This a response to Don Camp’s comment on my post The Evil of Christianity, in which he tries to isolate ‘the crux’ of our disagreement about the Faith.
You start, Don, from the assumption that there is a God. I, on the other hand, have considered the evidence and concluded that in all probability there isn’t one. Certainly not the Christian God. There may be a god out there somewhere that has no interest in human beings and their affairs, though I doubt it. As far as we humans are concerned such a deity is as good as non-existent, being entirely hypothetical. If it is out there, it certainly won’t be offended at my saying so.
Once I realised some years ago that a personal God did not exist a number of other things followed (or rather, collapsed):
No God means no Son of God or God Incarnate, no Saviour or Christ.
No God means no resurrection (which Paul makes clear was a work of God).
No God means no Holy Spirit.
No Holy Spirit means no regeneration of individuals to become new creations in God (you only have to look at Christians today to see this is the case.)
No God means no grand Salvation plan.
No God means no Heaven, no Final Judgement, no Kingdom of Heaven of Earth, no Eternal Life.
No God means the universe can’t have been created by him.
No God means no manipulation of evolution, no intervention in human history and no prophecy of things to come.
No God means that the world would be just as we find it: messy, beautiful, dangerous, turbulent, indifferent.
No God means prophecy is man-made and comes to pass at no greater rate than chance allows (i.e. practically zero.)
No God means conversations with ‘him’, revelations from him and visions of him are all imagined, generated by and within the human brain, which works in mysterious ways.
No God means no God-given morality. Morality is, as you say, culturally determined and so may and does change over time. (You can see this in the Bible itself where morality supposedly handed down by God for all time evolves throughout the Old Testament and into the new.)
No God means there is neither Sin nor Righteousness. These are religious concepts. The whole spectrum of human behaviour, from destructive to altruistic, is demonstrated by believers and non-believers alike.
No God means assertions like ‘the issue turns on what I perceive as good for me versus what God declares is good for me’ are illusory. What is good for you is what you have worked out, even if you think God had a hand in it. A supernatural being who doesn’t exist cannot be responsible for your well-being, though your church and the bible undoubtedly contributed to your conditioning.
No God means individuals must work out their own meaning and purpose. Some do, some don’t, as you observe, Don. This is as true of believers as it is for non-believers. Many atheists have managed it, or not, without having it imposed by religion. And despite what you say, Christianity is a religion. It is the epitome of religion.
No God means none of the Abrahamic religions are true and therefore Christianity and its ‘holy’ book, being based on an invalid premise, must be false. Most of the posts on this here blog are about demonstrating this fact.
No God means all gods are man-made, not all gods except one.
The crux of the matter is you believe in God while I see how unlikely it is that there is one. I’d agree with you if I could, Don, but then we’d both be wrong.
rejectingjesus, 
I did not start with the assumption that there is a God. I’ve said that many times. I grew up in a home that was not religious. It was secular. But I did not start with the assumption that there is no God either.
What compelled me to think there was a God was that it made sense. But what did I know? I was a kid. However, over time as I revisited that idea and learned more about the God that I had come to think make sense AND as I weighed the arguments and “evidence” put forward for a universe entirely without a God (evidence which actually required belief in a wholly natural universe that originate by natural laws and organized itself by natural laws) God made more and more sense. And the belief in a wholly natural universe made less and less sense – to the point where I now think it impossible.
So “assumptions had nothing to do with it.
Neil: The crux of the matter is you believe in God while I see how unlikely it is that there is one.
Okay. I have come to the opposite conclusion. We might call your blog post and my reply our statements of faith. Maybe we are at a stalemate and should leave it at that.
LikeLike
‘I did not start with the assumption that there is a God.’ No, but you do now, which is the point. And it is an assumption.
Yes, please, let’s leave it at that. Why do you come here with your God assumptions, anyway? Is it that you’re secretly attracted to atheism? This would be the same motivation you attribute to us, after all; we’re secretly affected by Jesus according to you. You see how improbable that is? Why are you here?
LikeLike
Don:
”What compelled me to think there was a God was that it made sense.”
That’s the point…it made sense to me too, until I studied science and when I understood the answers science provides are actually proveable, testable, and they work, I left the childish Santa Claus, Jesus stuff behind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
How did you go from being a deist to being a Christian, and all that involved: believing you are a sinner, believing you needed salvation, Jesus being God, the resurrection etc?
LikeLike
I don’t think I was a Deist. I was nothing. I had given God very little thought. I was into tramping around in the outdoors, and fishing.
But I was thinking about what I wanted to be “when I grew up.” I thought about being a forest ranger because that would keep me in the mountains and forests that I loved.
But God had other things in mind, as I discovered later.
I was sent to live with an aunt and uncle and my three cousins because my mother was going to a trade school and could not care for me. My aunt and uncle had recently become Christians and were sending my cousins to a Christian school, so they send me as well.
It was there that I first heard about Jesus and the good news of the gospel. It was all pretty strange. But it began to make sense as I listened. Finally, I came to the place where it made more sense than anything else I had heard or seen in the lives of the people around me.
So, I simply said to God “I believe you (not in you, but I believe what you are saying to me).
And that is the other side of what was going on. God was speaking to me. He was impressing on my heart (not speaking in my ears) the things that were true and significant about life. The more he spoke and the more I looked around at life as others were living it, the more it made sense.
Realizing that I was a sinner came later. Realizing that I needed salvation? Well, what I realized was that I needed to live in reality, and reality was more than what my friends and the people around me were living. More and more it seemed they were living kind of hand to mouth so to speak, just doing what came naturally – and making a mess of their lives. It all seemed pointless.
Then Shakespeare spoke to me: “Tomorrow and tomorrow, and tomorrow, creeps on this petty pace until the last syllable of recorded time…” You know the rest. That was even more pointless. But if that was all there was … what could I do about it? Go with it.
But God impressed on me that it wasn’t all there was. Life was not terminal. Life was big and significant and was head to eternity where it would be even more so.
The resurrection of Jesus was not something I even thought about much early on. It simply was a fact I accepted. I had not begun to put all the pieces together. It wasn’t a factor in my choosing the reality God was showing me. If anything, what made me a “believer” was the growing sense that only in the story of the Bible and of Jesus did the pieces of life make sense. And then there was God impressing these things upon my heart.
LikeLike
Finally, I came to the place where it made more sense than anything else I had heard or seen
OF COURSE it did! When something is repeated ad nauseum,, it’s bound to have an effect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Don
Sent away from home, no mother, ( no mention of father), emotional upheaval, probable economic issues as well,
Struggle to make sense of it all, highly vulnerable, attend Christian school, peer pressure, or at least the desire to belong / fit in.
Doesn’t take a degree in psychology to see where this would be going.
Before you know it, indoctrination, confession, and “Yes, Jesus, I believe, please save me! “
I have never been a believer but I feel fairly confident that those on this site who once were will acknowledge my step by step on how a child/young man found the lord ( sic) to been reasonably accurate or at least fairly commonplace.
Oh, and I am still waiting for your evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the claim the character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
Thanks
LikeLiked by 1 person
Everyone has issues.
When you give me a clue about how you know Alexander was an actual person, I’ll take that as an indication of what you are looking for.
LikeLike
Now, Ark, you know that the resurrection itself was an event for which there is no archaeological evidence. I am not even sure what that might possibly be. There is archaeological evidence for the Battle of the Little Big Horn. But that had people who were killed and buried, weapons that left bullets in the ground, etc.
But the resurrection left nothing like that. In fact, since Jesus’ body did not remain in the grave, there are not even bones. If you could provide evidence of bones that are clearly those of Jesus, then that would be good counter evidence. But I know of none.
So, we are left with the common types of evidence for actual events – the effects. I’ve described some of those. Alexander, of course, has that. He has cities named after him. Why would there be cities called Alexandria if there was no Alexander. But there are plenty of buildings existing that would not if there had been no Jesus or if he had not risen from the dead.
We are also left with witnesses who spoke or wrote about what they experienced. But you know those already. I don’t need to add to that. Even Alexander has that kind of evidence.
I am, therefore, puzzled what more you expect. Give me an idea.
LikeLike
How about the evidence that the resurrection didn’t happen?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you truly need me to explain what is evidence then perhaps you should rather research the meaning yourself.
All you have is a claim.
And the source of that claim, the Bible, is anonymous, unhistorical, and rife with errors, interpolation and forgery.
Belief in that claim is based solely on your willingness to accept it as true, but it is NOT based on any evidence whatsoever.
Honesty demands you acknowledge your belief is very likely based on the fact you have been indoctrinated to a degree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yeah. I have trouble believing in Alexander. So, I know what you mean.
I am surprised you have so much trouble coming up with any criteria at all for historicity of the resurrection. It just doesn’t seem like you, Ark.
LikeLike
Here you are shifting the goalposts yet again.
Ark asks you for evidence of the resurrection. You say, ‘but what about Alexander the Great? Provide evidence for him!’ There is, as you already know, a good deal more evidence for Akexander (written and archaeological, including contemporaneous sculpture, coinage, cities founded) than for Jesus.
So how about you stop obfuscating and deflecting. Cite comparable sources for the resurrection.
LikeLike
See, this is the typical response from the average indoctrinated Christian.
It comes across as disingenious and frustrating and quite frankly dishonest as I am sure you are well aware.
I am not arguing over the historicity of the character Yeshua( Jesus), the itinnerent Rabbi from the first century who is mentioned in Tacitus’ Annals .
For the sake of this discussion we can regard him in a similar historical light as Alexander, as you seem wont to do.
As you regularly assert the resurrection is fact I am asking you for the evidence to demonstrate the veracity of the claim that the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
”And the belief in a wholly natural universe made less and less sense – to the point where I now think it impossible”
This logical fallacy is called the:
”Argument from Ignorance”.
You simply can’t (refuse), think how this is possible, so there MUST have been a god who created everything…you just can’t imagine how else it could be!
LikeLike
No Goyo, it is an argument from what I know.
I know that minds create things, everything from works of art to computers. I know that the things minds create are complex and specific to a purpose. That is what I see in the universe and the world around me.
I know that mindless forces starting from nothing do not do that. It would be like expecting a computer to materialize out of nothing without a mind doing the creation of the parts and the organizing them into a working purposeful machine.
I know that minds communicate. Even the minds of animals communicate. And that has been my experience with God and the experiences of numberless people over the history of mankind.
So, putting the things I know together they are sufficient to explain the universe and you and me.
I don’t even need to compare to purely natural forces. But if I were, show me by whatever evidence you can marshal how natural forces can do what minds can do – starting from nothing.
LikeLike
Don:
“I know that the things minds create are complex and specific to a purpose. That is what I see in the universe and the world around me.
I know that mindless forces starting from nothing do not do that.”
Google “images of snowflakes”, and look at them…each one a complex, beautiful, hexagon, created from the chaos of the atmosphere… a mindless force.
That’s EVIDENCE of what I’m talking about.
What’s the EVIDENCE that jesus rose from the dead?
LikeLike
Snowflakes are not complex.
The evidence that Jesus rose from the dead – which is an event – is varied. But it is all about the effects of then event. I’ve listed some and need not do it again. Except to say that I am the evidence. Paul was the evidence. Peter was the evidence. John was the evidence. And so on.
LikeLike
Don:
”show me by whatever evidence you can marshal how natural forces can do what minds can do – starting from nothing.”
You’re talking about Abiogenesis…from Wikipedia:
The Miller-Urey experiment was proof that the building blocks of life could be synthesized abiotically from gases and introduced a new prebiotic chemistry framework through which to study the origin of life.
LikeLike
Don:
”Snowflakes are not complex.”
Yes, they are…from the library of congress:
Furthermore, the unique and complex features of snow crystals are very much affected by unstable atmospheric conditions.
Don:
”I know that mindless forces starting from nothing do not do that”
You actually do NOT know this…you are making an assertion without providing evidence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What are they made of? Well, let’s see. Water. That is as complex as they get.
LikeLike
Don:
”What are they made of? Well, let’s see. Water. That is as complex as they get.”
Are you kidding?
You really don’t get my point, do you? I’m not talking about the chemical makeup of water…when I say “complex”, I’m referring to the snowflake’s intricate hexagonal structure that is formed by the atmosphere…peruse snow crystals.com for examples. My point is that here are geometric forms that for me to create, I have to use a compass and straight edge, and “natural forces”, are creating more intricate designs, that, if you saw them, you would think A PERSON DREW THEM…
You sir, have misunderstood the point of our argument about evidence by bringing in Alexander the Great…we’re giving you the historical jesus…we want evidence for the RESURRECTION!
Now you’re showing you misunderstood my evidence for complexity from natural means…physics and chemistry instead of “magic”.
you really don’t get it, do you?
LikeLike
Chemically a snowflake is very simply. That is my point. The form water takes is diverse, but not complex. DNA is complex. Many different molecules and a fanatically great diversity of arrangement. If I were to take your comment as it is, I would conclude you see no difference in complexity between a snowflake and DNA.
I understand the difference between the two – the historical Jesus and the resurrection. And I have already addressed that. My example of Alexander and the events associated with him were intended to make that distinction.
We do, however, have to ascertain whether Jesus was a real person or not before there can be a resurrection. Just as we need to ascertain whether Alexander was a real person before even discussing what event he might have been involved in. I think Bart Ehrman settle the first question in his book Did Jesus Exist?
So, about the event of the resurrection. I’ve already explained to everyone that the best evidence for that is the change in the lives and actions of the disciples who witnessed the risen Jesus. I don’t think I have to do that every time someone asks the question. For an event like the resurrection, that is about all the evidence we might expect from history. But since we find the effect of the resurrection in many people, it is pretty credible evidence that something happened that made a big difference in their lives. They credit the resurrection. Paul says that it can be explained no other way. To what would you credit it?
LikeLike
There are some days I wish I could like a post 1000 times.
This is one.
“No God, means that the world would be just as we find it: messy, beautiful, dangerous, turbulent, indifferent.” This is the world I live in as well. We all do really, well except for those so uncomfortable with such a world, they had need to invent an imaginary friend to help them cope with our beautiful, dangerous, turbulent, and indifferent reality.
LikeLiked by 2 people
In agree …. up to the “indifferent.”
I think it is purposeful. It is intended to reveal God to us. And it does.
LikeLike
*It is intended to reveal God to us. And it does. — *Speak for yourself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Still waiting for evidence of the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth.
However, if you prefer to acknowledge your belief in the veracity of this tale as told in the bible is based solely on faith and NOT evidence I will accept this, no problem.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Likewise, Ark.
I am left to infer from your silence about what evidence you have for Alexander that you really have no idea how history is done and you are just dodging and weaving.
BTW a clue: Evidence for an event is the effects of the event. Evidence for the risen Jesus is the same as evidence for any actual person. Hope that helps.
LikeLike
Hmm, I thought I directed you towards the evidence for Alexander the Great. If not, you could always Google it for yourself. Quite what Alexander had to do with the resurrection, however, is anybody’s guess.
Oh, and your definition of history is not one shared by any authorities I’ve (just now) consulted. Nonetheless, I’ve made it clear that the effect of the resurrection was not that predicted by either Paul or the authors of the gospels. I’m upset you ignore all of the useful information I supply you with and instead make the same refuted points over and over again.
So how about it? What’s the evidence for the resurrection? BTW, a clue: that people converted to Christianity is evidence only that they had, for a variety of reasons, come to believe it had occurred. This is not evidence it was a real event.
LikeLike
Alexander was a person. There would be evidence that he actually lived. And there is. There is textual evidence.
Jesus was a person. There should be evidence that he actually lived. And there is. There is textual evidence.
Alexander’s conquering Tyre was an event. Events have effects, and there are effects left even today of his destruction of Tyre. And there is textual reports from that period that testify to the event.
The resurrection was an event. There are effects of the event left today. There is textual testimony of the event. There is the effect of the church -which owes its existence entirely on the resurrection.
Since the event was quite a bit less well-known we might expect a smaller effect. But as a matter of fact, the effect is far larger than for Alexsander’s destruction of Tyre. For example, who were the eyewitness to Alexsander’s success? There are multiple eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus and all well documented.
That is all as we would expect it. So, Alexander conquered Tyre. So what? But Jesus’ resurrection changed everything. There are now two billion people who are following Jesus because he rose from the dead. I know of no Alexanderites.
LikeLike
Don, you write: Jesus was a person. There should be evidence that he actually lived. And there is. There is textual evidence.
I doubt many would disagree with that statement. The BIG difference is that you (AND others) try to make Yeshua out as some kind of a “special person” based ENTIRELY on the writings of Paul … who never even met the man!
For those of us who are not persuaded by ancient religious teachings, the facts are clear as day. But those with rose-colored glasses have only a “tinted” view.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Not “based entirely” on the writings of Paul.
John also wrote of his personal experience with Jesus: “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.”
And John or one writing his Gospel wrote that he was writing from personal experience.
Peter’s memories of Jesus are recorded by Mark. He also wrote about his experience of Jesus in 2nd Peter.
Matthew wrote of his experiences.
Luke writes about the eyewitness reports of those who had known Jesus from the beginning of his ministry – and apparently were convinced that he had risen from the dead. Why would they even be telling the story of this man if he was a failed Messiah, dead and gone?
James wrote about his brother, calling him “Lord.”
Let’s see, that is five and I did not include anything Paul wrote.
I can say that without any rose-colored glasses, Nan. Those are just the facts. My question is what do you do with those facts?
LikeLike
WHO wrote FIRST about Yeshua being a special guy? Let me answer that for you … PAUL. All those other folks you mentioned –John, Matthew, Luke– all wrote their stories AFTER Paul had turned Yeshua into “the Christ” (aka Mashiach).
And do you* really* believe that simply because Yeshua’s “brother” called him “Lord” is any kind of validation?
Actually, in may ways, the words of the bible are quite clear, but indoctrination throughout the centuries has allowed folks to assume a multiple of interpretations and meanings. If you disagree, compare the Catholic versions with your own.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Actually, before Paul wrote anything the gospel was being circulated orally by these very guys.
LikeLike
And you have documented evidence of this claim?
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have the transcription of Peter’s version of then oral gospel in the Gospel of Mark. And everyone who was close enough to the that place in history when Mark transcribed Peter’s oral gospel, knew it.
We also have Luke’s credit at the beginning of his Gospel to those whom he had interviewed who had themselves been eyewitnesses to Jesus. I think anyone who reads Luke with that as the background can see that many of the episodes of Jesus life he reports – including the resurrection – can see that. Some scholars attribute Luke sources to “Q” but by his own words they were oral sources for the most part.
Then we have the record of Acts (written by Luke) From chapter 1 through chapter 8 – which was a period of perhaps 5 years after the death of Jesus (according to Bart Ehrman) and before Paul was even a believer – we have the disciples going everywhere preaching about Jesus. And we see churches in Syria and beyond knowing the gospel as these disciples had spoken it to them.
Paul himself knew of the preaching of the Apostles and even checked with them (Gal. 2) to see if the gospel they preached and the gospel he had been preaching matched. Thery did btw.
There is so much evidence of an oral gospel that I find it absurd to think that there was no gospel before the four Gospel writers wrote. I know of no legitimate biblical historian whether Christian or not who thinks otherwise.
LikeLike
Sigh You just don’t get it, Don. I would think that being the bible scholar that you like to think you are that you would know that any reference to those who wrote AFTER Paul had his “AMAZING” experience are just expanding on his perspective.
All the examples/sources you provide to prove your personal perspective are nothing more than the opinions of people who enjoy disassembling the bible stories and putting them back together in the way the makes sense to them. And of course folks like you who want to defend your faith can always find one or more of them that makes sense to YOU.
The bible is nothing more than a collection of VERY OLD STORIES, Don. Nothing more. But MEN who wanted power used those stories to influence and manipulate … and here we are today with thousands of “believers” like yourself trying their best to convince sensible people that an over-worked and under-substantiated myth is something “special.”
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nan: any reference to those who wrote AFTER Paul had his “AMAZING” experience are just expanding on his perspective.
Except that even those who wrote after Paul actually were recording the oral gospel that existed even before Paul became a follower of Jesus. You did get that, right?
So. Peter’s contribution to Mark is a record of what Jesus taught and did. Mark adds the trial and resurrection narrative. That does not come from Peter.
James, however, probably wrote before Paul. Though James may have written as a response to Paul’s preaching.
The Apostles whom Paul spoke with in about 40-45 A.D. (Gal. 2) and to whom he refers in 1st Corinthians 15 affirmed the resurrection and their experience of the risen Jesus. Those are all before Paul. The events and the preaching of the resurrection that transpired before Paul and are recorded in Acts were all before Paul. In fact, those events were the reason Paul became a persecutor of Christians.
All these things tie together (actual events have actual effects) to create a picture of the gospel being preached BEFORE Paul. Every indication from these events and sources is that the resurrection was a key part of the gospel message. BEFORE Paul.
So, ask yourself why? If the message was being preached by men who experienced the risen Jesus, that is the answer. If it is being preached within weeks of … of what? a non-event? at the very place where people would know about the execution of Jesus and when the followers of Jesus would still have been afraid for their lives, WHY? Why would they do that?
Would you? Would you, knowing that it was a lie? I seriously doubt it. Nor would I. Why think that these men would?
LikeLike
No one is disputing that belief in the resurrection may have been a key part of the gospel before Paul. Belief in something, however, is not proof it actually happened. It is evidence only of belief.
The resurrection written about by Paul constitutes visions and revelations. He suggests all the others who saw the risen Jesus experienced, like him, a vision. We’re not talking about a physical body anywhere (probably not in the gospels either.)
There is no evidence Peter dictated or otherwise contributed to Mark’s gospel. None at all. Peter died circa 64, at least 6 years before Mark’s gospel appeared, making it even more unlikely. This is the last time I will publish this ridiculous assertion.
Nowhere do the writers after Paul refer to Jesus prior to his supposed resurrection. None of them are eye-witnesses. Their ‘proofs’ he was the resurrected Messiah are all taken from Jewish scripture, not from history.
How many more times do we have to tell you these things? You are wilfully blind to the evidence, even from the Bible itself, and allow your a priori assumptions govern everything you say and believe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Neil: The resurrection written about by Paul constitutes visions and revelations
Don: That is taking Paul’s own experience of the resurrected Jesus and jumping to the unwarranted conclusion that everyone had the same experience. I think. It is not what others who saw Jesus bodily resurrected say of their experience.
Neil: Nope. In 1 Corinthians 15: 3-7 Paul suggests those who experienced the risen Jesus before him ‘saw’ precisely what he did. The later gospels retain something of the visionary about Jesus’ appearances too, having him walk though locked doors, magically disappearing, being unrecognisable and so on.
Neil: Nowhere do the writers after Paul refer to Jesus prior to his resurrection.
Don: Which writers do you refer to? If I were to take just one, the author of 1st John, he says as clearly as possible that that he knew Jesus personally. If he is also the author of the gospel of John, and both internal, and external evidence affirm that, the Gospel of John records both pre-resurrection and post-resurrection experiences that coincide with the other Gospel writers.
Neil: Do you deliberately miss the point? Even those later writers who claim to have known Jesus don’t tell us anything about him prior to his supposed resurrection. No mentions of miracles, secret teachings, mysteries, episodes the gospels omit and so on. Nothing. Instead they ‘prove’ Jesus must’ve risen from the dead because of ancient Jewish scripture. The risen Jesus apparently does it himself in Acts 2. How bizarre is that?
Neil: I’ve edited your long comment here as it merely makes the same naive points you’ve made several times before.
Neil; You tell me I can’t criticise later writers’ use of ‘prophecy’ while at the same time claiming there is no prophecy of a resurrecting Messiah in the OT. Why can’t I? I’ve made the point numerous times that these OT passages were not written as prophecies of Jesus’ resurrection but NT writers disengeuously pressed them into service as precisely that. I don’t know why you can’t understand this is what they did. The gospels are constructed around many ‘prophecies’ that are nothing of the sort.
You go on to say, ‘Any time God gets involved it seems your hackles are raised.’ Quite likely, because claiming ‘God dunnit’ explains nothing, specially when there is no evidence for your God in the first place.
LikeLike
How do you know? And if it actually was, how do you know what it was that was being circulated? How do you know it wasn’t only stories about guys who’d had some visions? How do you know, Don?
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the attestations of multiple people who lived and breathed and knew the facts. Read my reply to Nan.
Historians who regard the resurrection historical:
Prof. Thomas Arnold
Professor Paul L. Maier, former Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University
Prof. Richard Bauckham, studied at the University of Cambridge, where he read history at Clare College (1966–72) and was a fellow of St John’s College (1972–75).
Prof. Paul W. Barnett, a fellow in ancient history at Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia
F.F. Bruce
Bruce Metzger (no intro necessary. Bart Ehrman studied under him,)
Casey Elledge, PhD Princeton Theological Seminary,
I could go on indefinitely. But you will say, these all are “believers.” Sure they are, and you would be as well if you were convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.
LikeLike
So, like you then, all these academics have no actual evidence of the resurrection claims but accept the Bible tales based on
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark: like you then, all these academics have no actual evidence of the resurrection claims but accept the Bible tales based on
You will have to ask them. The historical evidence is more than adequate for me.
LikeLike
Ark, I am grateful that you are convinced that there is no resurrection. That may sound odd, but being convinced means you are not resisting God knowing full well that God is God.
Jesus said that those who are given little of them little is required. So, being convinced as you are may mean lesser punishment for disobedience. I hope so.
LikeLike
Neil: So how about it? What’s the evidence for the resurrection? BTW, a clue: that people converted to Christianity is evidence only that they had, for a variety of reasons, come to believe it had occurred.
Not even that.
Look at the statements made by Ayaan Hirsi Ali on her “conversion” to Christianity. She never once mentions evidence, belief, conviction, a spiritual witness. She never says that Jesus is the Christ or that he was resurrected from the dead.
Her only reason for conversion boils down to her fear of Islam and her belief that only Christianity can counter the threat posed by Islam’s growth in the west.
Throughout history, people have converted for many reasons that have nothing to do with faith, belief, or the resurrection. To make the family happy. To get permission to marry from perspective in-laws. Because the town is all Christian and I want to “get along.” Because the king/emperor has declared it the national religion. Because the Christian crusaders ordered me to convert or be killed. Or, the reason for most Christians over the years: Because my parents raised me to be Christian.
No, being Christian says nothing about whether you believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
LikeLike
No, being Christian says nothing about whether you believe Jesus was raised from the dead.
I guess it depends on what you think a Christian is. But, as you know after reading my explanation for why I became a follower of Jesus, :Believing” in the resurrection may not be essential to following Jesus.
BUT that is not really what I mean by the resurrection being the essential FACT that makes sense of the preaching of the good news and faith in Jesus. You can read all about that in 1st Corinthians 15. Paul will tell you that he would not have done what he was doing if not for the resurrection.
Why risk your life to preach the kingdom of God or Jesus as Messiah after his death if he had not risen from the dead? The only sensible thing was to go home and pick up where you left off fishing.
But along comes the mythicists. Their answer is that these guys whose whole life had crashed would get together to create a “religion.”
To do what? Jesus really only preached what the prophets in the Old Testament had done many times before him. The only thing different was that his death was for the forgiveness of sin, but that really depended on his resurrection as the demonstration that God had accepted that sacrifice. And really, there were sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins built into the existing Old Testament message and the sacrifices at the temple. What about eternal life? Well, that goes away without the resurrection. So what was the point of lying about it?
The mythicists imagine the Gospel writers and Paul had the future in view. and they engaged in a conspiracy to promote a new religion. But that implies the writers of the Gospels were liars. But what had they to gain? Fame and fortune? Hardly.
So, no actual opportunity to conspire. No motive to conspire. No benefit to themselves to conspire. Add to that no evidence of any kind that they did conspire and they have no case. The actual resurrection is by far the more reasonable explanation.
LikeLike
Don: ‘But along comes the mythicists. Their answer is that these guys whose whole life had crashed would get together to create a “religion.”’
Strawman 1: No one is saying the ‘guys’ who had visions of a resurrected Jesus ‘got together’ to create a new religion. They evidently saw themselves as very much a part of Judaism, believing they had seen the Messiah, a Jewish concept through and through. This much is evident from what Paul says about them.
Paul himself, however, was to insist that Gentiles be allowed into what was a Jewish cult. At this point it began to evolve out of Judaism and into a belief system in its own right. But, no-one other than Paul intended this; it was the chief area of disagreement between him and the ‘guys’ you refer to.
Strawman 2: ‘the mythicists’. Yes, most of us here regard gospel-Jesus as a myth. The internal evidence clearly points to this. However, what has this to do with you presenting evidence for an actual resurrection? If Jesus isn’t a myth but a real historical person it should be easy to do, surely.
How about you stop evading the issue, raising irrelevancies like mythicism and whether or not your ‘guys’ intended creating a new religion, and outline that evidence?
Because, Don, you can’t.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As you say, people convert for a range of reasons. I was attempting though to pre-empt Don claiming, yet again, that the evidence for the resurrection was that early converts believed in it.
He didn’t let me down in this respect, making the point, yet again, in all four of his comments today. He cannot see that early converts did not witness the resurrection (no-one did) and therefore their belief in it, if they indeed had it, was nothing more than that: belief and not evidence the resurrection had really happened.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Evidence for an event is the fact it can be demonstrated to have occurred.
An earthquake, a tsunami, evolution.
You have no evidence for the resurrection of the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth. And just because a zillion people may believe the tale does not mean it actually happened.
Your continued harping on about Alexander merely confirms what everyone here already knows.
You are a sad, pathetic indoctrinated, disingenious old man.
If it were not obvious you were lying through your arse you would be looking at irremedially stupid in the rear view mirror.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tsunamis are huge events with physical consequences.
Do a little speculating, Ark. What evidence would you expect for the resurrection? I would expect people who were impacted by it in some way. And there were. A lot of them.
LikeLike
What I expect is irrelevant.
Your continual equivocation is evidence enough you simply have no evidence and everything you believe on this subject is based on your credulity and the indoctrination to which you succumbed.
I am somewhat bemused that in the face of these facts why are you afraid to acknowledge this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ark, I am sitting here chuckling. And the more I think about it the funnier it gets. Have you never done history? Or thought about how it is done? This is a history question, you know. It is not a faith question.
Did Jesus raise from the dead? How would we know?
Recall, please, that his resurrection was not a big public event. Only a few knew. It was not like a great battle between large military forces for which we would expect there to be not only accounts of the battle but physical evidence.
There is no more expected physical evidence for his resurrection than for my driving to the coast to see the surf on a winter day. None that would last more than a day or so in any event.
But there are accounts of my visit. Or I would expect there to be. I was seen by friends in the town where I once lived. I had lunch at the restaurant where I was seen by people. But those memories I would expect to be rather insignificant and probably not remembered beyond a few days. So how would I “prove” I was there? I don’t think I could today years later.
In Jesus’ case his being alive after his death was a pretty big thing for the people who did see it. And it had huge implications. I would expect that they might have remembered it for quite some time and that they might even have told others and it might have been written down.
And it was written down. In several cases it was written down by those who saw Jesus alive after his resurrection. And it was remembered by many others who saw him. But his resurrection was so significant that it also changed their lives. And they told us about that in what they wrote. And it changed the lives of those they told it to. And it has changed the lives of many people since. And that is what I would expect of a truly significant event.
What else should I expect? That is why I asked you to do some expecting, to then think about how reasonable those expectations might be, and to then look at the evidence to determine if it meets reasonable expectations.
That is actually what historian investigators do. Do you think you could do that? Or have you decided a priori that the resurrection is impossible and that is the end of the story? If so, you may continue to huff and puff, but like the big bad wolf did at little pig’s brick house, but your huffing and puffing will have no effect. The facts are too strong.
That is what I thought about Bart Ehrman’s argument Did Jesus Exist? He did an excellent job as a historian proving from the facts that Jesus did exist. But he did not apply those same principles and skills as a historian to discuss the resurrection. He waved it off as you do, saying it is a matter of faith and out of the purview of the historian. But he was wrong. The claim is that it was a real event, and a historian does examine real events. He may find that it did not happen according to the evidence he found but he doesn’t just wave it off. I was disappointed. But he like you had an a priori conviction that prevented him from doing what historians do. Too bad.
LikeLike
No genuine historian will credit the tale of the resurrection as an actual historical event.
there is no evidence whatsoever to support the claims in the Bible. None.
And for what it’s worth I will bet you anything you care to wager you will not t find a proper accredited historian who will say otherwise.
Furthermore, your understanding of the gospels is that of one who displays all the traits of an indoctrinated believer, like William lane Craig or Mike Licona, and you regularly trot out arguments that have more holes in them than a Galilean fisherman’s net.
And yes, I did history at school for several years and I am familiar with the historical method.
So, your long-winded reply is yet again nothing but an ignorant, disingenious apologetic.
It is true to say that you never started with any credibility and if it was possible for you to have a minus amount now then you have amassed it in spades.
LikeLike
Don:
”That is why I asked you to do some expecting, to then think about how reasonable those expectations might be,and to then look at the evidence to determine if it meets reasonable expectations.”
There is NO reasonable expectation that a person who has died will come back from that dead state, and live again!
We’ve been asking for evidence, and you have provided NONE!
Don:
”The actual resurrection is by far the more reasonable explanation.”
No, it’s NOT!
Ark:
”So, your long-winded reply is yet again nothing but an ignorant, disingenious apologetic.”
I agree…Don Camp is a disengenuous interlocutor.
Can you imagine being Don Camp’s preacher?
”Oh no, here he comes again with some more crazy ideas about how wrong I am”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Goyo: There is NO reasonable expectation that a person who has died will come back from that dead state, and live again!
That is your a priori assumption. And that is why you don’t recognize evidence when you see it.
LikeLike
I was interested in Bart Ehrman’s explanation of what changed because of Jesus. https://youtu.be/iRlvDHpoiTY?si=MFU3eE7qlzXLjsxj
LikeLike
@Don
In actual fact your continual disingenuity, and abject failure to acknowledge you have no evidence for the preposterous claims to which you ascribe merely illustrates that you are nothing but a dishonest ****.
I have been upfront and honest in my approach to this subject from the very beginning.
You on the other hand….
Therefore, if the Bible character Jesus of Nazareth were real it is you, the charleten and liar who would come in for all the scrutiny and judgment.
I would say that’s something which should give you some serious pause for thought, wouldn’t you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serious thought? Yes. But everyone who has ever followed Jesus was promised just what you are demonstrating – and worse.
Ironically, you are the fulfillment of his prophecy.
LikeLike
You continue to demonstrate the reason why you are regarded as disingenious, indoctrinated and a blatent liar.
You hold zero credibity among those on this blog whom you troll, and are regarded in the poorest light.
If you were to make even the slightest effort to answer your critics with even a modicum of honesty you might raise a few eyebrows and glean the occasional positive response.
As it is you convey the image of a smug, condescending arse.
It is very likely this scenario is echoed on every other forum you visit.
I truly am surprised that after all thus time Neil tolerates you at all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has always been my purpose on this blog and everywhere to tell you the truth. I have tried to tell you in words you can understand rather than in words that seem old fashioned and “religious.” But I know, Ark, that it is not about understanding my words but about your heart and whether you are willing to listen.
It has always been like that when someone speaks truth. There are those who will listen, but there are many who refuse. I am sorry that you have chosen not to listen.
Maybe some day.
LikeLike
So speaks Saint Don. You are oblivious to how much your sanctimonious attitude irritates the hell out of people.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Mostly atheists. Go figure.
LikeLike
Mostly people who are capable of rational thought, look for evidence and recognise sanctimonious BS when they see it.
Go figure.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That is what I hoped for you all. Reality is larger than you think. I hoped that by rationally approaching the questions and issues you have I might have made sense when your background in Fundamentalist Christianity did not. But I am afraid your experienced with Christianity did not allow you to see Christianity as it truly is.
LikeLike
You’ve more than adequately shown us what Christianity is really like. It always comes down in the end to threats of hell and eternal punishment. In this respect you have not failed.
You do know though that you don’t earn extra Jesus points harassing atheists online, don’t you. So I’m going to let you go that you might instead do what your saviour commands, feeding the hungry, visiting the sick and clothing the naked. Unless of course these are mere metaphor and not what he meant at all.
Bye, Don.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@DON.
My association with Christianity is purely cultural and therefore I was never subject to any sort of fundamentalism and certainly none of the rabid indoctrination you succumbed via your adopted family and church experience; a trait/ affliction you have carried through to adulthood.
Therefore, while still believing there was some historicity to the Bible tales but with none of the preconceived ideas of Christianity hammered into me as sacrosanct when I decided to do some research on Moses for a humorous fantasy novel I wrote you can imagine my surprise when I discovered Moses was nothing but a fictional hero composite and the Exodus and Conquest were nothing but geopolitical foundation myth.
This sparked my interest and over the next year or so I read the Bible, following up with encyclopedias and as many other resources I could dig up. It didn’t take a genius to realize that the entire shebang is nothing but historical fiction.
And how I came to understand why people like you are blindly indoctrinated is the desperate measures you all. Do to in an effort to defend something f oh rcwhich no evidence exists.
The irony of course is how you all Insist that faith is crucial; you are all hell bent on justifying this faith by using science!
Furthermore, while you all want to show normal people how wonderfully enlightened and science literate you are by not only ridiculing atheism, you take a perverted glee in denigrating Young Earth Creationists, the irony of which merely illustrates how ignorant and thoroughly indoctrinated you are.
You are nothing but hypocrites.
LikeLike
Hi Ark. Hope you don’t mind I corrected a couple of typos (predictive text generated, I’d guess).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Neil.
LikeLike
Neil: Mostly people who are capable of rational thought, look for evidence and recognise sanctimonious BS when they see it. Go figure.
Don responded:
Don: That is what I hoped for you all. Reality is larger than you think. I hoped that by rationally approaching the questions and issues you have I might have made sense when your background in Fundamentalist Christianity did not. But I am afraid your experienced with Christianity did not allow you to see Christianity as it truly is.
So, let’s review.
Don: Reality is larger than you think.
You keep saying that. Yet you have failed to demonstrate it. In fact, when asked to show us the magic world you say we all inhabit you get all offended. “That’s now how it works,” you whine.
Anything in my world – if you were to question it – I could present evidence: photos, audio or video recordings, etc. You could meet my family, friends and associates. You could shake their hands.
You have yet to provide a single piece of evidence for your spiritual claims. And no, a book of fairytales is not evidence for anything.
I’ve been begging you for years to present something factual, actual, testable. You refuse. You get offended. You declare me to be unreasonable.
Don: I hoped that by rationally approaching the questions and issues you have I might have made sense when your background in Fundamentalist Christianity did not.
But you haven’t. You haven’t done anything rationally. Ever.
Every response you’ve ever made has been to simply repeat your interpretation of ‘Christianity’ as real without providing anything substantial to back up your claim. You have provided nothing but your opinion about ancient (and sometimes modern) fairy tales.
You believe in a Jewish messiah that didn’t fulfill any of the Jewish prophecies for their messiah. How is that rational?
Don: But I am afraid your experienced with Christianity did not allow you to see Christianity as it truly is.
Again, you have repeatedly refused to provide an objective way to distinguish your Christianity from all the other Christianities out there.
I assure you, every Christian I’ve ever met hold to “Christianity as it truly is.” It doesn’t matter if they are the most fundamental of fundamentalists or the most liberal of liberal Christians – each and every one of them has the TrueChristianity®. And not one of them, not even Don Camp Apostle to the Internet, can give objective reasons for their Christianity over the others. It always comes down to subjective reading, or feelings, or traditions.
Don: But I am afraid your experienced with Christianity did not allow you to see Christianity as it truly is.
So, what is the TrueChristianity® I see in you Don?
I see hate. I see hate for gays, lesbians, and transfolk. Oh, you like to hide behind a softer version of hate, but when pushed the hate shows.
I see dishonesty. I don’t think you’ve ever presented anything honestly, ever. You lie about what the Bible says, you lie about science, you lie about what atheists think, say, and present. You are dishonest to the core.
Don, it always comes back to the same thing. Show us some objective evidence for your claims. Don’t repeat the claims as evidence, they aren’t. Dazzling people with bullshit may work on believers, but we’ve had our fill of Christian bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m in a quandary now. Don has responded (with the usual guff) but I’d decided not to post any more from him. He doesn’t address issues, relentlessly proselytises and seems to go out of his way to antagonise. I think I’ll paste his comment here so you can see how he avoids all of your points. That’ll be his lot.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’s reply to koseighty. As you’ll see, it proves your point:
‘The Book is actually the record of many people who have interacted with God and he with them. They have heard him speak. They have seen him do miracles. And there have been millions more. Just ask around.
You too could have that experience of God. He has promised that those who seek him will find him.’
LikeLike
Once upon a time, I gave Don a (metaphorical) copy of (the metaphorical book) The Junior Christian’s Big Book of Apologetics, Illustrated Edition. The idea was that Don never had any adult thoughts and never varied from the childish script he had been given. That theme continues.
It seems to be a trend among apologists.
Billy Bob Craig has spent 50+ years repeating one very old, and very tired apologetic. Never in those 50 years did he ever present Big Bang Theory correctly. He had plenty of time to learn it. He had plenty of scientists explaining it to him. But he had a straw man Big Bang that worked for him, so he stuck with it.
Same with Frank Turek. He had a straw man version of atheists to argue against. And he’s never modified it to reflect actual atheists or atheist thought. No, he’s got a lie that sells Christianity and he’s gonna stick with it.
So I guess Don is a real Christian apologist – dishonest to the core. But that’s okay. Because he has a script. It’s not designed to win atheists to Christ. It’s designed to keep Christians deluded. And look at Don! They don’t get more deluded than Don.
LikeLike
I have this vision of arriving in the Celestial Court to be judged. God asks me why I didn’t believe in him or his son Jesus.
“The whole story just seemed ridiculous,” I reply.
“Who did I send to witness to you?” asks God.
“Don Camp,” I say.
“Oh. Don, huh?” God replies, understanding the situation. “Don Camp? Oh well. Never mind then. Come on in. I wouldn’t have believed it either the way Don explains it.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Coincidentally, I’ve just written a post along these lines. When the Almighty asked me how I’d learnt about Christianity and I told him ‘Don,’ he replied ‘Don who?’
LikeLiked by 1 person
It has always been like that when someone speaks truth. How hypocritically pious!! And at the core of it is you are claiming “truth” where there is none.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Except that you do not speak truth. Your comments are replete with unsubstantiated apologetics, obfuscation,and disingenuity.
You personify the indoctrinated Christian ignoramus, and I reiterate, you should consider yourself fortunate that Neil allows to spew your particular brand of bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don:
”It has always been like that when someone speaks truth. There are those who will listen, but there are many who refuse. I am sorry that you have chosen not to listen.”
You have NOT spoken anything that approaches the “truth”!
I will illustrate:
Above you said:
”show me by whatever evidence you can marshal how natural forces can do what minds can do – starting from nothing”
I answered with the example of the snowflake:
”My point is that here are geometric forms that for me to create, I have to use a compass and straight edge, and “natural forces”, are creating more intricate designs, that, if you saw them, you would think A PERSON DREW THEM…”
EVIDENCE of natural forces doing what a mind can do…forming geometric shapes!
You answer with a word salad about water molecules and DNA, showing that you are being disingenuous, and deliberately obtuse, REFUSING to acknowledge my point!
Don:
” So, being convinced as you are may mean lesser punishment for disobedience. I hope so.”
**** you!
LikeLike
Don:
“The Book is actually the record of many people who have interacted with God and he with them. They have heard him speak. They have seen him do miracles. And there have been millions more. Just ask around.
You too could have that experience of God. He has promised that those who seek him will find him.’”
Says every Mormon that you talk to…or, for that matter, every other believer from every other religion.
LikeLike
Thank you for editing my comment…I’m sorry, I let my frustration get the better of me.
LikeLike
That’s okay. I understand entirely. Don makes a saint swear.
LikeLike