It should also be noted that stories of resurrections were common in the ancient world. The Egyptians and the Greeks had many resurrection stories. Even the Jews, in Book of Enoch, 2 Baruch and 2 Esdra espouse beliefs in them. Point being that these beliefs were widely known in the Middle East well before Jesus woke up from the dead and could have perhaps influenced the Easter myth.
One of the early Christians, I forget whom but it might have been Tertullian, was smart enough to come up with an ingenious argument on this - that all these other instances were to prepare people for when the real thing came along.
All this post really highlights is the reductive nature of new atheism. The fact that science is a useful tool doesn't mean it's equally useful to all spheres of existence. It's basically using the eyesight of a dog to argue that color isn't a thing. The great irony is that these sorts of arguments are most likely to convince those who are already in the habit of sloppy thinking. More thoughtful people will see right through it as what it is: an exercise in futility.
It's okay to be devout in the idea that the only things real are those proven by science and evidence, but there's no reason, then, to be surprised that a worldview that places faith as the one and only requirement doesn't fit the box you're trying to put it in.
You seem to have missed the point. A worldview that places faith above all is fine until it makes claims about the natural world - rather than being put in a scientific box it's trying to escape from its faith box. From your position you invariably end up with special pleading.
I’m 100 % sure that Jesus did not rise from the dead, based on this logic: If Jesus did rise from the dead, that would mean that he was in fact the Son of God. But to be the Son of God you have to teach the right things. Jesus taught that the world would end in his generation, that belief is more important than behavior, and that Hell is a valid idea. Therefore, Jesus did NOT teach the right things. Therefore, he was not the Son of God. Therefore, he did not rise from the dead.
It all makes sense. The apostles chose to die rather horrible deaths proclaiming a risen Jesus when they knew it was a lie. I believe you over those who were gave their lives saying they saw Jesus alive. And the Bible says Jesus was around for 40 days after his resurrection and appeared to hundreds of people. Surely that too is a lie. And of course the start of Christianity was aided with financial and political backing plus armies ready to defend the early Christians. Or somehow it started from nothing with people absolutely dedicated to a risen Jesus. I wonder why that was?
Extraordinary events do not require extraordinary evidence. Theories in general require good explanations. The fact that miracles deserve our scepticism is due to how bad they are as explanations of the world, not to how frequently or how rarely they tend to happen.
Your statistical approach is entirely misplaced, as you overlook what the Christian religion teaches about Jesus of Nazareth: namely, that Jesus was God Incarnate, both fully man and fully God, those two natures being united in the hypostatic union. That is why the Incarnation, not the Resurrection, is the central mystery of the Christian Faith. For a theist, the Creator is perfectly capable of entering into His own Creation as a God-Man. Christians understand that there was a particular reason for the Creator to do so: our fallen nature needed to be restored. The Resurrection of the God-Man is not all that surprising, if you believe in the Incarnation. You are welcome to attack the Incarnation and the Fall of Man if you wish, but will not get very far: they are both rational articles of Faith entirely beyond the purview of scientific inquiry.
The earliest Christians brought Jesus back to life. It had to be this way to establish a church and gain followers. The true message of Jesus, that there us no need for a church, was not sexy enough.
I have had two near deaths experiences. Eternity/eternal life is real. I humbly suggest you seek the truth in a spiritual manner rather than reading books.
Can one not use books in a spiritual manner? Is that not a description of the Bible itself? Plus didn't Jesus himself encourage literacy? Certainly, the church did not encourage it after Jesus.
Great essay. One small quibble...Paul didn't actually change his name. This is a common misconception. 'Saul' is his Aramaic name, which is used in Acts. Paul is his Greek name. Which is also used elsewhere in Acts. There isn't any indication that Paul actually changed his name, but is merely a popular false interpretation since he's called both in the NT.
Great article until I saw the video w Shapiro.
Damning the messenger instead of the message? How enlightened if you!
It should also be noted that stories of resurrections were common in the ancient world. The Egyptians and the Greeks had many resurrection stories. Even the Jews, in Book of Enoch, 2 Baruch and 2 Esdra espouse beliefs in them. Point being that these beliefs were widely known in the Middle East well before Jesus woke up from the dead and could have perhaps influenced the Easter myth.
One of the early Christians, I forget whom but it might have been Tertullian, was smart enough to come up with an ingenious argument on this - that all these other instances were to prepare people for when the real thing came along.
All this post really highlights is the reductive nature of new atheism. The fact that science is a useful tool doesn't mean it's equally useful to all spheres of existence. It's basically using the eyesight of a dog to argue that color isn't a thing. The great irony is that these sorts of arguments are most likely to convince those who are already in the habit of sloppy thinking. More thoughtful people will see right through it as what it is: an exercise in futility.
It's okay to be devout in the idea that the only things real are those proven by science and evidence, but there's no reason, then, to be surprised that a worldview that places faith as the one and only requirement doesn't fit the box you're trying to put it in.
You seem to have missed the point. A worldview that places faith above all is fine until it makes claims about the natural world - rather than being put in a scientific box it's trying to escape from its faith box. From your position you invariably end up with special pleading.
What claims about the natural worlds are you referring?
I’m 100 % sure that Jesus did not rise from the dead, based on this logic: If Jesus did rise from the dead, that would mean that he was in fact the Son of God. But to be the Son of God you have to teach the right things. Jesus taught that the world would end in his generation, that belief is more important than behavior, and that Hell is a valid idea. Therefore, Jesus did NOT teach the right things. Therefore, he was not the Son of God. Therefore, he did not rise from the dead.
The fact that 1/3 of humanity believes the crucifixion and resurrection literally, doesn't bode well for humanity as a species.
Why do you say that?
THEE-MELCHIZEDEK-UNITARY-NAZ-IRENE-HOLY-SERAPHIC-[SNAKE]-MARIA-VRIL-[1958-SATURN-SATAN]: GARDEN-O'-IHM-YY-NAZ-HER-MAPHRODITE-THABOR-[NON-CARNAL]-ANAK-MARY-! = JOHN-8:44-! ~ VS ~ GARDEN-O'-IHS-XX-NAZI-ANDRO-GYN-OUS-HERMAN-[CARNAL]-ANAK-LUCY-! ~ COHN-8:44-! = BI-POLAR-&-UNI-POLAR-NAZI-OCCULT-SCEPTER-[SNAKE]-MARIA-VRIL-[1945-SATAN-SATURN] + + + In Mary's [Res-PUBLIC-A ~ YY] Lanced (Una-Cum-Cir-Cum-Sized) Immaculate Heart (Fatima~Mahdi) of Incurable Love and Truth, paulus
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F6ba1f0f1-5276-477f-ab8d-e78530c55741_1000x740.jpeg
https://michaelshermer.substack.com/p/how-to-think-about-the-resurrection
THEE-MARRIAGE-BOOK-O'-TOBIAS-! [FORM] + & + THEE-MARRIAGE-FEAST-O'-CANA-ANITES-! [MATTER] = THEE-MASTER-EXEJESIS-! [INTENTION] = O'-THEE-BANK-O'-MELCHIZEDEK-FEE-[MALE]-SIMPLE-[NO-COUNTER-PARTY-!] = THEE-UNA-CIR-CUM-SIZED-[FEE-MALE-SIMPLE]-HOLY-GHOST-BIBLE-! [JOHN-8:44 ~ INTENTION] + + + https://iconnectfx.com/view/aab77cde-b3b0-ee11-996... + + + In Mary's [Res-PUBLIC-A ~ YY] Lanced (Una-Cum-Cir-Cum-Sized) Immaculate Heart (Fatima~Mahdi) of Incurable Love and Truth, paulus
It all makes sense. The apostles chose to die rather horrible deaths proclaiming a risen Jesus when they knew it was a lie. I believe you over those who were gave their lives saying they saw Jesus alive. And the Bible says Jesus was around for 40 days after his resurrection and appeared to hundreds of people. Surely that too is a lie. And of course the start of Christianity was aided with financial and political backing plus armies ready to defend the early Christians. Or somehow it started from nothing with people absolutely dedicated to a risen Jesus. I wonder why that was?
Yes He was! Amen!
Extraordinary events do not require extraordinary evidence. Theories in general require good explanations. The fact that miracles deserve our scepticism is due to how bad they are as explanations of the world, not to how frequently or how rarely they tend to happen.
Your statistical approach is entirely misplaced, as you overlook what the Christian religion teaches about Jesus of Nazareth: namely, that Jesus was God Incarnate, both fully man and fully God, those two natures being united in the hypostatic union. That is why the Incarnation, not the Resurrection, is the central mystery of the Christian Faith. For a theist, the Creator is perfectly capable of entering into His own Creation as a God-Man. Christians understand that there was a particular reason for the Creator to do so: our fallen nature needed to be restored. The Resurrection of the God-Man is not all that surprising, if you believe in the Incarnation. You are welcome to attack the Incarnation and the Fall of Man if you wish, but will not get very far: they are both rational articles of Faith entirely beyond the purview of scientific inquiry.
The earliest Christians brought Jesus back to life. It had to be this way to establish a church and gain followers. The true message of Jesus, that there us no need for a church, was not sexy enough.
I can believe that he was resurrected, provided that he was incompetently executed, which does not seem all that unlikely.
I have had two near deaths experiences. Eternity/eternal life is real. I humbly suggest you seek the truth in a spiritual manner rather than reading books.
Can one not use books in a spiritual manner? Is that not a description of the Bible itself? Plus didn't Jesus himself encourage literacy? Certainly, the church did not encourage it after Jesus.
"People often interrupt this to mean that there were 500 independent eyewitness accounts of seeing Jesus after the crucifixion."
Great essay. One small quibble...Paul didn't actually change his name. This is a common misconception. 'Saul' is his Aramaic name, which is used in Acts. Paul is his Greek name. Which is also used elsewhere in Acts. There isn't any indication that Paul actually changed his name, but is merely a popular false interpretation since he's called both in the NT.