of their time together), which means, “to get an historical account.”
So we have Paul, oral tradition, and now, the writings of the early church/Church Fathers.  Despite their apparent bias, the Gospels cannot be ignored either.  It is well accepted that all four gospels were written during the first century, which means we have accounts written within 70 years of Jesus at the very latest, containing reports that the disciples believed they saw him raised from the dead.  On top of the Gospels, we have the writings of the apostolic fathers, who are the church leaders directly succeeding the Apostles.  Several apostolic fathers taught that the Apostles were dramatically impacted by Jesus’ resurrection.
•   Clement, bishop of Rome (c. 30-100, likely the same Clement Paul refers to in Philippians 4:3) in a letter to Corinth (which is quoted by Irenaeus) says that he “had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, and might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing, and their traditions before his eyes.  Nor was he alone, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the Apostles.  In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brothers at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians.”  Tertullian goes on to say, “For this manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers:  as the church in Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the Church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.”  If Irenaeus and Tertullian are correct, Clement had seen the Apostles and had fellowshipped with them, particularly Peter.  I mention all of that, because it lends great historical value to Clement’s writings concerning the Apostles and their teachings.  He actually knew them.  So what does he say they taught?  â€œTherefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.”
•   Polycarp, is in the same situation, having been appointed a successor by John, writing that the Apostles, “did not love this present age, but him who died for our benefit and for our sake was raised by God.”
Combining this with Paul and the oral tradition, we have 9 sources, in 3 different categories pointing to multiple, very early, eyewitness testimonies to the disciple’s claims of witnessing the risen Jesus.

You might ask yourself why this is so important.  It’s important because we have to establish that the resurrection of Jesus was really what the disciples taught, and more importantly, what they really believed.  They didn’t make it up, they didn’t lie about it.  They were in actuality completely transformed by their experience.  I’m not saying here that this is proof Jesus was really raised, but that the disciples genuinely believed he was.  This is the foundation for the rest of the argument.

As University of Chicago New Testament scholar Norman Perrin (who denies the resurrection) states, “The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based.”  Jesus died by crucifixion, and the disciples claimed they had seen him raised from the dead.

They believed it.  After Jesus’ death, the lives of the disciples were transformed to the point that they endured persecution and even martyrdom.  Such strength of conviction indicates that they were not just claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them in order to receive some personal benefit.  They really believed it.  Compare this courage to their character at Jesus’ arrest and execution.  They denied and abandoned him, and they hid in fear.  Afterward, they willingly endangered themselves by publicly proclaiming the risen Christ.  These facts are validated by multiple accounts, both from early sources in the NT as well as outside sources.
•   Clement of Rome reports the sufferings (and what appears to be the martyrdoms) of Peter and Paul:
o   “Because of envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and contended unto death.  Let us set the good Apostles before our eyes.  Peter, who because of unrighteous envy endured, not one or two, but many afflictions, and having borne witness went to the due glorious place.  Because of envy rivalries, steadfast Paul pointed to the prize.  Seven times chained, exiled, stoned, having become a preacher both in the East and in the West, he received honor fitting of his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, unto the boundary on which the sun sets; having testified in the presence of the leaders.  Thus he was freed from the world and went to the holy place.  He became a great example of steadfastness…They are in the place due them with the Lord, in association with him also they suffered together, for they did not love this present age…”
•   Tertullian also reports the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul:
o   “That Paul is beheaded has been written in their own blood.  And if a heretic wishes his confidence to rest upon a public record, the archives of the empire will speak, as would the stones of Jerusalem.  We read the lives of the Caesars:  At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising faith.  Then is Peter girt by another, when he is made fast to the cross.  Then does Paul obtain a birth suited to Roman citizenship, when in Rome he springs to life again ennobled by martyrdom.”
This quote in particular is interesting in that Tertullian is saying if one did not want to believe the Christian records concerning the martyrdoms of some of the Apostles, he could find the information in the public records, namely “the lives of the Caesars.”
•   Origen, a church father, in his work Contra Celsum relates how the disciple’s devotion to the teachings of Jesus “was attended with danger to human life[and that they] themselves were the first to manifest their disregard for its [death’s] terrors.”
•   Eusebius is called the “first church historian.”  In his Ecclesiastical History he quotes the works of Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, and Origen for the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul.  And he sites Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria in regards to the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus.
All of these sources, biblical and non-biblical alike, affirm the disciple’s willingness to suffer and die for their faith.  Obviously, the conviction of the disciple’s that Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them does not mean they were right.  But this misses the point.  The disciple’s willingness to suffer and die for their beliefs indicates that they certainly regarded those beliefs as true.  The case is strong that they did not willfully lie about the appearances of the raised Jesus.  Liars make poor martyrs.

At this point you could argue that many people die for their beliefs, such as a Muslim terrorist blowing himself up in public or the Buddhist monk who burns himself alive in a political protest.  Extreme acts do not validate the truth of their beliefs, but willingness to die indicates that they regard their beliefs as true.  But there is an important difference between people like this and the Apostles.  Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them.  The Apostles on the other hand, died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus.  Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true.  The Apostles died for what they knew to be true, from their own experience (whether true or false).

What do contemporary scholars have to say about the disciple’s beliefs?
•   Highly critical NT scholar Rudolf Bultmann agreed that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection” and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus.
•   Atheistic NT scholar Gerd Ludemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”
•   Paula Fredriksen of Boston University comments, “I know in their own terms what they saw was the raised Jesus.  That’s what they say and then all the historic evidence we have afterwards attest to their conviction that that’s what they saw.  I’m not saying that they really did see the raised Jesus.  I wasn’t there.  I don’t know what they saw.  But I do know that as a historian that they must have seen something.”

Going back to that massive undertaking of Dr. Habermas I mentioned early, he says:

“I recently completed an overview of more than 1,400 sources on the resurrection of Jesus published since 1975.  I studied and catalogued about 650 of these texts in English, German and French.  Some of the results of this study were certainly intriguing.  For example, perhaps no fact is more widely recognized than that the early Christian believers had real experiences that they thought were appearances of the risen Jesus.  A critic may claim that what they saw were hallucinations or visions, but he does not deny that they actually experienced something.”

Since the original disciples were making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was not the result of myth making.  His life story was not embellished over time if the facts can be traced to the original witnesses, which we have seen is historically believed to be the case.
Moving on, are there any data that will lead us to believe that the disciple’s claims to have seen the risen Jesus were actually true?

Fact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

Saul of Tarsus (now known as Paul), changed from being a skeptic who believed that it was God’s will to persecute and stomp out the church to becoming one of its most influential messengers.  His notorious pre-Christian activities and conversion are attested to by multiple sources.  We have Paul’s own testimony, Luke’s record in the Book of Acts, and a story that was circulating among Christians in Galatia.

What caused Paul to change so drastically?

Both Paul himself, and Luke the Physician, report that it was because he believed firmly that he had experienced an encounter with the risen Jesus.  Paul’s conversion is so interesting because he was an enemy of the church when he claimed to have seen the risen Jesus.  Which, if you’ll recall, is a red flag of historical authenticity because friend and foe are now testifying to the resurrection.

Paul’s experience is affirmed in the works of Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Tertullian, Dionysius of Corinth and Origen, as well.
You could ask yourself, “What’s the big deal?  People convert all the time?”  The difference here is of primary versus secondary sources.  Paul believed because he experienced it for himself, rather than relying on the testimony of someone else.

Fact Four:  The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

James, if you’ll recall, was one of at least four brothers of Jesus mentioned in the gospels.  We know James was a pious Jew as Paul states in Galatians that legalistic men were claiming affiliation with James in order to keep the Jewish Law.  Hegesippus reported that:

“James, the brother of the Lord, succeeded to the government of the Church in conjunction with the Apostles.  He has been called the Just by all from the time of our Savior to the present day; for there were many that bore the name of James.  He was holy from his mother’s womb; and he drank no wine nor strong drink, nor did he eat flesh.  No razor came upon his head; he did not anoint himself with oil, and he did not use the public bath.  He alone was permitted to enter into the holy place; for he wore not woolen but linen garments.  And he was in the habit of entering alone into the temple, and was frequently found upon his knees begging forgiveness for the people, so that his knees became hard like those of a camel, in consequence of his constantly bending them in his worship of God, and asking forgiveness for the people.  Because of his exceeding great justice he was called the Just, and Oblias, which signifies in Greek, ‘bulwark of the people’ and ‘justice,’ in accordance with what the prophets declare concerning him.”

We don’t have the same wealth of historical information about the life of James (like we do for Paul) but we do have enough information to conclude that after the alleged event of Jesus’ resurrection, James, the brother of Jesus, became a convert to Christianity because he believed the risen Jesus appeared to him.  This conclusion is arrived at because:
•   The gospels report that Jesus’ brothers, including James, were unbelievers during his ministry.
•   The ancient creedal material quoted in 1 Corinthians (which we discussed earlier) lists an appearance of the risen Jesus to James, (“then He appeared to James…”).
•   Subsequent to the alleged event of Jesus’ resurrection, James is identified as a leader of the Jerusalem church.
•   Not only did James convert, he died as a martyr, as is mentioned by Josephus, Hegesippus, and Clement of Alexandria.
With James, we have another example of a skeptic converting to Christianity based on what he perceived to be a personal appearance by the risen Jesus.  As with Paul, we have to ask ourselves:  What happened to James to cause such a conviction?

Fact Five:  The tomb was empty.

The empty tomb is the one “fact” of ours that does not meet the “minimal facts” approach, because it is not accepted by nearly all scholars, but there is still fairly strong evidence for it.  According to Habermas’ survey, roughly 75% hold this to be true.

Jesus was publicly executed in Jerusalem.  His post-mortem appearances and empty tomb were first proclaimed publicly there.  It would have been virtually impossible for Christianity to get off the ground in Jerusalem if the body had still been in the tomb.  His enemies in the Jewish leadership and Roman government would only have had to exhume the corpse and publicly display it for the hoax to be shattered.  Not only are Jewish, Roman, and all other writings absent of such an account, but there is a total silence from Christianity’s critics who would have jumped at evidence of this sort.
The empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources.  Jesus’ enemies admitted it as well, albeit indirectly.  Rather than point to an occupied tomb, early critics accused the disciples of stealing the body (Matt. 28:12-13; Justin Martyr, Trypho 108; Tertullian, De Spectaculis 30).

We also have the testimony of women.  Given the low first-century view of women that was frequently shared by Jew and Gentile, it seems highly unlikely that the Gospel authors would either invent or adjust such testimonies.  That would mean placing words in the mouths of those who would not be believed by many, making them the primary witnesses to the empty tomb.  The empty tomb appears to be historically credible in light of the principle of embarrassment.

The empty tomb is, therefore, reasonably well evidenced for historical certainty.  Former Oxford University historian William Wand writes, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor of the empty tomb, and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

Conclusion

We have presented evidence for Jesus’ resurrection using a “minimal facts” approach, which considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that even the majority of non-believing scholars accept them as facts.  We have not appealed to, or even suggested, the inspiration or inerrancy of the Bible in order to support the case.

Using the “minimal facts” approach, we considered four facts that meet these stringent criteria and one additional fact (empty tomb) that enjoys acceptance by an impressive amount of scholars, though not nearly all of them.

What we covered:

Shortly after Jesus’ death, his disciples believed that they saw him risen from the dead.  They claimed that he had appeared to individuals among them, as well as to several groups.  Two of those who once viewed Jesus as a false prophet, later believed that he appeared to them risen (Paul, the church persecutor, and James, the skeptic and Jesus’ brother).  Both became Christians as a result.  Therefore, not only do we have the testimony of friends; we also have enemy attestation.  And finally, the empty tomb.

Any opposing theory to Jesus’ resurrection is going to have to account for all of these facts as well as others.  For example, some might speculate that the disciples experienced grief hallucinations, or that they lied, or that they stole the body, or that the whole story is simply a legend developed over time, etc.  But these 5 facts that we have covered accomplish two things:  (1) they provide compelling evidence for Jesus’ resurrection and (2) they stand as data that must be accounted for by any opposing theory.

Since the first reports of Jesus’ resurrection, critics have formulated opposing theories to account for the known data.  These are commonly referred to as naturalistic explanations, because they appeal to a natural cause for the event rather than a supernatural one.  Interestingly, liberal scholars of the 19th century both rejected Jesus’ resurrection and provided refutations of most of these naturalistic theories.  Neo-orthodox scholar Karl Barth was perhaps the most influential theologian of the twentieth century.  Barth pointed out how each opposing theory to Jesus’ resurrection suffers from many inconsistencies and concluded, “Today we rightly turn our nose at this.”  Raymond Brown, a moderate New Testament scholar echoed Barth, writing that 20th century critical scholars had rejected existing theories that oppose the Resurrection.  He added that contemporary thinkers both ignore these theories and even treat them as unrespectable.

Today the prevalent view among sophisticated critics is that the disciples seem to have experienced something, but what it was may not be known, and the general bias is against resurrections.  As Charles Hartshorne articulated in his comments pertaining to a public debate between Habermas and prominent atheist philosopher Antony Flew, “I can neither explain away the evidences to which Habermas appeals, nor can I simply agree with Flew’s or Hume’s positions…My metaphysical bias is against resurrections.”

It is fair to raise questions regarding an opposing theory to Jesus’ resurrection.  Aside from the faith factor, when it comes to reports of miracles, the historian must seek a natural explanation before considering a supernatural one.  It’s the responsible thing to do.  Even Christians do this continually in examining reports of miracles in other religions.  Our own faith is not exempt from similar investigation.  When no plausible natural explanation is availableâ€"as appears to be the case with Jesus’ resurrectionâ€"and a historical context with obvious religious implications exists where a resurrection is at homeâ€"for example, if Jesus performed miracles and claimed divinityâ€"there are then no reasons why a supernatural cause cannot be considered.
At times, the skeptic demands that an explanation be so strong that no questions can be raised against it.  If historians took this approach, I think you’d agree, we could know very little about history.

Opposing theories to date simply cannot account for this collection of historically granted facts, thereby leaving Jesus’ resurrection as the best explanation.

[Achronos]

Why do I think of this clip everytime I read an Achronos post?
[youtube:2g4tujvp]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZuEMkwF9ZU[/youtube:2g4tujvp]

Oh come on you post this video and don't bring up the very structure of a banana?

[Ihateyoumike]



Notes, Disclaimers & Things to Remember
- It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is.

See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just bullshit.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there,  It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."

[Stevil]

No. And further how can you say that when I asked you a qeustion:
"Now whom do you blame?"

I certainly found your first sentence more interesting and worthy of a response. Your second sentence/question did not imply that you were lying or being sarcastic with regards to the first sentence so I did not think it would be inaccurate to take your first sentence as it was written.

To address your question "Now whom do you blame?". I actually thought your question was rheotorical. There is certainly not one person to blame for all the issues of the world and in some cases the answer is not a whom but a what. I don't know the underlying causes of any of the world's problems actually. But this might be a good question for you to post on the "Ask me anything" thread. Chandler M Bing may have the answer, and I have a hunch you will find his answer quite agreeable and aligned with your thoughts.

You talk about the 'world' as a single variable. The current population of the world is up to, what, 6,750,000,000 as of last year? That's 6.8 Billion variable wills counter to God's. Some will feel his peace, some will ignore it, but each one is a changing variable. Conflicts alone involve hundreds of thousands of individuals, each one capable of rejecting God's peace.

So yes, it is being saved and trashed between the 6.8 billion people.

To quote, well, you actually "You're anthropomorphizing God. This statement assumes that God can be overloaded with requests"
I don't believe that everyone in the world is responsible for the continuing war in Burma as an example. There are probably only a handful of influential people keeping this war alive. Given how perfect, all knowing and all powerful I am told your god is (the Christian god I assume as you have not offered the actual name) it would seem that stopping this war would be trivial.

I find it interesting that you state things like "each one capable of rejecting God's peace" this assumes people know that your god exists, know what your god's peace is and is making an informed decision about whether to accept or reject that peace. I for one am not rejecting your god's peace as I have never been propositioned with it and hence have no grounds to accept or reject it. Does peace mean hearding up the sinners and throwing guilt and penance onto them until they are aligned with the Church, but obviously in a non judgemental way as judgement can only be made by your god?

God desires our freewill for His 'miracles' and Will.

I love that you brought up freewill. There is an old tv serious which I liked a lot. It was called American Gothic and had a cool phrase "the illusion of freewill".
I truly believe in that phrase. Everyone's freewill is hugely tainted. Some of the causes of these taints are: family upbringing, culture, school teachings, media influence, peer influence, country environment, community environment, role models, life experience, time period alive in, etc.
No-one has freewill. Some are more tainted or constrained than others. I personally see religion and Church as providing both taint and constraint on freewill which is evident by the followers' morals and thoughts being alligned with that of the religion and Church. The problem with taints on freewill is that people are generally unaware of them, hence the term "the illusion of freewill"

[Gawen]

I honestly don't know why you guys "debate" with Achronos. He moves the goal posts, claims we do things bad or wrong all the while he does the same, uses spurious claims and sources, back pedals, doesn't answer questions by side stepping them, laughs in the face of good counter evidence and is smug his his alleged righteousness.

I'll no longer be participating. Ya just can't talk to people like that.

[Achronos]

I forgot to add,

I see reason and evidence as strong components of truth.

And you have demonstrated little of either, and this platitude doesn't add to that.

The devil is in the details. Give us some details, because you cite militant atheists and fundamentalist preachers without discretion as equal authorites.  That demonstrates neither reason, nor evidence, but a confused mind.

And then for anyone who isn't won over by your sermonizing alone,

You haven't worked your way up to be the object of sermonzing yet. I've see nothing to indicate you came do anything but take pot shots, and then cry "I'm wounded" when the troops shoot back with better aim and superior weapons.

I haven't found your posts serious, and have responded accordingly. Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Your self proclaimed skeptic friends see a contradiction in that with the preceeding verse, because they lack any sense of discernment. Like Gawn above, cutting and pasting indiscriminately from atheists and fundamentalists, you demonstrate that lack as well.

you whip out that old chestnut

An oldie but a goodie.  Stick to the tried and true.

and openly liken them to sub-human creatures?

If it walks like a duck....

Sounds like the perfect strategy for success to me!

Worked so far.

See, this is why I can't take you seriously.
When you're trying to present something as fact, it's all about proof. Otherwise it's just bullshit.

"Alright your honor. I will prove to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that my client is innocent. But understand when looking at the evidence that I don't really have, and the "witnesses" that weren't even there, It’s not about proof but about what the reasonable, logical and likely conclusion is."

LOL...Your knowledge of Jurisprudence is equal to your understanding of Christianity. Not good.

The standard for guilt or innocence is not "Beyond a shadow of a doubt".. it is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt"

The case for the claims of Christianity are well beyond reasonable with considerable evidence both circumstantial and direct.
We don't have photos but the evidence is strong enough to convince an ordinarily prudent and reasonable person.

Youre just playing around to make yourself feel good about your life decisions...Grow up

Also talk about BS:You are trying to retry a case tried nearly two millenia ago. A little past the statute of limitations.

I Cor. 15:3 Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles.

Don't know what witnesses that weren't even there you are talking about.

Let's give you an event of comparable antiquity and comparable (in worldly terms) as to the Resurrection of Christ: Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.  Tell us, how would you prove that event happened?

I certainly found your first sentence more interesting and worthy of a response.

That doesn't suprise me.

Your second sentence/question did not imply that you were lying or being sarcastic

Neither lying nor being sarcastic. "For the sake of argument...."

with regards to the first sentence so I did not think it would be inaccurate to take your first sentence as it was written.

Perhaps it was too terse: ["For the same of argument, let's say] There is no God.["]

To address your question "Now whom do you blame?". I actually thought your question was rheotorical. There is certainly not one person to blame for all the issues of the world and in some cases the answer is not a whom but a what. I don't know the underlying causes of any of the world's problems actually.

Take a minute and a half and learn
The apple incident
[youtube:30pm9e6u]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q5BjtWDHXM[/youtube:30pm9e6u]

[Achronos]

To quote, well, you actually "You're anthropomorphizing God. This statement assumes that God can be overloaded with requests"
I don't believe that everyone in the world is responsible for the continuing war in Burma as an example. There are probably only a handful of influential people keeping this war alive. Given how perfect, all knowing and all powerful I am told your god is (the Christian god I assume as you have not offered the actual name) it would seem that stopping this war would be trivial.

Each and every person involved in the conflict has a choice. The most influential person, or the most minute, have the same capacity to listen or ignore God.

I find it interesting that you state things like "each one capable of rejecting God's peace" this assumes people know that your god exists, know what your god's peace is and is making an informed decision about whether to accept or reject that peace. I for one am not rejecting your god's peace as I have never been propositioned with it and hence have no grounds to accept or reject it.

Belief in God is irrelevant to His existence and His influence. Just as my belief in your existence is irrelevant to your action and existance.

Does peace mean hearding up the sinners and throwing guilt and penance onto them until they are aligned with the Church, but obviously in a non judgemental way as judgement can only be made by your god?

What on Earth are you talking about? Try goggling the word for "peace" and "love".

Or are you just trolling? I would prefer you cease further attempts of distorting the discussion into cheap polemics.

I love that you brought up freewill. There is an old tv serious which I liked a lot. It was called American Gothic and had a cool phrase "the illusion of freewill".
I truly believe in that phrase. Everyone's freewill is hugely tainted. Some of the causes of these taints are: family upbringing, culture, school teachings, media influence, peer influence, country environment, community environment, role models, life experience, time period alive in, etc.

Does the media, your peers, experience, or culture 'force' you into action? Free will mean you have the 'freedom' to choose. These are influences, but they do not control you. Show me which one 'makes you act', not influence, 'forces you' to act.

No-one has freewill. Some are more tainted or constrained than others. I personally see religion and Church as providing both taint and constraint on freewill which is evident by the followers' morals and thoughts being alligned with that of the religion and Church. The problem with taints on freewill is that people are generally unaware of them, hence the term "the illusion of freewill"

You always have a choice, even if the choice for a given situation in 'difficult'.

Modern American culture enjoys shifting blame, and refusing personal responsibility. It's not surprising that it's popular to 'blame' everything else for personal choices. "It was my mom's fault." "My friends told me to." "He only saw it on TV." "She just made me so mad, I HAD to." You ALWAYS have a choice, anything else is a cop-out.

[Stevil]

I find it interesting that you state things like "each one capable of rejecting God's peace" this assumes people know that your god exists, know what your god's peace is and is making an informed decision about whether to accept or reject that peace. I for one am not rejecting your god's peace as I have never been propositioned with it and hence have no grounds to accept or reject it.

Belief in God is irrelevant to His existence and His influence. Just as my belief in your existence is irrelevant to your action and existance.

My statement was not with regards to belief or existence. I am not arguing whether your god exists or not. I am suggesting that not only can people accept or reject your God's peace but they can also be ignorant of your god's peace, not necessarily by choice but either cause they have never heard or understood it or they have never seen any proof as to what it is. There are many things that people have not chosen to accept or reject.

Does peace mean hearding up the sinners and throwing guilt and penance onto them until they are aligned with the Church, but obviously in a non judgmental way as judgement can only be made by your god?

What on Earth are you talking about? Try goggling the word for "peace" and "love".

Or are you just trolling? I would prefer you cease further attempts of distorting the discussion into cheap polemics.

I can understand why you thought I was trolling, but actually my intent was pure. Our ongoing discussion has been with regards to the love of Christians. From our discussion, from the link you posted and from my preconceived ideas about Christianity I see that the Church wants its followers to align and obey, otherwise they are labeled as sinners and are made to do penance for their sins. Is this not correct? If this is the case then I see non acceptance and lack of love coming from Christians. If I were to ask a Homosexual what they thought the Christian community thought about them, I would suggest that Love would not be the word the Homosexual would respond with. As is probably evident to you I am not truly understanding what your god's peace is that you are saying people are accepting or rejecting? If I don't know what it is then how can I make an informed decision to accept or reject it?

I love that you brought up freewill. There is an old tv serious which I liked a lot. It was called American Gothic and had a cool phrase "the illusion of freewill".
I truly believe in that phrase. Everyone's freewill is hugely tainted. Some of the causes of these taints are: family upbringing, culture, school teachings, media influence, peer influence, country environment, community environment, role models, life experience, time period alive in, etc.

Does the media, your peers, experience, or culture 'force' you into action? Free will mean you have the 'freedom' to choose. These are influences, but they do not control you. Show me which one 'makes you act', not influence, 'forces you' to act.

A person's actions are as a result of their thoughts, morals and values (their will).

No-one has freewill. Some are more tainted or constrained than others. I personally see religion and Church as providing both taint and constraint on freewill which is evident by the followers' morals and thoughts being alligned with that of the religion and Church. The problem with taints on freewill is that people are generally unaware of them, hence the term "the illusion of freewill"

You always have a choice, even if the choice for a given situation in 'difficult'.

Not true, choice is as a result of a person's tainted will. A Chinese person would choose to eat with chopsticks, a Westerner with a fork and an Indian with their hands. Seems to me that the choice converted to action here is predisposed to cultural upbringing.

Modern American culture enjoys shifting blame, and refusing personal responsibility. It's not surprising that it's popular to 'blame' everything else for personal choices. "It was my mom's fault." "My friends told me to." "He only saw it on TV." "She just made me so mad, I HAD to." You ALWAYS have a choice, anything else is a cop-out.

I would not want to put such a generalisation onto American culture, many are Christians, a few are Orthodoxy. I am not an American so cannot speak on such matters.

[Persimmon Hamster]

First to address your follow up post filled with unfounded cheap shots at belittling me:

The devil is in the details. Give us some details, because you cite militant atheists and fundamentalist preachers without discretion as equal authorites.

I do?  Uhhh…where?

You haven't worked your way up to be the object of sermonzing yet.

Just wondering…are you aware that I was raised as an evangelical Christian?

Like Gawn above, cutting and pasting indiscriminately from atheists and fundamentalists, you demonstrate that lack as well.

Again, where did I do this?  That sounds more like what you do than anything I’ve done so far.

--------------------------------------------------
Moving on to the real discussion, I am going to redirect your attention to your own words in this thread yet again to clarify the current state of the discussion:

He then supported these assertions with verifiable historical data without appealing to Church authority or the inspiration of the New Testament.
…
Did you miss the part where I said there is verifiable historical data that does not appeal to the Church or the New Testament?

I am going to examine your post in search of such verifiable data/evidence, which is what I requested you to reveal to me, and see what I find.  Feel free to highlight anything I may have missed.

Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

A fact that Jesus existed and was crucified would have nothing to do with the plausibility of his resurrection.   Such a fact would be irrelevant to your original claim in question.

Fact Two:  Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them.

First of all, as you surely know, evidence of belief is not equivalent to evidence of evidence supporting said belief.
Remembering that we are looking for verifiable historical data that does not appeal to Church authority of the New Testament, your “9 sources" are all irrelevant to your claim in question.  

As a side note, I did not count 9 among those you mentioned.  I count Paul, Clement, Polycarp, “Matthew", “John",  and Luke = 6.  I encapsulate two in quotes because I suspect you would contend these gospels were written in their entirety directly by the original disciples themselves (making them perhaps the most important), while in reality all points of that claim are quite open for debate.  The “creed" (or hymn as I’ve heard it called) from 1 Corinthians was recorded by Paul, making him the only actual known source as far as your argument here goes.  I also find it suspicious you would consider a brief “hymn/creed" that had only been alive perhaps 20-30 years (as it refers to Christ’s death in the past tense, describes follow-up events, and as 1 Corinthians was dated in the mid 50’s) to have lived long enough to be referred to as “oral tradition" or particularly “ancient" at the time as you call it in Fact Four.  You seem to be puffing it up to be far more important to the argument than it actually is just so you can add 1 to the small count of sources.  I will say more on this creed later after I have addressed the rest of your post.  I do not count Mark’s gospel because it makes no claims (that I am aware of) about who had visionary experiences.  If I did count Mark and the creed, I would arrive at 8.  What was the 9th?

In your attempt to provide me with historical data in support of “Fact Two" that does not appeal to Church authority or the New Testament, you’ve given me the words of some Church fathers and the New Testament.  Is this correct, or did I miss something?

If you would call these 6/9 sources “independent", your definition of independence is a far cry from what most reasonable people would accept.  You are talking about a small group of contemporaries in direct contact with one another, who derived a common belief system from one another and shared common motivationsâ€"or subsequent students of these whose own writings are merely derivative.

Now, say I grant that there was in fact a group of people, including the disciples and Paul, who truly believed they had witnessed evidence of Christ’s resurrection (be his appearance physical, spiritual, or a little of both).  I suppose I have no problem granting that so that I can continue reading your thoughts about “Fact Two".   You really didn’t have to work so hard to convince me of that possibility.

I wonder, have you ever heard of Hopkinsville Goblins Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopk ... _encounter)?  Here we have multiple witnesses who truly believed they had an otherworldly experience, and we even have a daughter of a primary witness testifying 55 years later just how much her father truly believed his interpretation of what he had experienced (comparable weight to that of any Clement/Polycarp testimony about Apostle/Paul beliefs).  What do you make of that?

Modern martyrs act solely out of their trust in beliefs that others have taught them. The Apostles on the other hand, died for holding to their own testimony that they had personally seen the risen Jesus. Contemporary martyrs die for what they believe to be true. The Apostles died for what they knew to be true, from their own experience (whether true or false).

You emphasize a distinction between "believe" and "knew" in these two final statements.  I contend there is none here and you are just playing with words to assign more importance to Apostle martyrdom (which itself is uncertain, historically, but let's put that aside).  Please define these two terms so I can understand your distinction; as I see it now there is none.

You gave two examples involving suicide (Muslim, Buddhist) in reference to non-Christian martyrs.  Committing suicide is altogether different from falling victim to homicide in this line of discussion.  Did any Apostles or early Christians literally commit suicide in support of their cause?  I take it you further consider your two examples as differing from Apostle martyrdom because they both lack first-hand experiences backing up their beliefs (how do you know that?).  Along the lines of suicide I might propose a more apt example that may have been based on some degree of first-hand experience.  That example would be Marshall Applewhite of Heaven’s Gate infamy.  But I won't seriously consider this case because the jury seems out on whether his beliefs first formed as the result of a near-death experience resulting from a heart attack, or due to some degree of insanity.  And yet, this example serves to suggest at least one alternative way in which a person can come to believe something strongly enough to die for it--insanity.

I am actually much more interested in how you would distinguish the martyrdom (as held by LDS) of Joseph Smith from that of Paul or Peter.  So if you could address this it would be appreciated.

Last on this subject, quite normal people die willingly for principle all the time.  Principle.  Belief.  Knowledge.  Closely related, if not identical, concepts.  That’s why I am interested in your definition of “believe" and “knew", that distinguishes them as distinctly separate reasons for assuming a risk of death.

Since the original disciples were making the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, his resurrection was not the result of myth making. His life story was not embellished over time if the facts can be traced to the original witnesses, which we have seen is historically believed to be the case.

You've made a gigantic leap here.  You’ve asked me to go from accepting that a bunch of people truly believed they all had a similar experience of some kind, to accepting that the supporting story surrounding that belief which has survived until today did not evolve over time.  The latter does not follow from anything you’ve said thus far, that I can see.  Can you clarify the logical progression here?

In summary, Fact Two appears irrelevant to your claim in question, and is also irrelevant as far as legitimate evidence for a “miraculous"/"supernatural" occurrence.  Nevertheless I have posed some questions for you, since you wrote the most about Fact Two.

Fact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

As evidence for Paul’s experience, you’ve again referenced exclusively Church fathers and the New Testament.  Thus Fact Three appears irrelevant to the claim in question.

Nevertheless, not to leave Fact Three echoing around completely uncontested, one can fathom many reason a person might have a change of heart.  And when one does, what better way to gain acceptance among the old enemy than to become convinced one has had a relevant vision from God of one’s own?

Fact Four:  The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed.

This fact and the evidence supporting it are no different in nature from Fact Two.  I will spare you from me repeating myself here.

Fact Five:  The tomb was empty.

I can’t help but chuckle a little here.  You lay out the definition of the “minimal facts" approach, and then apparently you conclude that 4 (3 actually, since I contend #4=#2) “facts" are maybe a little too minimal so you try to throw in a 5th one while openly admitting it doesn’t even meet the approach.  For this, I am perhaps a lunatic to even respond to it, but I will.

You say the empty tomb is attested not only by Christian sources.  Such as?  The only things you list are Christian sources.  You’ve got a couple of New Testament references, you’ve got a Church father, and you’ve got an early apologist.  As you’ve again given me nothing outside of appeals to Church authority and the New Testament, Fact Five would also appear irrelevant to the original claim in question.

What is the reasonable evidence William Wand refers to?  Why did you leave that out and only supply the two things you claimed you would not need to appeal to?

What does the existence of an empty tomb actually prove to anyone, anyway?  

Furthermore I’ll tell you one good reason to attribute the claim of its mystical emptiness to womenâ€"contemporaries opposing the claim might easily shrug it off and say “ah, well, who can trust a woman?" rather than summon & enact hostility toward an actual claimant (or the hostility would be redirected safely upon an imaginary or inconsequential scapegoat).

Conclusion

You have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament.  Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.

Miscellaneous

Some other thoughts raised by your post…

Regarding the "creed" to which you referred, let me summarize something I’ve read lately:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.

buried -- Greek word "etaphe", meaning "burial". Not "tomb" (mnema), not "sepulchre" (mnemeion).

raised -- Greek word "egeiro, egergetai" - meaning "to wake up, awaken".  Not "resurrected" (anastasis, anistemi).  Egeiro is used throughout the New Testament; when not being used in the literal sense it refers instead to a metaphorical, spiritual awakening, not bodily resurrection.  Romans 13:11.  Ephesians 5:14.  

appeared -- Greek word "ophthe".  Paul & other New Testament writers use this word elsewhere when referring to non-physical appearances, or "visions".  Acts 9:12.  Acts 16:9.  Matthew 17:3.  Paul continues using "ophthe" in 1 Corinthians 15:6-8, finally referring to his own vision which we know was non-physical because nobody with him saw anything.

This early creed of the church thus makes no apparent explicit mention of a tomb or of physical resurrection.  When Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, held to be the earliest of the New Testament writings, why would he avoid explicitly mentioning these aspects of the story?  Could it be that the story had not yet developed?

My source on the above is a debate between Michael Horner and Dan Barker (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... orner.html).  Related topics of course include redaction criticism.

Regarding something you quoted of Clement:

Therefore, having received orders and complete certainty caused by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ and believing in the Word of God, they went with the Holy Spirit’s certainty, preaching the good news that the kingdom of God is about to come.

What do you suppose he meant by "about"?  That was roughly 2,000 years ago.  Many Christians would have me believe the world is 6,000 years old.  At a point on that timeline of 4,000 years, Clement says "about to come".  Yet here we all still are, halfway through another period of similar size to what Clement may well have regarded as the entirety of human history.  Would Clement consider a period of length equal to or exceeding half the entire period of human existence as being so near on the horizon as to be described by the phrase "about to come"?

[tetsuo29]

I haven't been here in a while, and this is probably my first post to this particular atheist forum. I clicked on this topic because it is one that genuinely intrigues me, particularly because both my father and my grandfather passed away this year. I've been thinking about death a lot in the wake of this and also thinking about what it is I would like to accomplish before my time is up.

So, I clicked on this discussion hoping to find an actual discussion about this. Since the discussion is long, I thought I'd look at the latest posts and see if I could jump in. Sadly, I just found that it had devolved into a boring, pathetic, typical, theist vs. atheist debate. Don't get me wrong, there's places where that is perfectly okay, but I really was hoping for a more meaningful discussion about fear of death.

I myself very much waiver between being very afraid of death and not being afraid of death. I see no evidence of the supernatural or of an afterlife and as much as I don't want to cease to exist (this is called survival instinct and most living creatures need it) I sometimes am also okay with it.

One thing I am certainly convinced of, is that if there is an afterlife, if the supernatural exists, the last thing a god (or gods) would do is tell us about it, because, even with fear of hellfire and damnation, I think that many of us would get sick of the utter BS we go through at times in life and decide just to end it and move on to the next stage of existence.

So, I guess where I've really arrived is at a place where I'm not terrified of no afterlife, I assume that if when I die, that that is the end of me, there won't be anything I can do about it and once I'm gone, I definitely will no longer care. And, if there is an afterlife, well, I'll find out when I get there.

[Achronos]

I am going to examine your post in search of such verifiable data/evidence, which is what I requested you to reveal to me, and see what I find.  Feel free to highlight anything I may have missed.

Fact One:  Jesus died by crucifixion.

A fact that Jesus existed and was crucified would have nothing to do with the plausibility of his resurrection.   Such a fact would be irrelevant to your original claim in question.

I mention this because there are some that claim Jesus either never existed, or that he didn't actually die.

First of all, as you surely know, evidence of belief is not equivalent to evidence of evidence supporting said belief.
Remembering that we are looking for verifiable historical data that does not appeal to Church authority of the New Testament, your “9 sources" are all irrelevant to your claim in question

I'm not appealing to their belief as if it's evidence that it happened. That would be rightly scoffed at. I'm simply saying we have people who genuinely believed their experience to be real. This plays in later...

The “creed" (or hymn as I’ve heard it called) from 1 Corinthians was recorded by Paul, making him the only actual known source as far as your argument here goes.

Actually, it is known to be a hymn/creed precisely because it is not Pauline in its source.  

Did you even read what I wrote?

In your attempt to provide me with historical data in support of “Fact Two" that does not appeal to Church authority or the New Testament, you’ve given me the words of some Church fathers and the New Testament.  Is this correct, or did I miss something?

Actually, I did not at any point say I wouldn't appeal to the New Testament but that I would be treating the New Testament as any other historical work from antiquity, granting only those passages that the vast majority of scholars would classify as "historically reliable."  I'm not appealing to the authority of the Church nor to the New Testament as an inspired or somehow "special" document.

I think I'm the one who's missing something...

If you would call these 6/9 sources “independent", your definition of independence is a far cry from what most reasonable people would accept.  You are talking about a small group of contemporaries in direct contact with one another, who derived a common belief system from one another and shared common motivationsâ€"or subsequent students of these whose own writings are merely derivative.

If you'd care to back this assertion up, that would be nice.

I wonder, have you ever heard of Hopkinsville Goblins Case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly-Hopk ... _encounter)?  Here we have multiple witnesses who truly believed they had an otherworldly experience, and we even have a daughter of a primary witness testifying 55 years later just how much her father truly believed his interpretation of what he had experienced (comparable weight to that of any Clement/Polycarp testimony about Apostle/Paul beliefs).  What do you make of that?

I'm not familiar with it, no. Do I need to make anything of it? I try to take things on a case by case basis, so I'm not sure what relevance this would have to the Resurrection...

At any rate, my logic was missed by you somehow, because again, you're asserting I claimed something that I didn't claim. I'm not saying we should believe the Resurrection because these people said they had experiences.

You emphasize a distinction between "believe" and "knew" in these two final statements.  I contend there is none here and you are just playing with words to assign more importance to Apostle martyrdom (which itself is uncertain, historically, but let's put that aside).  Please define these two terms so I can understand your distinction; as I see it now there is none.

Again, you're missing my logic. I'm not demonstrating their belief for the reasons you think I am. Please, go back and read it again.

I am actually much more interested in how you would distinguish the martyrdom (as held by LDS) of Joseph Smith from that of Paul or Peter.  So if you could address this it would be appreciated.

I've never researched the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. I'm not interested in it, so I don't think I ever will. It's pretty much irrelevant to the Resurrection. At any rate, I'm guessing the same logic would apply though. There is a difference between dying for something you believe and dying for something you know, even if it's true or not. I can die for my belief that the world will end tomorrow. That is not the same as dying because I saw the risen Christ.

You've made a gigantic leap here.  You’ve asked me to go from accepting that a bunch of people truly believed they all had a similar experience of some kind, to accepting that the supporting story surrounding that belief which has survived until today did not evolve over time.  The latter does not follow from anything you’ve said thus far, that I can see.  Can you clarify the logical progression here?

I'm not speaking of the time that has lapsed from then until now. I'm speaking of the time that had lapsed from Jesus death/Resurrection to the time the Apostles made the claims.  If you're implying that it's the claims of the Apostles themselves that have evolved over time, then I'd just have to hope you're comfortable going against the vast majority of scholarship on the subject. Again, I'm only allowing those pieces of data that have very wide support as historically authentic.

Fact Three:  The church persecutor Saul of Tarsus was suddenly changed.

As evidence for Paul’s experience, you’ve again referenced exclusively Church fathers and the New Testament.  Thus Fact Three appears irrelevant to the claim in question.

I don't dispute this. I have no problem using these sources as they are historically authentic pieces of data. You have no grounds to dispute them simply because they were believers and besides, that's not the reason I'm appealing to them anyway. Again, my logic is lost on you for some reason.

As you’ve again given me nothing outside of appeals to Church authority and the New Testament, Fact Five would also appear irrelevant to the original claim in question.

*sigh* I'm beginning to wonder if you read my post at all. How in the world is quoting the New Testament or a Church Father an "appeal to Church authority"? I'm not asking you to consider them because of their source. I'm asking you to consider them because a great deal of historical inquiry and research has been put into these sources and I'm only using that which finds a vast amount of support amongst historians.

In other words, what you're trying to do here is say, "Hey! You can't use that because I don't believe in the New Testament and the Church's authority means nothing to me!" And what I'm saying here is that you could go talk about these sources to the scholars who specialize in them and you'd basically get laughed at because their own research has overwhelmingly concluded that the information is historically authentic and reliable. If that means nothing to you then of course my line of reasoning isn't going to work. But you'd have bigger problems than that...

What does the existence of an empty tomb actually prove to anyone, anyway?

Nothing on its own. It's part of a cumulative case.
 

You have presented no evidence for Jesus’ resurrection except that which appeals to Church authority and the New Testament.  Feel free to try again, or, if you like, revoke the original claim in question.

I'd actually like to ask you to try again because you so obviously did not follow my line of reasoning. How in the world you could finish reading that and think that I appealed to Church authority in any way, completely baffles me. But I also can't say I'm surprised.  

As for your "miscellaneous" thoughts, if you were in any way actually interested in this topic, I'd refer you to the painstakingly researched "The Resurrection of the Son of God" by N.T. Wright. If you had any doubts that a literal, bodily resurrection was indeed the exact and only thing claimed by these people, they would be completely obliterated.

[Achronos]

My statement was not with regards to belief or existence. I am not arguing whether your god exists or not. I am suggesting that not only can people accept or reject your God's peace but they can also be ignorant of your god's peace, not necessarily by choice but either cause they have never heard or understood it or they have never seen any proof as to what it is. There are many things that people have not chosen to accept or reject.

That's true. But belief in God doesn't change His ability to work in the world.

One of the main ways God works is inside us (as corny as that sounds). People, who have zero conception of God, can still feel his calm and love, despite any of they're preconceived notions. This is, for example, how 'dramatic conversions', of the most hardcore atheists happen.

I can understand why you thought I was trolling, but actually my intent was pure. Our ongoing discussion has been with regards to the love of Christians. From our discussion, from the link you posted and from my preconceived ideas about Christianity I see that the Church wants its followers to align and obey, otherwise they are labeled as sinners and are made to do penance for their sins. Is this not correct? If this is the case then I see non acceptance and lack of love coming from Christians. If I were to ask a Homosexual what they thought the Christian community thought about them, I would suggest that Love would not be the word the Homosexual would respond with. As is probably evident to you I am not truly understanding what your god's peace is that you are saying people are accepting or rejecting? If I don't know what it is then how can I make an informed decision to accept or reject it?

What Is Sin?

There are countless essays and books that deal with human failings under various labels without once using the three-letter word sin. Actions traditionally regarded as sinful have instead been seen as natural stages in the process of growing up, a result of bad parenting, a consequence of mental illness, an inevitable response to unjust social conditions, or pathological behavior brought on by addiction.

But what if I am more than a robot programmed by my past or my society or my economic status and actually can take a certain amount of creditâ€"or blameâ€"for my actions and inactions? Have I not done things I am deeply ashamed of, would not do again if I could go back in time, and would prefer no one to know about? What makes me so reluctant to call those actions “sins”? Is the word really out of date? Or is the problem that it has too sharp an edge?

The Hebrew verb chata’, “to sin,” like the Greek word hamartia, simply means straying off the path, getting lost, missing the mark. Sinâ€"going off courseâ€"can be intentional or unintentional.

The author of the Book of Proverbs lists seven things God hates: “A proud look, / A lying tongue, / Hands that shed innocent blood, / A heart that devises wicked plans, / Feet that are swift in running to evil, / A false witness who speaks lies, / And one who sows discord among brethren” (6:17â€"19).

Pride is given first place. “Pride goes before destruction, / And a haughty spirit before a fall” is another insight in the Book of Proverbs (16:18). In the Garden of Eden, Satan seeks to animate pride in his dialogue with Eve. Eat the forbidden fruit, he tells her, and “you will be like God” (Genesis 3:5).

The craving to be ahead of others, to be more valued than others, to be more highly rewarded than others, to be able to keep others in a state of fear, the inability to admit mistakes or apologizeâ€"these are among the symptoms of pride. Pride opens the way for countless other sins: deceit, lies, theft, violence, and all those other actions that destroy community with God and with those around us.

Yet we spend a great deal of our lives trying to convince ourselves and others that what we did really wasn’t that bad or could even be seen as almost good, given the circumstances. Even in confession, many people explain what they did rather than simply admit they did things that require forgiveness. “When I recently happened to confess about fifty people in a typical Orthodox parish in Pennsylvania,” Fr. Alexander Schmemann wrote, “not one admitted to having committed any sin whatsoever!”

“We’re capable of doing some rotten things,” the Minnesota storyteller Garrison Keillor notes, “and not all of these things are the result of poor communication. Some are the result of rottenness. People do bad, horrible things. They lie and they cheat and they corrupt the government. They poison the world around us. And when they’re caught they don’t feel remorseâ€"they just go into treatment. They had a nutritional problem or something. They explain what they didâ€"they don’t feel bad about it. There’s no guilt. There’s just psychology.”

For the person who has committed a serious sin, there are two vivid signsâ€"the hope that what one did may never become known, and a gnawing sense of guilt. At least this is the case before the conscience becomes completely numbâ€"which is what happens when patterns of sin become the structure of one’s life to the extent that hell, far from being a possible next-life experience, is where one finds oneself in this life.

It is a striking fact about basic human architecture that we want certain actions to remain secret, not because of modesty, but because there is an unarguable sense of having violated a law more basic than that in any law bookâ€"the “law written in [our] hearts” to which St. Paul refers (Romans 2:15). It isn’t simply that we fear punishment. It is that we don’t want to be thought of by others as a person who commits such deeds. One of the main obstacles to going to confession is dismay that someone else will know what I want no one to know.

One of the oddest things about the age we live in is that we are made to feel guilty about feeling guilty. There is a cartoon tacked up in our house in which one prisoner says to another, “Just rememberâ€"it’s okay to be guilty, but not okay to feel guilty.”

A sense of guiltâ€"the painful awareness of having committed sinsâ€"can be life-renewing. Guilt provides a foothold for contrition, which in turn can motivate confession and repentance. Without guilt, there is no remorse; without remorse, there is no possibility of becoming free of habitual sins.

http://www.antiochian.org/node/16910

This is from an article about the Sacrament of Confession. There is more, if your interested.

The 'peace' I talk about is true 'love'. You can not hate, neglect, reject, subjugate, or the like, if you are filled with 'love'. That's the ultimate Christian message, and who God is.

Not true, choice is as a result of a person's tainted will. A Chinese person would choose to eat with chopsticks, a Westerner with a fork and an Indian with their hands. Seems to me that the choice converted to action here is predisposed to cultural upbringing.

Yet, a westerner can use chopsticks. Being taught something, doesn't mean you are bound to it.

I would not want to put such a generalisation onto American culture, many are Christians, a few are Orthodoxy. I am not an American so cannot speak on such matters.

It's not just American culture, I assumed you were American. Spoken in this way, it is synonymous with secular culture.

[Croaker]

I haven't been here in a while, and this is probably my first post to this particular atheist forum. I clicked on this topic because it is one that genuinely intrigues me, particularly because both my father and my grandfather passed away this year. I've been thinking about death a lot in the wake of this and also thinking about what it is I would like to accomplish before my time is up.

So, I clicked on this discussion hoping to find an actual discussion about this. Since the discussion is long, I thought I'd look at the latest posts and see if I could jump in. Sadly, I just found that it had devolved into a boring, pathetic, typical, theist vs. atheist debate. Don't get me wrong, there's places where that is perfectly okay, but I really was hoping for a more meaningful discussion about fear of death.

I myself very much waiver between being very afraid of death and not being afraid of death. I see no evidence of the supernatural or of an afterlife and as much as I don't want to cease to exist (this is called survival instinct and most living creatures need it) I sometimes am also okay with it.

One thing I am certainly convinced of, is that if there is an afterlife, if the supernatural exists, the last thing a god (or gods) would do is tell us about it, because, even with fear of hellfire and damnation, I think that many of us would get sick of the utter BS we go through at times in life and decide just to end it and move on to the next stage of existence.

So, I guess where I've really arrived is at a place where I'm not terrified of no afterlife, I assume that if when I die, that that is the end of me, there won't be anything I can do about it and once I'm gone, I definitely will no longer care. And, if there is an afterlife, well, I'll find out when I get there.

I would completely agree with you.

I used to think that, absent the concept of heaven, death would be a frightening thing. But the terrifying thought for me slowly turned into the concept of an afterlife, instead - I have no desire to live eternally. Besides the obvious question of 'what the hell do you do for that long?' I'm more interested in the two cruelties that such a heavenly belief raises.

The first would be the reduction of life to nothingness, since any finite amount of time divided by an infinite one is basically zero. Which means that your life on earth, everything you do from the moment you're born till you die, doesn't mean anything.

Oh, but wait! It does. That blip of a nothing you call your life? Well, if you were lucky enough to be born in specific sections of the world that believed in Christianity, and didn't lose your faith, you get to go spend your real life, the infinite one, worshiping a god. Not making anything cool, or challenging yourself, or appreciating things in life in face of hardship, or any of the other countless things we humans do with our lives - no, you get to sit at a throne and sing forever. You are a pet.

And if you weren't that lucky?

Well, that's the second cruelty - if you were Mayan, or Incan, or Mongolian or Native American or any of the countless other populations of people who never had the chance to even hear about Christianity - well, you get to spend your life - your real, infinite life, not this mortal loading screen - in hell.

Enjoy!

When I die, my life will end, and will therefore have meaning. That will be all.

I am happy about this.