It's an interesting view on things, but if you take Mark to be the first gospel you'll notice that from 15:40 on he does only one single thing: put 3 women on stage, 2 of them in a cameo appearance even, with the sole goal to blame them for the fact that no one had ever heard of a dead Jesus rising from the grave
There's nothing more to it than that really
Compare Mark to Luke, and to Matthew, and you'll find that they move away from everything in his story. Luke shifts the blame on the apostles instead, Matthew has Jesus appear straight away to evade the entire blame game
Mark is merely countering Marcion, who highly likely ended around Mark 15:37 / Luke 23:46
I'm aware that Tertullian etc attest to the resurrection, but it would have greatly hurt their case if they hadn't, re docetism
I liked the first books by Ehrman but he has changed considerably, and now takes in an incredibly less radical position.
It is impossible to read any of the NT and not see that all of it is politics, fiction, free to do with as one pleases - for the authors themselves
Look at the synoptics alone and how Luke disagrees with Mark, how Matthew fixes both. Focus on the baptism of Jesus, the kiss by Judas and the final hours of Jesus: all these stories serve nothing but the expression of ideas, opinions, personal goals that respond to and resonate within a contemporary time frame. The only thing that bounds and binds these writings are the previous ones, and even that is stretched to the point of breaking
I am baffled by the apparent gullibility of Ehrman, who has changed from an ahistorical Jesus to a historical one. No use guessing after motive there, but I have stopped reading his books long ago - though I'll read the reviews
I identified with the story of Ehrman's journey from evangelical to liberal Christian, then agnostic, e.g., his disillusionment to learn that scripture was not the unquestionable word from God. I was less indoctrinated and hence less disappointed. I recall Ehrman as more skeptical of resurrection than I am, but I'm scarcely acquainted with the subject. Thanks for those tips.
“This morning I posted a series of tweets about the resurrection that in retrospect I fear may have been received as disrespectful or trolling, which was not my intention.”
Regardless of your intentions, if you express a view of the alleged resurrection which is outside of the Christian mainstream, then you will be considered disrespectful by Christians, at least most of them. This applies even to the metaphorical view you express here in substack.
“What if it was meant to be something like a metaphorical or mythic truth,...”
But the evidence weighs against that hypothesis. It appears that Paul and the Gospel writers intended their stories to be taken literally.
I have long believed that the bible was never to be taken literally, but as guidance for finding happiness in life, which IS our heaven on Earth. It wasn't easy to shake the shame and guilt and FEAR that a Catholic upbringing engendered, but once I did, I embraced this idea fully and without guilt. I have been a very happy person, in general since then and while now living on social security, I feel very rich!
Some verses of the Bible were meant to be taken metaphorically, but most were meant to be taken literally. There is no good evidence that a literal resurrection of Jesus occurred, even though the authors intended to report one.
There may well be IMO also a parallel between the writing of history for the British colonialisation of the native peoples (of US, Australia, Canada, etc) and the writing of history for the colonisation of the pagan milieu in the Roman empire. The early traditional form of "Colonial History" rarely mentions the native people, their customs and traditions, and glosses over the repressions (military) of the colonisers. Only in the 1970's onwards revisionist histories of colonialisation attempt to include, and tell the story from, the perspective of the native people. There has been as yet no revisionist histories written for the Christian revolution of the 4th century. We still seem to read the history of this epoch through the lens of the "Fathers of the Church" -- conspicuously a one sided perspective (just like the earlier original "Colonial Histories". What will be required is a revisionist history of the "Christian Revolution / Colonisation of the 4th century from the perspective of the pagans / heretics.
I'm amazed no one has brought up the Story of Lazarus. Jesus going into the cave and coming out after raising Lazarus from the dead. Took on a special meaning for me when I read The Last Temptation Of Christ Nikos kazantzakis. I seem to remember Lazarus out from the cave Lazarus saying why the hell did you do this to me? His flesh was all rotting, he was in terrible pain and smelled like death!
Aside from all the often contradictory religious-oriented details which have been commented on here, it seems to me that the "Oppression-Redemption" narrative is so cross-cultural as to be an intrinsic part of human brain structure & operation species-wide. It also follows that on a more fine-grained examination, we should find a blueprint for these structures and operations somewhere within the human genome. It's reasonable to conclude that specific aspects of human behavior, both individual and group dynamics, are initiated and mediated through specific brain structures & operations, and that these in turn have been set in motion by a cascade of millions or billions of gene expressions during human development. These behaviors, and I'm sure many, many others (eg. tendencies toward violence; musical and artistic talents and abilities, etc.) are therefore a direct extension of individual genetic propensities. I will continue to read and explore where and how these subjects are being researched and published in the various sciences.
Another amazing post Michael. There is no reason why Christians and Skeptics cannot work together to make the world in which we all live a better place. None of us has a monopoly on morality. Biblical scholar N.T. Wright in his work on the Psalms and his other writings demonstrates that matter matters to the Creator. The death and resurrection of Jesus for Christians shows that God is at work to put to rights what is wrong in this present world. That is what judgment is all about. Injustice in the world and our demand for fairness is one proof for the existence of God. Howard Roark in Ayn Rand's novel the Fountain Head says that "the root of every despicable action is self - lessness". Soul - less and self - less men like Hitler, Stalin, and Mr. Putin will one day be held accountable.
You said "Injustice in the world and our demand for fairness is one proof for the existence of God." I totally disagree with that. In fact, I argue the opposite. The war in Ukraine is horribly unjust. If God did exist, he would have prevented the war in Ukraine. But we have it. Therefore, God does not exist.
Thanks for your posts Gary. You are correct Gary in saying the war in Ukraine is unjust. Any use of violence by one person or group to force their views on others is sin. “Every single civilization was founded on sins. Every single one.” -Charles Krauthammer “Things that Matter”. The woman in Ukraine who lost everything found in the future judgement hope. One day Mr. Putin will one day have to give an account for his evil actions. (See Hebrews 9:27).
Nonsense, Kevin. God does not exist, and we know this. Putin will never have to give an account for his immoral actions either in the Hague or at the Pearly Gates. The only responsible thing to do is for NATO, the EU, or the UN to take stepwise military action to defend Ukraine.
You write: "God is at work to put to rights what is wrong in this present world." If God created the world, then he's the one who is responsible for these "wrongs" in the first place. He either created them, or he allowed them to happen. If there is injustice in the world, that is all god's doing, it's HIS fault. If there is evil and suffering in the world, that is because your all powerful god approved it. You can't be both creator and punisher.
The theodicy is that God allows humans choice, e.g., Adam's choice that resulted in the loss of paradise. Absent choice, love of God would be effectively compelled, e.g., by intimidation. That theodicy also explains why God's existence is equivocal, depending upon how one defines God.
MRF: The theodicy is that God allows humans choice, e.g., Adam's choice that resulted in the loss of paradise.
GW: That theodicy has been refuted many times, and I’m happy to refute it again. The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (just one horrible harm) was not chosen by any human person. But if God did exist, he would have chosen to prevent it and we would not have it. But we do have it. Therefore, God does not exist.
MRF: Absent choice, love of God would be effectively compelled, e.g., by intimidation.
GW: God doesn’t exist and you Christians are still using intimidation. You are telling people that if they don’t believe in God, they are going to hell. That’s crazy!
MRF: That theodicy also explains why God's existence is equivocal, depending upon how one defines God.
GW: “God” has a standard definition. You can’t just define it any way you wish. If God did exist, he would declare his existence and rules for living in a grand revelation which is current, universal, unequivocal, clear, and objective. There would be no doubt about this. To withhold that information would be immoral, and if he did exist, God would be perfectly moral.
GW: So far, MRF, you have presented only failed theodicies, but keep trying if you wish.
I less believe in theology than mine the truth that theology might convey. That also holds for other subjects I explore. The psychology of why authors would invent a resurrection myth includes the theodicy to explain why God permits evil. While interested in the truth of the narrative, the psychology of the narrative might be more relevant as a vehicle for truth. To me, theodicy, sociodicy, perhaps any -dicy, is a suspect rationalization, or theory, to explain empirical observations.
I'm less trying, e.g., to persuade, than reporting the theodicy I understand as answering why God permits evil. Atheists commonly cite evil, especially of Christians, to discredit theism. I less take either position than cite the opposing view to further explore the subject. Citing evil to refute God seems inadequate to answer the theodicy, suspect as I agree it is. If God enforced good, then people could not choose evil, i.e., they would be robots (which they arguably are with or without a deity).
I doubt that God has a standard definition, though the omni's seem apt, i.e., omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, probably others. If a deity underlies our universe, it might appear as energy, so I would advance the behavior of energy as the best definition of God. But there appear to be immaterial principles as well, e.g., the Law of Large Numbers from which order emerges from apparently random chaos. In that view, rare possibilities like resurrection are explicable as unlikely events.
MRF: I less believe in theology than mine the truth that theology might convey. That also holds for other subjects I explore.
GW: You are making theological truth claims and I am happy to refute them.
MRF: The psychology of why authors would invent a resurrection myth includes the theodicy to explain why God permits evil. While interested in the truth of the narrative, the psychology of the narrative might be more relevant as a vehicle for truth. To me, theodicy, sociodicy, perhaps any -dicy, is a suspect rationalization, or theory, to explain empirical observations.
GW: Here is just one empirical observation for you to explain – the COVID-19 pandemic, a horrible harm, is ravaging the world. This would not be the case, if God did exist.
MRF: I'm less trying, e.g., to persuade, than reporting the theodicy I understand as answering why God permits evil.
GW: “Evil” is an obsolete and misleading term, and so I rarely use it. It is better to refer to “horrible harms.” I probably know all the theodicies which you can possibly present, so please don’t present one unless you agree with it and are prepared to defend it as probably true.
MRF: Atheists commonly cite evil, especially of Christians, to discredit theism. I less take either position than cite the opposing view to further explore the subject.
GW: I cite horrible harms, like the COVID-19 pandemic.
MRF: Citing evil to refute God seems inadequate to answer the theodicy, suspect as I agree it is. If God enforced good, then people could not choose evil, i.e., they would be robots (which they arguably are with or without a deity).
GW: That failed theodicy doesn’t apply to the example I presented to you – the COVID-19 pandemic. Humans did not choose that horrible harm. God would have chosen to prevent it and would have prevented it, if he existed.
MRF: I doubt that God has a standard definition, though the omni's seem apt, i.e., omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, probably others.
GW: Here is the standard definition for you: “God is the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere-present, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos, sometimes intervenes in our world, and assigns human persons to different desirable or undesirable conditions after they die.” If you disagree with this definition, then tell us what traits you would delete, add, or modify, and then we can discuss it.
MRF: If a deity underlies our universe, it might appear as energy, so I would advance the behavior of energy as the best definition of God.
GW: You are just misusing the term “God.” You can’t make up your own definition. You need to use the definition which has stood the test of time. Also, we are not talking about any old “deity.” We are talking about God, who is one specific deity. Energy-matter exists, and this has been proven. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
MRF: But there appear to be immaterial principles as well, e.g., the Law of Large Numbers from which order emerges from apparently random chaos. In that view, rare possibilities like resurrection are explicable as unlikely events.
GW: False dichotomy. Chaos and order have always been present in the universe for eternity, as far as we know. There has not been a single confirmed instance of a resurrection in 109 opportunities for one! The key word here is “confirmed.” What would it take to confirm such a super-improbable event? Ponder that.
Thank you Liz for your thoughtful comments. The Bible is a library of books. It is literature and the writers offer stories and poetry to make sense of their world through their own adaptive fiction or world view. The Biblical writers assume God’s existence and write from the perspective of their life experience and faith. The stories of Jesus resurrection appearances following Easter are designed to help people come to faith. (See John 20, 21). For Christians the foolishness of the cross is the very wisdom of God. (See 1 Corinthians 1). If the resurrection of Christ did not really happen Paul days that our Christian faith is in vain, (See 1 Corinthians 15). Paul was a persecutor of Christians. His life is was radically changed on the road to Damascus (Read Acts 8,9). Christians affirm that God offers new life to all who put their faith in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17). Jesus the “I am” of God came as the good shepherd to bring us life in abundance. (See John 1:1-5,14 10:10).
KD2: Thank you Liz for your thoughtful comments. The Bible is a library of books. It is literature and the writers offer stories and poetry to make sense of their world through their own adaptive fiction or world view. The Biblical writers assume God’s existence and write from the perspective of their life experience and faith.
GW2: Kevin, there are many errors in your post, and I will reveal them.
KD2: The stories of Jesus resurrection appearances following Easter are designed to help people come to faith. (See John 20, 21).
GW2: There is no good evidence, reasons, or arguments in support of the TRUTH of the resurrection story. Also, faith is a vice, not a virtue.
KD2: For Christians the foolishness of the cross is the very wisdom of God. (See 1 Corinthians 1).
GW2: Here you are contradicting yourself. Foolishness is not wisdom. If God did exist, he would be perfectly rational and all-wise and he would never sponsor a resurrection like that presented in the Gospels. A perfect father does not arrange for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son. What a ridiculous idea to think he would!
KD2: If the resurrection of Christ did not really happen Paul days [“says”] that our Christian faith is in vain, (See 1 Corinthians 15).
GW2: Well, apparently your faith is in vain. Sorry about that.
KD2: Paul was a persecutor of Christians. His life is was radically changed on the road to Damascus (Read Acts 8,9).
GW2: Yes, Paul probably had a hallucination on the road to Damascus in which he saw a bright light and heard a voice. He attributed them to Jesus. The Bible presents three different versions of this story and they are inconsistent with one another in the details. Also, there is no report of any of his travel companions to corroborate Paul’s story. So, another possibility is that Paul fabricated the entire incident.
KD2: Christians affirm that God offers new life to all who put their faith in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17).
GW2: This is obviously false. Many of the people in Ukraine put their faith in Christ, and now they are dead, wounded, or homeless. God does not exist.
KD2: Jesus the “I am” of God came as the good shepherd to bring us life in abundance. (See John 1:1-5,14 10:10).
GW2: If that was his goal, he failed. If God did exist, he would prevent all the horrible harms we face on this Earth. Here are a few examples: the war in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, childhood cancer, the Holocaust, and the sexual molestation of children by priests. If he existed, God would prevent these things, and so it is obvious that he does not exist.
'If God did exist, he would be perfectly rational and all-wise and he would never sponsor a resurrection like that presented in the Gospels. A perfect father does not arrange for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son.'
I could argue that the trials of Christ were necessary to demonstrate how people should respond to offense, i.e., absent angry judgment, with forgiveness, because offenders are ignorant of how they should behave.
GW: 'If God did exist, he would be perfectly rational and all-wise and he would never sponsor a resurrection like that presented in the Gospels. A perfect father does not arrange for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son.'
MRF: I could argue that the trials of Christ were necessary to demonstrate how people should respond to offense, i.e., absent angry judgment, with forgiveness, because offenders are ignorant of how they should behave.
GW: You could argue that, but it would be a complete waste of your time. God could show how to respond to offense without arranging for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son! He could simply provide instruction and modeling in simulation. You are forgetting what God would be like, if he existed. He would be all-powerful, perfectly rational, and perfectly moral. You keep short selling him.
Hey Gary. I think you would be a fun guy to have conversation with in person over coffee sometime. I bet your would always feel the need to get in the last word. I find fascinating your comment faith is a vice? Would you care to elaborate?
KD: Hey Gary. I think you would be a fun guy to have conversation with in person over coffee sometime.
GW: Sure. What city do you live in?
KD: I bet your would always feel the need to get in the last word.
GW: Our personalities are not the subject of this discussion.
KD: I find fascinating your comment faith is a vice? Would you care to elaborate?
GW: What is faith? Faith is belief untuned to or misaligned with evidence and/or logic, and usually tuned to or aligned solely or primarily with authority, majority opinion, peer pressure, tradition, intuition, wishes, or some combination of these. Having faith leads to poor judgement and bad behavior, and thus it is a vice.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If you ever get up north to Milaca MN drop by the local Hardees where you will find good conversion and most days some wisdom.
That seems a negative definition of faith. I suspect that most people intend a positive definition. I wonder how a placebo effect fits into your view?
I assert that proper interpretation demands some attempt to understand the authors' intent. Wikipedia reports 'Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant,[4][5] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[6]'
I credit Bart Ehrman's 'Forged' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_(book) with helping me understand the Hellenistic influence on scripture, and to view ancient writing more symbolically and philosophically. I don't dismiss the possibility of resurrection, but that seems unlikely. However, I just read James Hamblin's 'If Our Bodies Could Talk', p. 279, where he describes immortal germ cells that rebuild telomeres. I'm feeling Socratic ignorance, and the advantage of Pyrrhonism, or at least, a skeptical suspension of judgment.
In 108 billion cases of human persons living and dying, there has not been a single verified case of one coming back to life. Your reference to "immortal germ cells" is irrelevant.
I read a stern rebuke of being off-topic at academia.edu/s/1735e301c2 (search for 'invite'). That's an interesting discussion, e.g., Paul as a Roman military operative, among other skepticism (search for 'operative'). I learned of that from academia.edu/s/cf13d33860 which I also found interesting. To your point, I'm unsure what prompted my post, but to attempt more relevance, I would question two assumptions of the topic logic. First, Trinitarianism is hotly contested. To make sense of conflicting accounts that Christ both spoke as though he was God, and also denied that he was God, I speculate that Christ sometimes channeled God, at least in fantasy, if not reality. I agree with the view that deifying Christ relieves people from following his example. I agree with the view that people will invent fantasies to escape psychic misery. Consequently, asserting the resurrection as a mythic truth seems less interesting to me than the more fantastic possibility that resurrections might happen, albeit rarely.
It seems that I dismissed the second assumption that resurrection is impossible and leapt into wondering how truthful accounts of resurrection might arise, short of belief in more than a 'God' of nature that creates emergent order by the random events of quantum mechanics, i.e., mindless energy. So for me, the relevance of immortal germ cells is the reality of a fantastic mindless mechanism that repairs itself indefinitely. It seems that germ cells are a rare example of how cells can avoid programmed cell death. I doubt Christ's resurrection, but admit the possibility, which is skepticism of my omniscience, an intellectual humility that admits learning and processing new information.
To explain reports of Christ, I suspect that he was a rare example of human potential to virtue, and perhaps, metaphysical power. The truth might be that there are physical mechanisms that explain what appears to be supernatural power, e.g., that rather than rot, a 'dead' human body might self-repair. That might depend on the biome cultured by the human's lifestyle. I write 'dead' because life is arguably merely genetic replication by the biochemical animation of dead matter. If life reduces to automated animation, it follows that death is a dysfunction of that process. Just as 'life' emerged from dead matter, it seems equally possible that there are undiscovered self-repair mechanisms that might explain rare reports of resurrection.
MRF2: That's an interesting discussion, e.g., Paul as a Roman military operative, among other skepticism (search for 'operative').
GW2: I’ve never heard that idea. I think it is very unlikely.
MRF2: First, Trinitarianism is hotly contested. To make sense of conflicting accounts that Christ both spoke as though he was God, and also denied that he was God, I speculate that Christ sometimes channeled God, at least in fantasy, if not reality.
GW2: To me there seems to be only one valid understanding of The Trinity. The Trinity is a hypothetical team of three hypothetical persons – God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God would be the captain of the team. Jesus is the only person who probably existed. Controversy resolved.
MRF2: Consequently, asserting the resurrection as a mythic truth seems less interesting to me than the more fantastic possibility that resurrections might happen, albeit rarely.
GW2: When I read the NT, I think the authors were not talking of a “mythic truth.” They were claiming a real bodily resurrection.
MRF2: So for me, the relevance of immortal germ cells is the reality of a fantastic mindless mechanism that repairs itself indefinitely. It seems that germ cells are a rare example of how cells can avoid programmed cell death.
GW2: There is no good evidence for this at the present time.
MRF2: I doubt Christ's resurrection, but admit the possibility, which is skepticism of my omniscience, an intellectual humility that admits learning and processing new information.
GW2: The coming back to life of Jesus is not logically impossible, but it is so extremely improbable that nobody should believe it happened.
MRF2: To explain reports of Christ, I suspect that he was a rare example of human potential to virtue, and perhaps, metaphysical power.
GW2: Not metaphysical power. There is no good evidence to support that hypothesis.
MRF2: The truth might be that there are physical mechanisms that explain what appears to be supernatural power, e.g., that rather than rot, a 'dead' human body might self-repair. That might depend on the biome cultured by the human's lifestyle.
GW2: You are speculating. There is no good evidence to support that idea.
MRF2: I write 'dead' because life is arguably merely genetic replication by the biochemical animation of dead matter.
GW2: That is a major misunderstanding of biology.
MRF2: Just as 'life' emerged from dead matter, it seems equally possible that there are undiscovered self-repair mechanisms that might explain rare reports of resurrection.
GW2: Are you talking about the origin of life on Earth? Life emerged from nonlife, not from dead life.
I'm expressing my understanding of language describing reality. A major philosophical question is whether there is an immaterial, metaphysical cause of the material physical, i.e., imperceptible etiology beyond mindless energy. Science decomposes material and proposes explanatory models of etiology. Theists believe in a metaphysical cause, atheists believe in material etiology, agnostics are uncertain, or might believe that the question is unanswerable. Like 'life', I construe 'nonlife' and 'dead life' as material, distinguished from 'life' by genetic reproductive capacity. This seems evinced by language conventions of boundary cases of definition, e.g., Pluto is no longer considered as meeting the definition of a planet, and viruses have long been questioned as life because they rely on the reproductive capacity of other cells to reproduce.
MRF: I'm expressing my understanding of language describing reality.
GW: And I believe your understanding is mistaken.
MRF: A major philosophical question is whether there is an immaterial, metaphysical cause of the material physical, i.e., imperceptible etiology beyond mindless energy.
GW: There is currently no good evidence in favor of that hypothesis, and it is rather far removed from the hypothesis of Jesus coming back to life.
MRF: Science decomposes material and proposes explanatory models of etiology. Theists believe in a metaphysical cause, atheists believe in material etiology, agnostics are uncertain, or might believe that the question is unanswerable.
GW: Relevance? In the lives and deaths of 108 billion human persons, there is not one confirmed instance of coming back to life.
MRF: Like 'life', I construe 'nonlife' and 'dead life' as material, distinguished from 'life' by genetic reproductive capacity. This seems evinced by language conventions of boundary cases of definition, e.g., Pluto is no longer considered as meeting the definition of a planet, and viruses have long been questioned as life because they rely on the reproductive capacity of other cells to reproduce.
GW: I think you are making category errors. Your definitions are very fuzzy.
I suspect that I tend toward reductionism, so my mistake is assuming (projecting?) that you would agree to my view of the meaning of language. It appears that the meaning of 'metaphysics' is contested, and has morphed over time. I've adopted a meaning that was either suggested or made sense to me. Unless you share my view, I expect that you would see category errors arising from my reduction. The relevance of that discursion might only be to agree on terms for communication. But since I largely reduce 'supernatural' to 'metaphysical', we might agree on supernatural, e.g., resurrection appears supernatural.
I questioned why I'm unpersuaded by your argument of 108 billion human dead with only suspect accounts as evidence of resurrection. I can't represent avid believers, because from my view, death is practically certain. But I surely suspect that resurrection and other supernatural phenomenon are possible, perhaps even natural, under undiscovered conditions, perhaps by natural etiology. I think that follows from some understanding of etiology, e.g., lifestyle affects longevity. The Christian claim appears to be that exceptional virtue opens access to exceptional aspects of life, exemplified by Christ. Just because 108 billion human predecessors failed to understand or follow Christ's example doesn't refute the claim, albeit that reinforces Matthew 7:13-14.
A more relevant question might be, is the possibility of resurrection relevant to the topic? That seems open to interpretation, and perhaps warrants discussion of the topic. If the topic is constrained to assume that resurrection is impossible, then it follows that contrary accounts are literally false. Then the only question is how to prove impossibility, which, for resurrection, I suspect might be impossible, i.e., proving a negative. So I accept that the burden of proof must fall on those who argue that resurrection is possible. That burden is well beyond me, but I can suggest a method, i.e., physics constructor theory.
My rudimentary understanding is that physics constructor theory explores possibilities, so it's a methodology of discovery. There is precedent in computer programs that discover new knowledge by brute force automated exploration of possibilities using prescribed models of reality. Scientific exploration of possibilities might ape mindless nature, evolving into what Stuart Kauffman described as the 'adjacent possible'. No revelation required, albeit some informed guidance might accelerate the exploration.
There’s lots of reverence going on today by the Christians for the Resurrection story. But don’t believe what they say in the bible. They leave out what Paul Harvey called “the rest of the story.” The truth is that when the Disciples found out Judas was the one who squealed on Jesus, they were pretty upset. So, after the Last Supper, the disciples decided to send Jesus to India with his pregnant girlfriend, Mary Magdalene. Then they got Judas really drunk, then dressed him up and put on some makeup to made him look like JC (the guards didn’t know what Jesus looked like anyway.) They then presented Judas for execution with him mumbling incoherently . Meanwhile, Jesus and Mary got away to India, learned to speak Hindi, had a couple of kids, established a Kashmir sweater company and lived a happy life. And now you know the rest of the story!
PS, as I’m sure everyone here knows, long before Dan Brown’s fantasies there was a nonfiction book titled Holy Blood, Holy Grail that suggest this all actually happened, and the authors sued Dan Brown for ripping them off. I believe they lost but do t recall the details now
Herb, this would make for an interesting novel that could be made into a major motion picture. Maybe you could get a big star to play the historian who figures it all out, I don’t know, maybe someone like Tom Hanks?
Interesting interpretation, and one that puts an “I’m my own grandpa” spin on things. Well here is another. The big G god did NOT believe that He was the only god. The first commandment is (my emphasis) “ I am the LORD GOD… thou shall not put OTHER gods before me.” So he admits the existence of other gods but INSISTS that Christians only worship Him.
This kind of thinking was seen as open for discussion while I was in Catholic High in the late 60s and taught by Franciscan Brothers, but while in Catholic grammar school with Franciscan nuns, it got you slapped. Boy does dogma sting!
Given the history of the separate books that, taken together, we accept as The Bible, I am not sure how anyone could draw that sort of inference. Leaving aside the many opportunities for transcription / translation error, we can only interpret the words in the context in which they were uttered.
Also, in other passages the Bible claims there is one and only God: Isaiah 44:6, Deut 4:35, 1 Kings 8:60, (etc)
Dogma certainly does change with time. I went to parochial grade school, Catholic High School, Catholic College, and joined the Christian Brothers for three years living in a monastery. I became agnostic and finally evolved to atheism.
I never interpreted the first commandment as indicating there were other gods. Rather I looked at it is don't put money Fortune or anything else above God. The commandant is not an invalidation of monotheism.
I've always interpreted the trinity as simply different ways of perceiving God. And as far as Jesus is concerned, he is, as we all are, matter which has simply become conscious of itself.
Hard to read a critique of faith by someone who doesn't understand the premise that he is criticizing. Your description of the ressurection syllogism is wrong from a Catholic perspective. Not even close. I recommend you read the work of people like Brant Pitre, or Bishop Robert Barron, and if you are up for it Thomas Aquinas. Then you may be able to understand the Catholic perspective. And your criticism may add some value. As it stands, it is like Babe Ruth criticizing Tiger Woods' golf swing.
I would add to JGB's observations about Mormons: they not only reject the Nicene Creed view of the (unitary) Trinity, they also believe in a God that is not literally all-powerful (he is at least constrained in acting against our personal agency), and that "... men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." (Articles of Faith 1:2). I'm not sure how one produces a similar syllogism within the bounds of the internal logic that attaches to their view.
Thanks for the reminder about the Mormon view of the 'Omnis' - a cousin once told me that God is constrained by eternal law - at least voluntarily constrained. Also God isn't omnipresent - He is a being, with 'body, passion and parts' much like a highly evolved man... plus God did not create us ex nihilo but is the literal Father of our spiritual being, forming us out of pre-existing 'intelligences' or some such. This last point is important because if God created us entirely from nothing, then punishing us for God's poor workmanship would be unjust - like smashing a computer because the code we wrote didn't compile.
Many atheist arguments against Christianity do not apply to Mormon Doctrine - of course, the documented Mormon Church's history is so wackadoodle that it is futile to have rational discussions with True Believers.
You can't move the goal posts by just changing the definition of "God." It has had a standard definition for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Of course, anybody can invent a new god with its own definition, but for God's sake, invent a new name for him.
Perhaps it would be better to say "the traditional or most popular concept or understanding of God." Here it is: "God is the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere-present, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos, sometimes intervenes in our world, and assigns human persons to different desirable or undesirable conditions after they die." If you go to the mall and ask a hundred people at random if this is an accurate description of God, 90%+, will say "yes," IMO.
Is there even a 'correct syllogism' from the Catholic perspective? It seems presumptuous to apply logic to matters of faith.
Also, I note that not every Christian is Catholic and believe what Dr Shermer spelled out. E.g. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) believe God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Other Christian sects have other views, too.
I know that not every self-identified Christian agrees God is literally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. There are many who hold that these are exaggerations to make a point - they feel that it is possible for a divine being to be unimaginably knowledgeable without being technically omniscient (etc, etc).
Yes. It will be interesting. Do not be disappointed if none rise to the occasion. A lifetime of being an Astronomy professor surrounded by religious relatives has taught me that talking logic to the faithful is like asking scientists to pray over an experiment.
Look who I am talking to ... you were once among the faithful you know how different the thought processes are. SJG's NOM may be a cop-out but I have yet to encounter a better way for STEM & Faith to interact.
I believe this is the best interpretation of the three: The Trinity is a team of three persons -- God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God would be the captain of that team.
Aristotle laid out foundations of logic thousands of years ago ... and since then we have seen that when objective evidence is plentiful and uncontested, logic rules supreme but when evidence is sparse or contested, then logic is impotent.
The story of Galileo dropping balls continues to be retold (despite never happening) to make this point: logical arguments can only go so far without solid evidence.
To avoid unproductive discussions about deities first ask "What is the evidence regarding God?" and "What is the consensus on that evidence?" If the participants in the discussion cannot agree on the evidence (including the interpretation of it) change the subject to something amusing like "Will's Slap - real or fake?"
(Actually, this guide applies to almost all controversies like: Did we land on the Moon?, Was 2020 stolen? - or - Who is stealing my socks: Lizard-People from space or time-traveling Robots?)
JCB1: Aristotle laid out foundations of logic thousands of years ago ... and since then we have seen that when objective evidence is plentiful and uncontested, logic rules supreme but when evidence is sparse or contested, then logic is impotent.
GW1: I thought you were talking about logic in a general sense, not a specific sense. I thought you meant “reason” which includes science and logic is the specific sense, e.g. rules of logic. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so sparse that we ought not believe that it happened.
JCB1: The story of Galileo dropping balls continues to be retold (despite never happening) to make this point: logical arguments can only go so far without solid evidence.
GW1: It depends on what you mean by “solid evidence.” We have the confirmed writings of Paul, dated within maybe a decade of the death of Jesus, who claimed that other people claimed that Jesus came back to life. That is solid in one sense, and not in another.
JCB1: To avoid unproductive discussions about deities first ask "What is the evidence regarding God?" and "What is the consensus on that evidence?" If the participants in the discussion cannot agree on the evidence (including the interpretation of it) change the subject to something amusing like "Will's Slap - real or fake?"
GW1: Well, the existence of the universe is evidence in support of the God hypothesis. The consensus of the people of the world is that such evidence is sufficient to conclude God exists. I (probably you too) do not agree with them.
JCB1: (Actually, this guide applies to almost all controversies like: Did we land on the Moon?, Was 2020 stolen? - or - Who is stealing my socks: Lizard-People from space or time-traveling Robots?)
GW1: I think we should try to limit the discussion to the narrow question “Did Jesus probably come back to life in the first century CE?” My answer is "almost certainly not." What about you?
"Jesus came back to life" is a historical claim. It is either true or false. And it matters.
Are there any perfect persons? I don't think so. But anyway, of course imperfect and perfect persons are or would be subject to suffering and death. We don't need Jesus to tell us that. Currently there is no way to defeat death, period. The belief in the resurrection of Jesus gives false hope and may distract attention from real important things in this life.
I'm not convinced you have found any value to the story, even as a metaphor.
Three first-person author-identified eye-witness reports of the events surrounding the death of Jesus, which mostly corroborate each other and which testify to the coming back to life of Jesus. I assume that you know that right now there aren't any of these. I don't see any value to bodily resurrection of a man as metaphor. Most believers don't view it as metaphor.
Agree. No religious text should be taken literally as historic works of humans trying to interpret the world around them. Even assuming the most optimistic scenario of "divine epiphany", God directly giving the words, given that God is a higher being and a higher form on thought, it's not possible to accurately project the thought of God to a human mind and language. It should be a fundamental assumption of every religion that they fail to understand the intent of god. And in many ways it is (debate on this has always been key part of theology), but unfortunately it rarely prevents the "literal truth" part of religion from appearing.
You said "it's not possible to accurately project the thought of God to a human mind and language." I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. It is a contradiction to the omnipotence assumption. If God did exist, he could do any accurate projection that he wished.
The Gospel authors and Paul meant for their words about the resurrection of Jesus to be taken literally, but we ought not believe them. There is not a single confirmed case of resurrection from the dead in 108 billion opportunities of people dying.
You might want to update that number to 117 billion, per prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/ Accepting that estimate, I agree that probability theory offers useful rational prediction, but question how faithfully stochastic methods apply to deterministic processes. Once biomass emerges from eons of natural selection, deterministic biophysics begin to operate, albeit by stochastic processes. The Law of Large Numbers introduces determinism.
The odds against resurrection might be far less than you suggest. Just as lifestyle affects longevity, it might equally affect the biome of a human body such that rate of decay is affected. I question how natural selection might evolve repair mechanisms, but the example of the wood frog is interesting for its adaptation to freezing. Wikipedia reports tolerance of 65% of its water freezing.
GW: You might want to better understand the new finding. Your reference says “This major change in our understanding of human existence spurred new calculations and consultations with experts, resulting in an estimate that about 117 billion members of our species have ever been born on Earth.” If you subtract the 8 billion which are still alive, then that would leave 109 billion which have died and not come back to life. In my post I said 108 billion, and so I was mistaken by 1 billion. I’ll use the figure 109 in the future.
MRF: Accepting that estimate, I agree that probability theory offers useful rational prediction, but question how faithfully stochastic methods apply to deterministic processes. Once biomass emerges from eons of natural selection, deterministic biophysics begin to operate, albeit by stochastic processes. The Law of Large Numbers introduces determinism.
GW: That is just mumbo jumbo. You aren’t saying anything relevant or useful here.
MRF: The odds against resurrection might be far less than you suggest.
GW: The odds are less than 1 in 109 billion! If you disagree, then present a rational case for something different.
MRF: Just as lifestyle affects longevity, it might equally affect the biome of a human body such that rate of decay is affected.
GW: Rate of decay has nothing to do with this. There has never been a confirmed case of a person alive, dead, and then alive again. Never! If you are claiming that this occurred for Jesus, then you are making an extraordinary claim, and as Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.” And you don’t have it.
MRF: I question how natural selection might evolve repair mechanisms, but the example of the wood frog is interesting for its adaptation to freezing. Wikipedia reports tolerance of 65% of its water freezing.
GW: Cooling down a body can slow functioning and any malignant process tending toward death, but once death has occurred, there is no coming back. Ever heard that in death there is increasing entropy? Yes there is!
GW: There is a hypothesis, known by the derogatory name “the Swoon Theory,” that Jesus did not die on the cross, but he went into a coma, and came out of the coma inside the tomb. While unlikely, that outcome is certainly more likely than Jesus coming back to life. But there are even better hypotheses than either of those.
It's an interesting view on things, but if you take Mark to be the first gospel you'll notice that from 15:40 on he does only one single thing: put 3 women on stage, 2 of them in a cameo appearance even, with the sole goal to blame them for the fact that no one had ever heard of a dead Jesus rising from the grave
There's nothing more to it than that really
Compare Mark to Luke, and to Matthew, and you'll find that they move away from everything in his story. Luke shifts the blame on the apostles instead, Matthew has Jesus appear straight away to evade the entire blame game
Mark is merely countering Marcion, who highly likely ended around Mark 15:37 / Luke 23:46
I'm aware that Tertullian etc attest to the resurrection, but it would have greatly hurt their case if they hadn't, re docetism
https://www.academia.edu/76105160/The_self_evident_emergence_of_Christianity
I'd be interested in your critique of Bart Ehrman's 'Forged' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_(book)
I liked the first books by Ehrman but he has changed considerably, and now takes in an incredibly less radical position.
It is impossible to read any of the NT and not see that all of it is politics, fiction, free to do with as one pleases - for the authors themselves
Look at the synoptics alone and how Luke disagrees with Mark, how Matthew fixes both. Focus on the baptism of Jesus, the kiss by Judas and the final hours of Jesus: all these stories serve nothing but the expression of ideas, opinions, personal goals that respond to and resonate within a contemporary time frame. The only thing that bounds and binds these writings are the previous ones, and even that is stretched to the point of breaking
I am baffled by the apparent gullibility of Ehrman, who has changed from an ahistorical Jesus to a historical one. No use guessing after motive there, but I have stopped reading his books long ago - though I'll read the reviews
I identified with the story of Ehrman's journey from evangelical to liberal Christian, then agnostic, e.g., his disillusionment to learn that scripture was not the unquestionable word from God. I was less indoctrinated and hence less disappointed. I recall Ehrman as more skeptical of resurrection than I am, but I'm scarcely acquainted with the subject. Thanks for those tips.
“This morning I posted a series of tweets about the resurrection that in retrospect I fear may have been received as disrespectful or trolling, which was not my intention.”
Regardless of your intentions, if you express a view of the alleged resurrection which is outside of the Christian mainstream, then you will be considered disrespectful by Christians, at least most of them. This applies even to the metaphorical view you express here in substack.
“What if it was meant to be something like a metaphorical or mythic truth,...”
But the evidence weighs against that hypothesis. It appears that Paul and the Gospel writers intended their stories to be taken literally.
I have long believed that the bible was never to be taken literally, but as guidance for finding happiness in life, which IS our heaven on Earth. It wasn't easy to shake the shame and guilt and FEAR that a Catholic upbringing engendered, but once I did, I embraced this idea fully and without guilt. I have been a very happy person, in general since then and while now living on social security, I feel very rich!
Some verses of the Bible were meant to be taken metaphorically, but most were meant to be taken literally. There is no good evidence that a literal resurrection of Jesus occurred, even though the authors intended to report one.
There may well be IMO also a parallel between the writing of history for the British colonialisation of the native peoples (of US, Australia, Canada, etc) and the writing of history for the colonisation of the pagan milieu in the Roman empire. The early traditional form of "Colonial History" rarely mentions the native people, their customs and traditions, and glosses over the repressions (military) of the colonisers. Only in the 1970's onwards revisionist histories of colonialisation attempt to include, and tell the story from, the perspective of the native people. There has been as yet no revisionist histories written for the Christian revolution of the 4th century. We still seem to read the history of this epoch through the lens of the "Fathers of the Church" -- conspicuously a one sided perspective (just like the earlier original "Colonial Histories". What will be required is a revisionist history of the "Christian Revolution / Colonisation of the 4th century from the perspective of the pagans / heretics.
This was beautiful
I'm amazed no one has brought up the Story of Lazarus. Jesus going into the cave and coming out after raising Lazarus from the dead. Took on a special meaning for me when I read The Last Temptation Of Christ Nikos kazantzakis. I seem to remember Lazarus out from the cave Lazarus saying why the hell did you do this to me? His flesh was all rotting, he was in terrible pain and smelled like death!
Aside from all the often contradictory religious-oriented details which have been commented on here, it seems to me that the "Oppression-Redemption" narrative is so cross-cultural as to be an intrinsic part of human brain structure & operation species-wide. It also follows that on a more fine-grained examination, we should find a blueprint for these structures and operations somewhere within the human genome. It's reasonable to conclude that specific aspects of human behavior, both individual and group dynamics, are initiated and mediated through specific brain structures & operations, and that these in turn have been set in motion by a cascade of millions or billions of gene expressions during human development. These behaviors, and I'm sure many, many others (eg. tendencies toward violence; musical and artistic talents and abilities, etc.) are therefore a direct extension of individual genetic propensities. I will continue to read and explore where and how these subjects are being researched and published in the various sciences.
susanblackmore.uk/reviews/review-of-the-robots-rebellion/
Another amazing post Michael. There is no reason why Christians and Skeptics cannot work together to make the world in which we all live a better place. None of us has a monopoly on morality. Biblical scholar N.T. Wright in his work on the Psalms and his other writings demonstrates that matter matters to the Creator. The death and resurrection of Jesus for Christians shows that God is at work to put to rights what is wrong in this present world. That is what judgment is all about. Injustice in the world and our demand for fairness is one proof for the existence of God. Howard Roark in Ayn Rand's novel the Fountain Head says that "the root of every despicable action is self - lessness". Soul - less and self - less men like Hitler, Stalin, and Mr. Putin will one day be held accountable.
You said "Injustice in the world and our demand for fairness is one proof for the existence of God." I totally disagree with that. In fact, I argue the opposite. The war in Ukraine is horribly unjust. If God did exist, he would have prevented the war in Ukraine. But we have it. Therefore, God does not exist.
Thanks for your posts Gary. You are correct Gary in saying the war in Ukraine is unjust. Any use of violence by one person or group to force their views on others is sin. “Every single civilization was founded on sins. Every single one.” -Charles Krauthammer “Things that Matter”. The woman in Ukraine who lost everything found in the future judgement hope. One day Mr. Putin will one day have to give an account for his evil actions. (See Hebrews 9:27).
Nonsense, Kevin. God does not exist, and we know this. Putin will never have to give an account for his immoral actions either in the Hague or at the Pearly Gates. The only responsible thing to do is for NATO, the EU, or the UN to take stepwise military action to defend Ukraine.
You write: "God is at work to put to rights what is wrong in this present world." If God created the world, then he's the one who is responsible for these "wrongs" in the first place. He either created them, or he allowed them to happen. If there is injustice in the world, that is all god's doing, it's HIS fault. If there is evil and suffering in the world, that is because your all powerful god approved it. You can't be both creator and punisher.
If God did exist, he would have prevented Putin's invasion of Ukraine. But Putin invaded Ukraine. Therefore, God does not exist.
The theodicy is that God allows humans choice, e.g., Adam's choice that resulted in the loss of paradise. Absent choice, love of God would be effectively compelled, e.g., by intimidation. That theodicy also explains why God's existence is equivocal, depending upon how one defines God.
MRF replied to your comment
MRF: The theodicy is that God allows humans choice, e.g., Adam's choice that resulted in the loss of paradise.
GW: That theodicy has been refuted many times, and I’m happy to refute it again. The beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic (just one horrible harm) was not chosen by any human person. But if God did exist, he would have chosen to prevent it and we would not have it. But we do have it. Therefore, God does not exist.
MRF: Absent choice, love of God would be effectively compelled, e.g., by intimidation.
GW: God doesn’t exist and you Christians are still using intimidation. You are telling people that if they don’t believe in God, they are going to hell. That’s crazy!
MRF: That theodicy also explains why God's existence is equivocal, depending upon how one defines God.
GW: “God” has a standard definition. You can’t just define it any way you wish. If God did exist, he would declare his existence and rules for living in a grand revelation which is current, universal, unequivocal, clear, and objective. There would be no doubt about this. To withhold that information would be immoral, and if he did exist, God would be perfectly moral.
GW: So far, MRF, you have presented only failed theodicies, but keep trying if you wish.
I less believe in theology than mine the truth that theology might convey. That also holds for other subjects I explore. The psychology of why authors would invent a resurrection myth includes the theodicy to explain why God permits evil. While interested in the truth of the narrative, the psychology of the narrative might be more relevant as a vehicle for truth. To me, theodicy, sociodicy, perhaps any -dicy, is a suspect rationalization, or theory, to explain empirical observations.
I'm less trying, e.g., to persuade, than reporting the theodicy I understand as answering why God permits evil. Atheists commonly cite evil, especially of Christians, to discredit theism. I less take either position than cite the opposing view to further explore the subject. Citing evil to refute God seems inadequate to answer the theodicy, suspect as I agree it is. If God enforced good, then people could not choose evil, i.e., they would be robots (which they arguably are with or without a deity).
I doubt that God has a standard definition, though the omni's seem apt, i.e., omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, probably others. If a deity underlies our universe, it might appear as energy, so I would advance the behavior of energy as the best definition of God. But there appear to be immaterial principles as well, e.g., the Law of Large Numbers from which order emerges from apparently random chaos. In that view, rare possibilities like resurrection are explicable as unlikely events.
MRF: I less believe in theology than mine the truth that theology might convey. That also holds for other subjects I explore.
GW: You are making theological truth claims and I am happy to refute them.
MRF: The psychology of why authors would invent a resurrection myth includes the theodicy to explain why God permits evil. While interested in the truth of the narrative, the psychology of the narrative might be more relevant as a vehicle for truth. To me, theodicy, sociodicy, perhaps any -dicy, is a suspect rationalization, or theory, to explain empirical observations.
GW: Here is just one empirical observation for you to explain – the COVID-19 pandemic, a horrible harm, is ravaging the world. This would not be the case, if God did exist.
MRF: I'm less trying, e.g., to persuade, than reporting the theodicy I understand as answering why God permits evil.
GW: “Evil” is an obsolete and misleading term, and so I rarely use it. It is better to refer to “horrible harms.” I probably know all the theodicies which you can possibly present, so please don’t present one unless you agree with it and are prepared to defend it as probably true.
MRF: Atheists commonly cite evil, especially of Christians, to discredit theism. I less take either position than cite the opposing view to further explore the subject.
GW: I cite horrible harms, like the COVID-19 pandemic.
MRF: Citing evil to refute God seems inadequate to answer the theodicy, suspect as I agree it is. If God enforced good, then people could not choose evil, i.e., they would be robots (which they arguably are with or without a deity).
GW: That failed theodicy doesn’t apply to the example I presented to you – the COVID-19 pandemic. Humans did not choose that horrible harm. God would have chosen to prevent it and would have prevented it, if he existed.
MRF: I doubt that God has a standard definition, though the omni's seem apt, i.e., omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, probably others.
GW: Here is the standard definition for you: “God is the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere-present, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos, sometimes intervenes in our world, and assigns human persons to different desirable or undesirable conditions after they die.” If you disagree with this definition, then tell us what traits you would delete, add, or modify, and then we can discuss it.
MRF: If a deity underlies our universe, it might appear as energy, so I would advance the behavior of energy as the best definition of God.
GW: You are just misusing the term “God.” You can’t make up your own definition. You need to use the definition which has stood the test of time. Also, we are not talking about any old “deity.” We are talking about God, who is one specific deity. Energy-matter exists, and this has been proven. God does not exist, and this has been proven.
MRF: But there appear to be immaterial principles as well, e.g., the Law of Large Numbers from which order emerges from apparently random chaos. In that view, rare possibilities like resurrection are explicable as unlikely events.
GW: False dichotomy. Chaos and order have always been present in the universe for eternity, as far as we know. There has not been a single confirmed instance of a resurrection in 109 opportunities for one! The key word here is “confirmed.” What would it take to confirm such a super-improbable event? Ponder that.
Thank you Liz for your thoughtful comments. The Bible is a library of books. It is literature and the writers offer stories and poetry to make sense of their world through their own adaptive fiction or world view. The Biblical writers assume God’s existence and write from the perspective of their life experience and faith. The stories of Jesus resurrection appearances following Easter are designed to help people come to faith. (See John 20, 21). For Christians the foolishness of the cross is the very wisdom of God. (See 1 Corinthians 1). If the resurrection of Christ did not really happen Paul days that our Christian faith is in vain, (See 1 Corinthians 15). Paul was a persecutor of Christians. His life is was radically changed on the road to Damascus (Read Acts 8,9). Christians affirm that God offers new life to all who put their faith in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17). Jesus the “I am” of God came as the good shepherd to bring us life in abundance. (See John 1:1-5,14 10:10).
KD2: Thank you Liz for your thoughtful comments. The Bible is a library of books. It is literature and the writers offer stories and poetry to make sense of their world through their own adaptive fiction or world view. The Biblical writers assume God’s existence and write from the perspective of their life experience and faith.
GW2: Kevin, there are many errors in your post, and I will reveal them.
KD2: The stories of Jesus resurrection appearances following Easter are designed to help people come to faith. (See John 20, 21).
GW2: There is no good evidence, reasons, or arguments in support of the TRUTH of the resurrection story. Also, faith is a vice, not a virtue.
KD2: For Christians the foolishness of the cross is the very wisdom of God. (See 1 Corinthians 1).
GW2: Here you are contradicting yourself. Foolishness is not wisdom. If God did exist, he would be perfectly rational and all-wise and he would never sponsor a resurrection like that presented in the Gospels. A perfect father does not arrange for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son. What a ridiculous idea to think he would!
KD2: If the resurrection of Christ did not really happen Paul days [“says”] that our Christian faith is in vain, (See 1 Corinthians 15).
GW2: Well, apparently your faith is in vain. Sorry about that.
KD2: Paul was a persecutor of Christians. His life is was radically changed on the road to Damascus (Read Acts 8,9).
GW2: Yes, Paul probably had a hallucination on the road to Damascus in which he saw a bright light and heard a voice. He attributed them to Jesus. The Bible presents three different versions of this story and they are inconsistent with one another in the details. Also, there is no report of any of his travel companions to corroborate Paul’s story. So, another possibility is that Paul fabricated the entire incident.
KD2: Christians affirm that God offers new life to all who put their faith in Christ. (2 Corinthians 5:17).
GW2: This is obviously false. Many of the people in Ukraine put their faith in Christ, and now they are dead, wounded, or homeless. God does not exist.
KD2: Jesus the “I am” of God came as the good shepherd to bring us life in abundance. (See John 1:1-5,14 10:10).
GW2: If that was his goal, he failed. If God did exist, he would prevent all the horrible harms we face on this Earth. Here are a few examples: the war in Ukraine, the COVID-19 pandemic, childhood cancer, the Holocaust, and the sexual molestation of children by priests. If he existed, God would prevent these things, and so it is obvious that he does not exist.
'If God did exist, he would be perfectly rational and all-wise and he would never sponsor a resurrection like that presented in the Gospels. A perfect father does not arrange for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son.'
I could argue that the trials of Christ were necessary to demonstrate how people should respond to offense, i.e., absent angry judgment, with forgiveness, because offenders are ignorant of how they should behave.
GW: 'If God did exist, he would be perfectly rational and all-wise and he would never sponsor a resurrection like that presented in the Gospels. A perfect father does not arrange for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son.'
MRF: I could argue that the trials of Christ were necessary to demonstrate how people should respond to offense, i.e., absent angry judgment, with forgiveness, because offenders are ignorant of how they should behave.
GW: You could argue that, but it would be a complete waste of your time. God could show how to respond to offense without arranging for the humiliation, torture, and murder of his own son! He could simply provide instruction and modeling in simulation. You are forgetting what God would be like, if he existed. He would be all-powerful, perfectly rational, and perfectly moral. You keep short selling him.
The universe is arguably 'instruction and modeling in simulation.' See https://thenextweb.com/news/physicists-working-with-microsoft-think-the-universe-is-a-self-learning-computer which references the paper https://arxiv.org/pdf/2104.03902.pdf
Hey Gary. I think you would be a fun guy to have conversation with in person over coffee sometime. I bet your would always feel the need to get in the last word. I find fascinating your comment faith is a vice? Would you care to elaborate?
KD: Hey Gary. I think you would be a fun guy to have conversation with in person over coffee sometime.
GW: Sure. What city do you live in?
KD: I bet your would always feel the need to get in the last word.
GW: Our personalities are not the subject of this discussion.
KD: I find fascinating your comment faith is a vice? Would you care to elaborate?
GW: What is faith? Faith is belief untuned to or misaligned with evidence and/or logic, and usually tuned to or aligned solely or primarily with authority, majority opinion, peer pressure, tradition, intuition, wishes, or some combination of these. Having faith leads to poor judgement and bad behavior, and thus it is a vice.
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. If you ever get up north to Milaca MN drop by the local Hardees where you will find good conversion and most days some wisdom.
That seems a negative definition of faith. I suspect that most people intend a positive definition. I wonder how a placebo effect fits into your view?
I assert that proper interpretation demands some attempt to understand the authors' intent. Wikipedia reports 'Faith, derived from Latin fides and Old French feid,[1] is confidence or trust in a person, thing, or concept.[1][2] In the context of religion, one can define faith as "belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion".[3] Religious people often think of faith as confidence based on a perceived degree of warrant,[4][5] while others who are more skeptical of religion tend to think of faith as simply belief without evidence.[6]'
I credit Bart Ehrman's 'Forged' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forged_(book) with helping me understand the Hellenistic influence on scripture, and to view ancient writing more symbolically and philosophically. I don't dismiss the possibility of resurrection, but that seems unlikely. However, I just read James Hamblin's 'If Our Bodies Could Talk', p. 279, where he describes immortal germ cells that rebuild telomeres. I'm feeling Socratic ignorance, and the advantage of Pyrrhonism, or at least, a skeptical suspension of judgment.
In 108 billion cases of human persons living and dying, there has not been a single verified case of one coming back to life. Your reference to "immortal germ cells" is irrelevant.
I read a stern rebuke of being off-topic at academia.edu/s/1735e301c2 (search for 'invite'). That's an interesting discussion, e.g., Paul as a Roman military operative, among other skepticism (search for 'operative'). I learned of that from academia.edu/s/cf13d33860 which I also found interesting. To your point, I'm unsure what prompted my post, but to attempt more relevance, I would question two assumptions of the topic logic. First, Trinitarianism is hotly contested. To make sense of conflicting accounts that Christ both spoke as though he was God, and also denied that he was God, I speculate that Christ sometimes channeled God, at least in fantasy, if not reality. I agree with the view that deifying Christ relieves people from following his example. I agree with the view that people will invent fantasies to escape psychic misery. Consequently, asserting the resurrection as a mythic truth seems less interesting to me than the more fantastic possibility that resurrections might happen, albeit rarely.
It seems that I dismissed the second assumption that resurrection is impossible and leapt into wondering how truthful accounts of resurrection might arise, short of belief in more than a 'God' of nature that creates emergent order by the random events of quantum mechanics, i.e., mindless energy. So for me, the relevance of immortal germ cells is the reality of a fantastic mindless mechanism that repairs itself indefinitely. It seems that germ cells are a rare example of how cells can avoid programmed cell death. I doubt Christ's resurrection, but admit the possibility, which is skepticism of my omniscience, an intellectual humility that admits learning and processing new information.
To explain reports of Christ, I suspect that he was a rare example of human potential to virtue, and perhaps, metaphysical power. The truth might be that there are physical mechanisms that explain what appears to be supernatural power, e.g., that rather than rot, a 'dead' human body might self-repair. That might depend on the biome cultured by the human's lifestyle. I write 'dead' because life is arguably merely genetic replication by the biochemical animation of dead matter. If life reduces to automated animation, it follows that death is a dysfunction of that process. Just as 'life' emerged from dead matter, it seems equally possible that there are undiscovered self-repair mechanisms that might explain rare reports of resurrection.
I much enjoyed Stuart Kauffman's 'Reinventing the Sacred', Jay Haley's 'The Power Tactics of Jesus Christ', and a PBS video pbs.org/show/last-days-jesus/ that appears to be Blink's 'Last Days of Jesus' blinkfilmsuk.com/productions/ldoj/
MRF2: That's an interesting discussion, e.g., Paul as a Roman military operative, among other skepticism (search for 'operative').
GW2: I’ve never heard that idea. I think it is very unlikely.
MRF2: First, Trinitarianism is hotly contested. To make sense of conflicting accounts that Christ both spoke as though he was God, and also denied that he was God, I speculate that Christ sometimes channeled God, at least in fantasy, if not reality.
GW2: To me there seems to be only one valid understanding of The Trinity. The Trinity is a hypothetical team of three hypothetical persons – God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit. God would be the captain of the team. Jesus is the only person who probably existed. Controversy resolved.
MRF2: Consequently, asserting the resurrection as a mythic truth seems less interesting to me than the more fantastic possibility that resurrections might happen, albeit rarely.
GW2: When I read the NT, I think the authors were not talking of a “mythic truth.” They were claiming a real bodily resurrection.
MRF2: So for me, the relevance of immortal germ cells is the reality of a fantastic mindless mechanism that repairs itself indefinitely. It seems that germ cells are a rare example of how cells can avoid programmed cell death.
GW2: There is no good evidence for this at the present time.
MRF2: I doubt Christ's resurrection, but admit the possibility, which is skepticism of my omniscience, an intellectual humility that admits learning and processing new information.
GW2: The coming back to life of Jesus is not logically impossible, but it is so extremely improbable that nobody should believe it happened.
MRF2: To explain reports of Christ, I suspect that he was a rare example of human potential to virtue, and perhaps, metaphysical power.
GW2: Not metaphysical power. There is no good evidence to support that hypothesis.
MRF2: The truth might be that there are physical mechanisms that explain what appears to be supernatural power, e.g., that rather than rot, a 'dead' human body might self-repair. That might depend on the biome cultured by the human's lifestyle.
GW2: You are speculating. There is no good evidence to support that idea.
MRF2: I write 'dead' because life is arguably merely genetic replication by the biochemical animation of dead matter.
GW2: That is a major misunderstanding of biology.
MRF2: Just as 'life' emerged from dead matter, it seems equally possible that there are undiscovered self-repair mechanisms that might explain rare reports of resurrection.
GW2: Are you talking about the origin of life on Earth? Life emerged from nonlife, not from dead life.
I'm expressing my understanding of language describing reality. A major philosophical question is whether there is an immaterial, metaphysical cause of the material physical, i.e., imperceptible etiology beyond mindless energy. Science decomposes material and proposes explanatory models of etiology. Theists believe in a metaphysical cause, atheists believe in material etiology, agnostics are uncertain, or might believe that the question is unanswerable. Like 'life', I construe 'nonlife' and 'dead life' as material, distinguished from 'life' by genetic reproductive capacity. This seems evinced by language conventions of boundary cases of definition, e.g., Pluto is no longer considered as meeting the definition of a planet, and viruses have long been questioned as life because they rely on the reproductive capacity of other cells to reproduce.
MRF: I'm expressing my understanding of language describing reality.
GW: And I believe your understanding is mistaken.
MRF: A major philosophical question is whether there is an immaterial, metaphysical cause of the material physical, i.e., imperceptible etiology beyond mindless energy.
GW: There is currently no good evidence in favor of that hypothesis, and it is rather far removed from the hypothesis of Jesus coming back to life.
MRF: Science decomposes material and proposes explanatory models of etiology. Theists believe in a metaphysical cause, atheists believe in material etiology, agnostics are uncertain, or might believe that the question is unanswerable.
GW: Relevance? In the lives and deaths of 108 billion human persons, there is not one confirmed instance of coming back to life.
MRF: Like 'life', I construe 'nonlife' and 'dead life' as material, distinguished from 'life' by genetic reproductive capacity. This seems evinced by language conventions of boundary cases of definition, e.g., Pluto is no longer considered as meeting the definition of a planet, and viruses have long been questioned as life because they rely on the reproductive capacity of other cells to reproduce.
GW: I think you are making category errors. Your definitions are very fuzzy.
I suspect that I tend toward reductionism, so my mistake is assuming (projecting?) that you would agree to my view of the meaning of language. It appears that the meaning of 'metaphysics' is contested, and has morphed over time. I've adopted a meaning that was either suggested or made sense to me. Unless you share my view, I expect that you would see category errors arising from my reduction. The relevance of that discursion might only be to agree on terms for communication. But since I largely reduce 'supernatural' to 'metaphysical', we might agree on supernatural, e.g., resurrection appears supernatural.
I questioned why I'm unpersuaded by your argument of 108 billion human dead with only suspect accounts as evidence of resurrection. I can't represent avid believers, because from my view, death is practically certain. But I surely suspect that resurrection and other supernatural phenomenon are possible, perhaps even natural, under undiscovered conditions, perhaps by natural etiology. I think that follows from some understanding of etiology, e.g., lifestyle affects longevity. The Christian claim appears to be that exceptional virtue opens access to exceptional aspects of life, exemplified by Christ. Just because 108 billion human predecessors failed to understand or follow Christ's example doesn't refute the claim, albeit that reinforces Matthew 7:13-14.
A more relevant question might be, is the possibility of resurrection relevant to the topic? That seems open to interpretation, and perhaps warrants discussion of the topic. If the topic is constrained to assume that resurrection is impossible, then it follows that contrary accounts are literally false. Then the only question is how to prove impossibility, which, for resurrection, I suspect might be impossible, i.e., proving a negative. So I accept that the burden of proof must fall on those who argue that resurrection is possible. That burden is well beyond me, but I can suggest a method, i.e., physics constructor theory.
My rudimentary understanding is that physics constructor theory explores possibilities, so it's a methodology of discovery. There is precedent in computer programs that discover new knowledge by brute force automated exploration of possibilities using prescribed models of reality. Scientific exploration of possibilities might ape mindless nature, evolving into what Stuart Kauffman described as the 'adjacent possible'. No revelation required, albeit some informed guidance might accelerate the exploration.
https://nautil.us/as-creation-stories-go-the-big-bang-is-a-good-one-16149/
There’s lots of reverence going on today by the Christians for the Resurrection story. But don’t believe what they say in the bible. They leave out what Paul Harvey called “the rest of the story.” The truth is that when the Disciples found out Judas was the one who squealed on Jesus, they were pretty upset. So, after the Last Supper, the disciples decided to send Jesus to India with his pregnant girlfriend, Mary Magdalene. Then they got Judas really drunk, then dressed him up and put on some makeup to made him look like JC (the guards didn’t know what Jesus looked like anyway.) They then presented Judas for execution with him mumbling incoherently . Meanwhile, Jesus and Mary got away to India, learned to speak Hindi, had a couple of kids, established a Kashmir sweater company and lived a happy life. And now you know the rest of the story!
PS, as I’m sure everyone here knows, long before Dan Brown’s fantasies there was a nonfiction book titled Holy Blood, Holy Grail that suggest this all actually happened, and the authors sued Dan Brown for ripping them off. I believe they lost but do t recall the details now
Herb, this would make for an interesting novel that could be made into a major motion picture. Maybe you could get a big star to play the historian who figures it all out, I don’t know, maybe someone like Tom Hanks?
That story is more likely to be true than the resurrection story.
Interesting interpretation, and one that puts an “I’m my own grandpa” spin on things. Well here is another. The big G god did NOT believe that He was the only god. The first commandment is (my emphasis) “ I am the LORD GOD… thou shall not put OTHER gods before me.” So he admits the existence of other gods but INSISTS that Christians only worship Him.
This kind of thinking was seen as open for discussion while I was in Catholic High in the late 60s and taught by Franciscan Brothers, but while in Catholic grammar school with Franciscan nuns, it got you slapped. Boy does dogma sting!
Given the history of the separate books that, taken together, we accept as The Bible, I am not sure how anyone could draw that sort of inference. Leaving aside the many opportunities for transcription / translation error, we can only interpret the words in the context in which they were uttered.
Also, in other passages the Bible claims there is one and only God: Isaiah 44:6, Deut 4:35, 1 Kings 8:60, (etc)
Dogma certainly does change with time. I went to parochial grade school, Catholic High School, Catholic College, and joined the Christian Brothers for three years living in a monastery. I became agnostic and finally evolved to atheism.
I never interpreted the first commandment as indicating there were other gods. Rather I looked at it is don't put money Fortune or anything else above God. The commandant is not an invalidation of monotheism.
I've always interpreted the trinity as simply different ways of perceiving God. And as far as Jesus is concerned, he is, as we all are, matter which has simply become conscious of itself.
Hard to read a critique of faith by someone who doesn't understand the premise that he is criticizing. Your description of the ressurection syllogism is wrong from a Catholic perspective. Not even close. I recommend you read the work of people like Brant Pitre, or Bishop Robert Barron, and if you are up for it Thomas Aquinas. Then you may be able to understand the Catholic perspective. And your criticism may add some value. As it stands, it is like Babe Ruth criticizing Tiger Woods' golf swing.
Dear Pedro, what would be the correct syllogism from the Catholic perspective?
I would add to JGB's observations about Mormons: they not only reject the Nicene Creed view of the (unitary) Trinity, they also believe in a God that is not literally all-powerful (he is at least constrained in acting against our personal agency), and that "... men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression." (Articles of Faith 1:2). I'm not sure how one produces a similar syllogism within the bounds of the internal logic that attaches to their view.
Thanks for the reminder about the Mormon view of the 'Omnis' - a cousin once told me that God is constrained by eternal law - at least voluntarily constrained. Also God isn't omnipresent - He is a being, with 'body, passion and parts' much like a highly evolved man... plus God did not create us ex nihilo but is the literal Father of our spiritual being, forming us out of pre-existing 'intelligences' or some such. This last point is important because if God created us entirely from nothing, then punishing us for God's poor workmanship would be unjust - like smashing a computer because the code we wrote didn't compile.
Many atheist arguments against Christianity do not apply to Mormon Doctrine - of course, the documented Mormon Church's history is so wackadoodle that it is futile to have rational discussions with True Believers.
You can't move the goal posts by just changing the definition of "God." It has had a standard definition for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Of course, anybody can invent a new god with its own definition, but for God's sake, invent a new name for him.
It is irrational to move the goal posts, change the definition of "God," and then defend the existence of God.
A 'standard definition of god'? Not on planet Earth.
Perhaps it would be better to say "the traditional or most popular concept or understanding of God." Here it is: "God is the hypothetical supernatural, unique, independent, eternal, invulnerable, everywhere-present, all-knowing, perfectly rational, all-powerful, perfectly moral person or intelligent agent who created the cosmos, sometimes intervenes in our world, and assigns human persons to different desirable or undesirable conditions after they die." If you go to the mall and ask a hundred people at random if this is an accurate description of God, 90%+, will say "yes," IMO.
I thought my contribution to the conversation was completely rational :)
Is there even a 'correct syllogism' from the Catholic perspective? It seems presumptuous to apply logic to matters of faith.
Also, I note that not every Christian is Catholic and believe what Dr Shermer spelled out. E.g. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) believe God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost are three separate beings. Other Christian sects have other views, too.
I know that not every self-identified Christian agrees God is literally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. There are many who hold that these are exaggerations to make a point - they feel that it is possible for a divine being to be unimaginably knowledgeable without being technically omniscient (etc, etc).
I concur JGB, so it will be curious to see if anyone who does believe in the unity of God, Jesus, and Holy Spirt (3 in 1) responds.
Yes. It will be interesting. Do not be disappointed if none rise to the occasion. A lifetime of being an Astronomy professor surrounded by religious relatives has taught me that talking logic to the faithful is like asking scientists to pray over an experiment.
Look who I am talking to ... you were once among the faithful you know how different the thought processes are. SJG's NOM may be a cop-out but I have yet to encounter a better way for STEM & Faith to interact.
I believe this is the best interpretation of the three: The Trinity is a team of three persons -- God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Ghost. God would be the captain of that team.
Yup, that's what they taught us in Catholic school. : ) we were forced to memorize it.
Presumptuous? Logic is the only thing to apply to faith and show that faith is futile.
I absolutely agree. Faith is lauded as a virtue, but in truth, it is simply willful ignorance.
Aristotle laid out foundations of logic thousands of years ago ... and since then we have seen that when objective evidence is plentiful and uncontested, logic rules supreme but when evidence is sparse or contested, then logic is impotent.
The story of Galileo dropping balls continues to be retold (despite never happening) to make this point: logical arguments can only go so far without solid evidence.
To avoid unproductive discussions about deities first ask "What is the evidence regarding God?" and "What is the consensus on that evidence?" If the participants in the discussion cannot agree on the evidence (including the interpretation of it) change the subject to something amusing like "Will's Slap - real or fake?"
(Actually, this guide applies to almost all controversies like: Did we land on the Moon?, Was 2020 stolen? - or - Who is stealing my socks: Lizard-People from space or time-traveling Robots?)
JCB1: Aristotle laid out foundations of logic thousands of years ago ... and since then we have seen that when objective evidence is plentiful and uncontested, logic rules supreme but when evidence is sparse or contested, then logic is impotent.
GW1: I thought you were talking about logic in a general sense, not a specific sense. I thought you meant “reason” which includes science and logic is the specific sense, e.g. rules of logic. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is so sparse that we ought not believe that it happened.
JCB1: The story of Galileo dropping balls continues to be retold (despite never happening) to make this point: logical arguments can only go so far without solid evidence.
GW1: It depends on what you mean by “solid evidence.” We have the confirmed writings of Paul, dated within maybe a decade of the death of Jesus, who claimed that other people claimed that Jesus came back to life. That is solid in one sense, and not in another.
JCB1: To avoid unproductive discussions about deities first ask "What is the evidence regarding God?" and "What is the consensus on that evidence?" If the participants in the discussion cannot agree on the evidence (including the interpretation of it) change the subject to something amusing like "Will's Slap - real or fake?"
GW1: Well, the existence of the universe is evidence in support of the God hypothesis. The consensus of the people of the world is that such evidence is sufficient to conclude God exists. I (probably you too) do not agree with them.
JCB1: (Actually, this guide applies to almost all controversies like: Did we land on the Moon?, Was 2020 stolen? - or - Who is stealing my socks: Lizard-People from space or time-traveling Robots?)
GW1: I think we should try to limit the discussion to the narrow question “Did Jesus probably come back to life in the first century CE?” My answer is "almost certainly not." What about you?
You have given me much to think about ... so I will think about it for a spell. In the meantime have a marvelous day :)
Specifically, what premise is incorrect in Michael's syllogism, in your view? And why do you think so?
The truth always matters! What value is there to a story that a man came back to life? Doesn't it give people false hope? Is that valuable?
"Jesus came back to life" is a historical claim. It is either true or false. And it matters.
Are there any perfect persons? I don't think so. But anyway, of course imperfect and perfect persons are or would be subject to suffering and death. We don't need Jesus to tell us that. Currently there is no way to defeat death, period. The belief in the resurrection of Jesus gives false hope and may distract attention from real important things in this life.
I'm not convinced you have found any value to the story, even as a metaphor.
Three first-person author-identified eye-witness reports of the events surrounding the death of Jesus, which mostly corroborate each other and which testify to the coming back to life of Jesus. I assume that you know that right now there aren't any of these. I don't see any value to bodily resurrection of a man as metaphor. Most believers don't view it as metaphor.
Agree. No religious text should be taken literally as historic works of humans trying to interpret the world around them. Even assuming the most optimistic scenario of "divine epiphany", God directly giving the words, given that God is a higher being and a higher form on thought, it's not possible to accurately project the thought of God to a human mind and language. It should be a fundamental assumption of every religion that they fail to understand the intent of god. And in many ways it is (debate on this has always been key part of theology), but unfortunately it rarely prevents the "literal truth" part of religion from appearing.
You said "it's not possible to accurately project the thought of God to a human mind and language." I don't know how you could come to that conclusion. It is a contradiction to the omnipotence assumption. If God did exist, he could do any accurate projection that he wished.
the resurrection should not be taken literally, because no one comes back from being dead.
The Gospel authors and Paul meant for their words about the resurrection of Jesus to be taken literally, but we ought not believe them. There is not a single confirmed case of resurrection from the dead in 108 billion opportunities of people dying.
You might want to update that number to 117 billion, per prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/ Accepting that estimate, I agree that probability theory offers useful rational prediction, but question how faithfully stochastic methods apply to deterministic processes. Once biomass emerges from eons of natural selection, deterministic biophysics begin to operate, albeit by stochastic processes. The Law of Large Numbers introduces determinism.
The odds against resurrection might be far less than you suggest. Just as lifestyle affects longevity, it might equally affect the biome of a human body such that rate of decay is affected. I question how natural selection might evolve repair mechanisms, but the example of the wood frog is interesting for its adaptation to freezing. Wikipedia reports tolerance of 65% of its water freezing.
MRF: You might want to update that number to 117 billion, per prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/
GW: You might want to better understand the new finding. Your reference says “This major change in our understanding of human existence spurred new calculations and consultations with experts, resulting in an estimate that about 117 billion members of our species have ever been born on Earth.” If you subtract the 8 billion which are still alive, then that would leave 109 billion which have died and not come back to life. In my post I said 108 billion, and so I was mistaken by 1 billion. I’ll use the figure 109 in the future.
MRF: Accepting that estimate, I agree that probability theory offers useful rational prediction, but question how faithfully stochastic methods apply to deterministic processes. Once biomass emerges from eons of natural selection, deterministic biophysics begin to operate, albeit by stochastic processes. The Law of Large Numbers introduces determinism.
GW: That is just mumbo jumbo. You aren’t saying anything relevant or useful here.
MRF: The odds against resurrection might be far less than you suggest.
GW: The odds are less than 1 in 109 billion! If you disagree, then present a rational case for something different.
MRF: Just as lifestyle affects longevity, it might equally affect the biome of a human body such that rate of decay is affected.
GW: Rate of decay has nothing to do with this. There has never been a confirmed case of a person alive, dead, and then alive again. Never! If you are claiming that this occurred for Jesus, then you are making an extraordinary claim, and as Carl Sagan said “Extraordinary claims required extraordinary evidence.” And you don’t have it.
MRF: I question how natural selection might evolve repair mechanisms, but the example of the wood frog is interesting for its adaptation to freezing. Wikipedia reports tolerance of 65% of its water freezing.
GW: Cooling down a body can slow functioning and any malignant process tending toward death, but once death has occurred, there is no coming back. Ever heard that in death there is increasing entropy? Yes there is!
GW: There is a hypothesis, known by the derogatory name “the Swoon Theory,” that Jesus did not die on the cross, but he went into a coma, and came out of the coma inside the tomb. While unlikely, that outcome is certainly more likely than Jesus coming back to life. But there are even better hypotheses than either of those.
I'm less asserting evidence than possibility of a post-mortem repair process. I imagine, instead of a necrobiome, a repair biome that restored life.
Mere speculation.