Evidence of the Existence of the Christian God

[JustJim]

Would you mind summarizing what it was in particular you found so persuasive about NT Wright's book on the resurrection? Yes, I know it was a really long book, but if it really knocked you out, I'd imagine you'd readily recall the points that really got your attention, no?

Hi, Brad...

I've been thinking over the past few days about just what you're asking for - a summary of what, in particular, I found so persuasive from Wright's book. And a summary really wouldn't do it justice, I'm afraid, even though I'm going to offer you one shortly here.

The problem is that Wright spends a few hundred pages laying down detailed background information, analyzing writings and opinions of others on both sides, looking at the contextual, historical, cultural, and religious influences on the people of the time of the Easter story and the writers of the Gospel accounts of the events they reported on. And Wright is thorough, to put it ridiculously mildly. He also does a lot of side-explaning of his intentions and reasons for bringing up various issues from various points of view so as to not appear to be ignoring opposing opinions and ideas. He's extremely - perhaps to a fault - inclusive and respectful of others' ideas and viewpoints. So, honestly, it would be a terrible injustice to his points to give only a summary and not all the information and reasoning that leads to it. I almost bought the Amazon Kindle version of the book so I could copy/paste large sections of it, but a) it costs too much, and b) I'd have to copy/paste too much stuff for the forum. I'd still recommend the book to anyone who wants probably the best there is from the Christian perspective on the resurrection, including responses and rebuttals to virtually all the counter-arguments and positions.

The issue is the dual consideration of both the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances/meetings of Jesus. Taken individually, there are numerous ways to adequately account for each. But taken together, that becomes quite difficult.

First, a little about why I think what the Gospels say about the resurrection story is reliable. Here's what I said back in November 2006:

"What we have are four accounts of an event. Each is written by a different 'investigator', each of whom talked to who knows how many different people, some eyewitnesses and many only 'hearsay' witnesses, whose circles may or may not have overlapped, and if so, no one knows by how much. Each writer also had his own ideas and opinions and had heard a number of various stories about the event. And to make it worse, they wrote their accounts separately from each other in time, but also separated from the event itself in time by perhaps several decades. The details they gathered in compiling the overall story differed significantly from writer to writer, as we would expect from what we know about the recollections of witnesses in our own time, even not far removed from the event in time. In fact, if the details had all matched identically from story to story, that would raise enormous red flags to tip off investigators that the stories had been contrived and rehearsed to make them line up. In honest accounts, the details never match up perfectly. There are always differences in the details. What investigators look for are the similarities in the accounts. When the details generally differ, but a very few things stand out in full agreement, that lends a great deal of credibility to those few things.

In the case of the resurrection stories, the things that stand out in full agreement are the empty tomb and the post-resurrection appearances. And the fact that the details surrounding those two points do not agree across different reporters' accounts just makes it more likely those things that agree are 'true'. Once that is accepted as a high probability, a judge and jury can then go forward to determine what it all means, and what the best 'verdict' is. When I do that, considering the empty tomb and appearances in conjunction with each other, and also considering the other possibilities, I come up with the resurrection as a good (and, for me, the best) explanation for the empty tomb/appearances agreement in the stories."

So, what makes the resurrection as Wright explains and defends it so compelling and persuasive, to me, is that I could easily explain away an empty tomb, since Jesus' body could have been stolen or hidden or otherwise been missing, even as unlikely and without reason as that would have been. I could easily explain away the post-Easter-morning appearances of Jesus as fabrications or impostors. But if he was dead and placed in the tomb, the tomb was later found empty, and Jesus appeared to many people who had known him and recognized who he was (some, apparently, after their initial shock of seeing him alive), then some pretty good explanations are required. After considering all the myriad of other explanations and the arguments for and against them, I am persuaded that the resurrection is the best explanation for the events as they reliably, to me, appear to have happened. Even if it "couldn't possibly have happened," I am persuaded that it apparently did.

You might want to peruse the "Am I A Christian" thread in the General Section. But it'd be much better to read the book. But please read Wright's book someday, at least Part IV. Or maybe get Wonders to come back here and explain it all....

If you consider what Christianity claims, for example, is there anything more important to think about?

I get your point, Jim. But I don't really buy it for the same reason that I don't spend a lot of time sweating over Joseph Smith's claims or L Ron Hubbard's claims or Muhammed's claimed dictation, or imagining that the FSM may be the real God after all, although I'd love to have a driver's license with a pasta strainer on my head. I would look mahhhvelous!
I spend (too much) time here and elsewhere arguing about religion not because of the likelihood of religious claims, but because like an increasing number of other people, I'm convinced - far beyond my own reasonable doubt - that the likelihood of any god is extraordinarily low and that the net result of god beliefs is a terrible scourge to mankind.

Uh oh.... Woops! I must have deleted and then forgot to re-insert "to be the truth" when I was editing my question. What I originally intended to write was:

If you consider what Christianity claims to be the truth, for example, is there anything more important to think about?

Sorry 'bout that. I agree with your misgivings as I mis-typed it.

Jim

[Keep The Reason]

This is what we call idealogical intellectual suicide. And, unfortunately, what I expected your answer to be to that question. I was pretty confident the others weren't brave enough to answer it. However, you are so bound to your irrational opinion, that you are willing to take it to every intellectual extreme to prove you are not wrong.

I'd be interested to see a study on what percentage of historical facts you just flushed down the toilet. Every second-hand historian who did not live during the period they are attempting to document, every ancient hieroglyphics or other writing which we not only don't know the author, we don't know how close it was to the event, etc, etc. And forget about whether these historical facts are "true," you don't even think there's "evidence" that they are true (and you still didn't really answer my question, because the subjective adjective "bona fide" you inserted adds to the objective term you have refused to acknowledge). Amazing.

I don't "flush them down the toilet", but neither am I a gullible rube. There is nothing wrong with saying "I'm not sure" on any premise. However, once weighed and once all the best known facts and speculations are in, one can come to a reasoned conclusion. What you call "ideological intellectual suicide" I call intellectual integrity. I haven't researched all the information about the Roman fire, nor do I particularly care to, but I offered a perfectly reasonable approach to how to evaluate historical information and I offered the Core Principles on what establishes historical evidence. You don't want to accept that, and instead assert that my reasoned approach is somehow a strike against me, go ahead.

From my perspective, my investigation into the validity of the bible as evidence is vastly more in depth than your ad hoc demand on the Great Fire. Which is why I made sure to indicate that there may be information or evidence out there on the Great Fire that I'm unaware of. However, the biblical account not only has these challenges (nothing corroborative, no physical evidence) -- it also saddles itself with the claim of being "DIVINE", and part of a plan wherein Yahweh actively wants us all to believe in it and thus be saved. Furthermore, it follows very strongly in the tradition of legend building and myth making. Hence, what you call "evidence" is so weak as to consider it bona fide evidence is no longer a reasonable conclusion to come to. This has nothing to do with the information surrounding the Great Fire because that's a completely different and unrelated topic.

I apply the same standards to each. I've reached a conclusion that the biblical information doesn't qualify as actual evidence-- it does qualify as a fictional story. But then so do the plays of Aristophanes.

Now, I think we've covered this topic as far as it can go. You consider the bible evidence, I do not. I consider it a myth-- the "Golden Bough" of its time. I reject your standards of its validity both in its message and in its standing as "evidence of Jesus Christ". If you want to say it's evidence of what people thought of their myths in the first century CE, that's more plausible -- "The Tell Tale Heart" is a short story about what people thought of guilt in the late 1900s, but that doesn't mean it's the accurate retelling of any actual events.

[Keep The Reason]

What we have are four accounts of an event. Each is written by a different 'investigator', each of whom talked to who knows how many different people, some eyewitnesses and many only 'hearsay' witnesses, whose circles may or may not have overlapped, and if so, no one knows by how much. Each writer also had his own ideas and opinions and had heard a number of various stories about the event. And to make it worse, they wrote their accounts separately from each other in time, but also separated from the event itself in time by perhaps several decades. The details they gathered in compiling the overall story differed significantly from writer to writer, as we would expect from what we know about the recollections of witnesses in our own time, even not far removed from the event in time. In fact, if the details had all matched identically from story to story, that would raise enormous red flags to tip off investigators that the stories had been contrived and rehearsed to make them line up. In honest accounts, the details never match up perfectly. There are always differences in the details. What investigators look for are the similarities in the accounts. When the details generally differ, but a very few things stand out in full agreement, that lends a great deal of credibility to those few things.

Well, then you must believe in UFO accounts of people being taken up and anally probed. Those stories are as valid as this entire standard you are suggesting. You don't need any physical evidence at all. So, in order to get a baseline of what kinds of things will compel you to believe in something, let's ask it outright:

Do you believe aliens come to planet Earth, abduct unwary humans, and perform various experiments on them and then return them to their beds?

I'm not asking you if it's possible -- I'm asking you if you believe it is true to at least the degree you are willing to accept the resurrection story as authentic?

[ChristianHeretic]

Because ExRev, humanguy and NH refuse to answer the question of whether or not we have actual "evidence" to support the Great Fire of Rome as an historical event, I'm going to assume they are avoiding answering because they are all intelligent enough to know there is no good answer. You can either commit intellectual suicide and claim, as KTR did, that "I do not believe there is any bona fide evidence that it did." Or you can admit that we do in fact have evidence, and concede on the definition of evidence because of the facts below. Also, KTR has repeatedly called the Jesus story a "legend," but has yet to provide actual evidence with the exception of his submission of Dionysus as a potential candidate for the source for this "legend." They have each refused to admit that actual "evidence" could possibly exist to prove the existence of the Christian God. Obviously, they all disagree with my "evidence," but their refusal to even acknowledge it as "evidence," especially after I started the thread defining what definition I was using for "evidence," is embarrassing and just unproductive.

So for those paying attention, I'm going to go ahead and attempt one last time to show you that "evidence" does exist:

The Great Fire of Rome:
Tacitus was the only contemporaneous historian to document this massive fire for us, and because he was younger than 9 when it happened and did not grow up in Rome, he was only a secondary source. The only other contemporaneous mention of something that could be construed as speaking about this devastating event was Pliny the Elder, who wrote about trees that lasted until "Nero's conflagration" solely in passing. A few other accounts came from secondary sources years later. It's also significant that no other contemporaneous historian documented it for us (incl. Dio Chrysostom, Plutarch and Epictetus).

Even though the dating of Tacitus' account is around 117 AD, 53 years after the alleged fire, the earliest extant manuscript we have of this account is roughly 1038 AD, over 900 years after it was allegedly written and 950 years after the alleged event.

Regarding archeological evidence, over 70% of Rome was allegedly effected by the fire and it is an event that must have effected every single citizen of Rome, Nero included, yet the only physical "evidence" we have for the fire is potentially burned nails, a charred gate, and lots of coins lying around for some reason? But obviously, this "evidence" only substantiates the alleged truth of the story, it no where comes close to "proving" the story. We have minor evidence that Nero had a sweet pad but very little if any of this unbelievably destructive fire.

So, now, I'll ask and answer my own question. Do we have any "evidence" that this universally accepted historical event actually happened? Yes, we do. We actually have good evidence in most people's estimation that it happened. And you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would stand on an idealogical podium and claim it didn't happen. Why? There is no motive for one to make the baseless claim that it is not historical. And that really is the operative word here.

Was Jesus Christ simply a "legend":
So now, we need to address the various claims made by atheists here one by one. I will start with the first baseless claim. Do we, based on the same definition we used for "evidence" above, have any "evidence" that Jesus, whom was called "the Christ," was not actually a "legend?" That He was actually an historical figure who was killed during the reign of Pontius Pilate (the procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius)? Do we have any "evidence" to show that this Jesus had disciples, and they claimed both that he appeared to them three days after he was crucified and that He is still alive?

[Keep The Reason]

The Great Fire of Rome:
Tacitus was the only contemporaneous historian to document this massive fire for us, and because he was younger that 9 when it happened and did not grow up in Rome, he was only a secondary source. The only other contemporaneous mention of something that could be construed as speaking about this devastating event was Pliny the Elder, who wrote about trees that lasted until "Nero's conflagration" solely in passing. A few other accounts came from secondary sources years later.

You have evidence of a fire not The Great Fire.

The rest is most likely exaggeration and legend making.

I hear tell that "Nero fiddled while Rome burned". Real, or legend?

[Exrev]

Rome had many fires not uncommon and totally reasonable to suspect that a ancient city would have fires break out.

I'm not asking if any old fire is reasonable. I'm asking if you believe the Great Fire of Rome, during Nero's reign, happened? And if so, what "evidence" do you have to prove this?

I don't care about the great fire. Lets stay on topic. I really have no evidence for or against this fire so by default i'll be agnostic. Also, if you'd like you can send your donations to the GREAT ROME FIRE FUND CARE OF EXREV 555 LEGION ROAD, TROY, MI

[ChristianHeretic]

You have evidence of a fire not The Great Fire.

Conflagration
con·fla·gra·tion   [kon-fluh-grey-shuhn]
noun
a destructive fire, usually an extensive one.

[JustJim]

What we have are four accounts of an event. Each is written by a different 'investigator', each of whom talked to who knows how many different people, some eyewitnesses and many only 'hearsay' witnesses, whose circles may or may not have overlapped, and if so, no one knows by how much. Each writer also had his own ideas and opinions and had heard a number of various stories about the event. And to make it worse, they wrote their accounts separately from each other in time, but also separated from the event itself in time by perhaps several decades. The details they gathered in compiling the overall story differed significantly from writer to writer, as we would expect from what we know about the recollections of witnesses in our own time, even not far removed from the event in time. In fact, if the details had all matched identically from story to story, that would raise enormous red flags to tip off investigators that the stories had been contrived and rehearsed to make them line up. In honest accounts, the details never match up perfectly. There are always differences in the details. What investigators look for are the similarities in the accounts. When the details generally differ, but a very few things stand out in full agreement, that lends a great deal of credibility to those few things.

Well, then you must believe in UFO accounts of people being taken up and anally probed. Those stories are as valid as this entire standard you are suggesting. You don't need any physical evidence at all.

So, in order to get a baseline of what kinds of things will compel you to believe in something, let's ask it outright:

Do you believe aliens come to planet Earth, abduct unwary humans, and perform various experiments on them and then return them to their beds? I'm not asking you if it's possible -- I'm asking you if you believe it is true to at least the degree you are willing to accept the resurrection story as authentic?

I'm not responding to crap like that.

If you doubt that investigators give significant weight to the details of multiple witness accounts that agree, even though other details might vary, even widely, then perhaps you should take it up with some investigators. That was my point.

The information about the resurrection as presented in the Gospel accounts in the Bible is the best we've got. If you've got some evidence that supports some other explanations for the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in relation to each other, other than hearsay or speculation, like maybe some physical evidence, I'm all ears. There are several accounts of the event in the Bible. Let me see the other accounts you have from people who were there or talked to those who were there, and I'll consider them. I don't mean just stuff that claims other explanations are possible -- I'm asking you to show why you believe they're true.

This could be a meaningful, intelligent, productive discussion. But not if you're gonna get all snarky. I'm older than that....

Jim

[humanguy]

Because ExRev, humanguy and NH refuse to answer the question of whether or not we have actual "evidence" to support the Great Fire of Rome as an historical event, I'm going to assume they are avoiding answering because they are all intelligent enough to know there is no good answer.

And you, sir, are a damned liar.

I'll ask you the same question I asked KTR. Do you believe the Great Fire of Rome happened? Do we have any evidence for it?

I don't know anything about a great fire in Rome. I've never claimed that I do.

That was my honest answer. Why did you feel the need to misrepresent what I said, to lie like you have done?

Finally we have what could rightfully be called real cold, hard evidence. ChristianHeretic, you are a hypocrite and a fraud.

[Exrev]

You have evidence of a fire not The Great Fire.

Conflagration
con·fla·gra·tion   [kon-fluh-grey-shuhn]
noun
a destructive fire, usually an extensive one.

Noticed how CH accused us atheist for not "SEEING THE EVIDENCE" well when asked for evidence for the resurrection you quickly wiggle out of the tough question by talking about "fires in Rome". So please tell me what you have as evidence for the resurrection of Jesus or any other resurrection in history. If you can show me that resurrections happens then we'll consider that Jesus' might be historical until then it in the same category as every other fairytale. So its either put up or shut up time.

You can't accuse us of not seeing the evidence when you can't even produce one item.

[JustJim]

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD

I'm not saying the Resurrection DID happen or that anyone can PROVE it happened or that there is any court-admissable "EVIDENCE" (depending on what you think that means) that it happened. All I'm saying is that I BELIEVE it happened because FOR ME it's the best explanation for the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, in the context of all the things that happened around it - before and after. I COULD BE WRONG!!!!

So don't ask me to prove anything or offer evidence for anything, and don't make any absurd assumptions about what else I "must" therefore believe. Geesh!

Jim

[humanguy]

What a great thread!

Hit it, Tony:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYfbBESg ... re=related

[Keep The Reason]

I'm not responding to crap like that.

Crap? It's a completely legitimate question. Are you going to suggest that the numerous poeple who make these claims should just be ignored? I mean -- I believe they are not true accounts, but they do-- and your standards of what establishes reasonable belief is certainly contained within the UFO paradigm. So what gives? Why the emotional response to as equally a "mysterious event"? Why does the resurrection qualify, but UFO abductions don't? Hell, I'd say there's a lot more information on the UFO question than the resurrection question-- and it's vastly more recent.

Interesting that you view my question both "crap" and said "snarky" -- when it is neither.

The information about the resurrection as presented in the Gospel accounts in the Bible is the best we've got.

For what? An assertion that says Jesus rose from the dead? Why give it any validity at all? Do you also state that the stories about the Greek gods is "the best we've got" and therefore we somehow have to consider them seriously? Why so?

Your double standards are somewhat jaw dropping. The resurrection needs to be taken seriously because we have an old book that says it happened. UFO abductions are crap because-- we have more recent testimony from a whole lot more people and we even have pictures of something hoovering around in the skies... but that's not good enough.

If you've got some evidence that supports some other explanations for the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in relation to each other, other than hearsay or speculation, like maybe some physical evidence, I'm all ears. There are several accounts of the event in the Bible. Let me see the other accounts you have from people who were there or talked to those who were there, and I'll consider them.

There has never been any established fact there there even is a tomb. Where is this tomb? Do you know? Does anyone know? There isn't even the evidence of a tomb, and you want to discuss MY evidence for what DIDN'T happen in it's non-existence?

They are stories JustJim -- legends, fables, like we find in countless other cultures, wherein people write these tales to inspire of create movements. Here's the "explanation": A group of Jews, seeking to start a movement, adopted tales of other gods, and demigods, and compiled them into one figure, whom eventually was to become "the Christ" and subsequently, by force initially but also because the stories have a resonance in people, grew to become a large religion.

How is this different from any other religion that exists? Everyone of them follow the same pattern; and in fact, it can even happen accidentally (see Cargo Cults).

This could be a meaningful, intelligent, productive discussion. But not if you're gonna get all snarky. I'm older than that....

Jim

There was not a hint of snark in my comment and question. It's a straightforward question, and I repeat it-- why do you exempt UFO abduction stories when there is vastly more information available for that which fits your standards of what propelled you to believe in the resurrection?

[Exrev]

AND JUST FOR THE RECORD

I'm not saying the Resurrection DID happen or that anyone can PROVE it happened or that there is any court-admissable "EVIDENCE" (depending on what you think that means) that it happened. All I'm saying is that I BELIEVE it happened because FOR ME it's the best explanation for the empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances, in the context of all the things that happened around it - before and after. I COULD BE WRONG!!!!

So don't ask me to prove anything or offer evidence for anything, and don't make any absurd assumptions about what else I "must" therefore believe. Geesh!

Jim

Jim,

Quick question. Has it occurred to you that the best explanation for the empty grave is that there was never one? Let's think about, after the Romans crucified people they buried the bodies in a mass grave outside of town. This of course was part of the humiliation they weren't allowed a proper burial. Also, the whole empty grave story could also be very easily explained that there were a lot of grave robbers. Its really unlikely that Rome would put to soldiers to guard a dead guy. I believe Bart Erhman points this out, or it was Robert Price. Both their books written respectively; Lost Christianity and The Incredible Shrinking son of man are excellent to read even if you disagree with them.
However Jim, I must respect your honesty that you say that you can't prove it. And that you admit that you could be wrong. I admit as well that I could be wrong too. I'll also admit that if I'm wrong about the resurrection I'll honestly be shocked.
Anyways its always interesting to read Dr. Price. In his book; The Case Against the Case for Christ. Chp 12. He argues against Bill Craig assertion that Joseph OF Armathea is a historical person. Price points out

In fact, the very contrast Craig correctly notes between Joseph and the fled disciples points up the possibility that 'of Arimathea' is meant to function as an equivalent to 'the Beloved Disciple' since Arimathea (only doubtfully identified with any known location) may be broken down into syllables denoting 'Best [ari] Disciple [mathetes] place.' This would imply he is an ideal or symbolic figure such as we not infrequently find in the gospels, their names reflecting their narrative role.

...Nicodemus means 'ruler of the people,' and he is what? "A ruler of the Jews" (John 3:1) Martha means 'lady of the house,' and so she is (Luke 10:38, "her house," 40-41), Jairus means 'he awakens,' and guess what happens to his daughter (Mark 5:41-42)? Zacchaeus is a pun on zakkat, alms-giving, and what does he do (Luke 19:8)? Bar-Timaeus, 'son of Timeaus,' seems dependent upon timyah, 'beggar,' which is what he is (Mark 10:46). Stephen perishes, stoned for his gospel preaching, thus wining the martyr's crown, which just happens to be what hisname means('crown'). Joseph of Arimathea might be another of these, the "best disciple' precisely in that he hung in there and saw to the burial of Jesus when no one else did. We will never know for sure, but neither will Craig (william lane) and he is the one pretending to be proving things."

I find this quite interesting. But I'm not going to make any conclusion, but it is fascinating that the authors of the gospels have put meanings to their names according to the narratives. What do you guys think about that?

[ChristianHeretic]

Let's think about, after the Romans crucified people they buried the bodies in a mass grave outside of town. This of course was part of the humiliation they weren't allowed a proper burial.

Crucifixion bone fragment found in a typical Jewish tomb from 21 CE.