A Scientist Explains Why He Believes in the Resurrection

[acbytesla]

I believe alien abduction stories are mostly explained by sleep paralysis. By the logic you present I must deny sleep paralysis if I deny alien abductions?

Sure, sleep paralysis is a possible candidate explanation for alien abduction stories. But that isn’t the question I asked you. Do you believe Jesus was divine, died and rose from the dead?

 

[ahhell]

Sure, sleep paralysis is a possible candidate explanation for alien abduction stories. But that isn’t the question I asked you. Do you believe Jesus was divine, died and rose from the dead?

My first post in this thread answers that questions.

So, regardless of the contradictions mentioned above, most of the story is relatively credible. Some rabble rouser gets crucified by the Romans, sure why not. Some women or someone else coming to grieve or what not the next Sunday, sure.
Its just hat last bit that's a problem. Ya, sure, dude was physically resurrected and the only reason we can't prove it is because he was also physically taken to heaven, which won't happen to anyone else by the way. The only folks that happen to see him afterward are a few of his closest followers. It could make sense if he actually survived and his friends snuck him away but only if he were a man and not a god.

Even the contradictions are just to be expected, that's the nature of human memory and witnesses. It's only a problem if you think the bible is the word of god and not the product of the hand of man.

I guess I didn't flat out say, "I don't believe in the resurrection". I can't imagine being so flippant about if I did though. To be clear, I think it's likely that some dude named something along the lines of Joshua/jesus/yeshua was a militant jewish reformer around in the first millenium. He was probably killed by the Romans for stirring up trouble. That is just not that extraordinary a story. All of those elements

I think its extraordinarily unlikely he rose from the dead and was in any way divine or performed an miracle. Might of convinced a bunch of folks he did at the time though, that wasn't all that uncommon and is sometimes replicated in modern times.

I really don't see how a bunch of fantastic stories about a fella actually disprove any of the fairly boring and earthly stories about it. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter does not prove Abraham Lincoln didn't exist.

 

[acbytesla]

My first post in this thread answers that questions.

I guess I didn't flat out say, "I don't believe in the resurrection". I can't imagine being so flippant about if I did though. To be clear, I think it's likely that some dude named something along the lines of Joshua/jesus/yeshua was a militant jewish reformer around in the first millenium. He was probably killed by the Romans for stirring up trouble. That is just not that extraordinary a story. All of those elements

I think its extraordinarily unlikely he rose from the dead and was in any way divine or performed an miracle. Might of convinced a bunch of folks he did at the time though, that wasn't all that uncommon and is sometimes replicated in modern times.

I really don't see how a bunch of fantastic stories about a fella actually disprove any of the fairly boring and earthly stories about it. Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter does not prove Abraham Lincoln didn't exist.

Thanks for answering my question. But I wouldn't call it flippant.

No they don't. But I don't think anyone is saying there wasn't an actual Jesus just because of those contradictions. No, we are saying that those contradictions along with the many other absurdities provides more than a reason to dismiss it in its entirety.

Keep in mind that many Christians say that the book is inerrant. The contradictions prove that is false. Do they not?

 

[ahhell]

Thanks for answering my question. But I wouldn't call it flippant.

No they don't. But I don't think anyone is saying there wasn't an actual Jesus just because of those contradictions. No, we are saying that those contradictions along with the many other absurdities provides more than a reason to dismiss it in its entirety.

Keep in mind that many Christians say that the book is inerrant. The contradictions prove that is false. Do they not?

They prove that some parts of it are false. If you accept that it was written by people from stories told by other people, then I wouldn't take it to court, but I also don't see any reason to doubt the boring, mundane bits.

Also, not all christians think it the inerrant word of God, and even some that do accept that a lot of it is parable and such. So, figuratively true but not literally true.

As to flippant, I thought I was being obviously sarcastic about the supernatural bit. But, I should know by now that sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. That was my point about the disappearing body and how it's awfully convenient. What's our evidence for the resurrection? Well, where's his body? Must have walked away. Check mate! That is absurd on a number of levels. Some dude getting crucified by Romans, an average Tuesday in 33AD.

ETA:

Back to the OP. I think you and agree as to that being nonsense. "ACB", in this case, my understanding of your position, not trying to strawman, just state what I think you probably believe.
1. Jesus was crucified,
Me, sure why not.
ACB, no evidence, with all the other BS, why should anyone believe.
2. Three days later, some wonen found tomb empty.
Me, why not, who cares.
ACB, no evidence, with all the other BS, why should anyone believe.
3. He was resurrected and his followers saw him after.
Me, Never happened before or after, didn't happen unless there's a lot more to that story, like he didn't actually die in the first plate. Still, no reason to believe in the resurrection.
ACB, Obvious BS


Number 3 being the important part, it is obvious nonsense that either didn't happen or happened in some non-miraculous way. Dude being tortured to death in public returning to life after requires some extraordinary evidence and some accounts of his closest friends seeing him after that weren't written down for 100 years, not exactly extraordinary.

Dude being tortured to death by romans, meh, I'll take your word for that.

 

[acbytesla]

They prove that some parts of it are false. If you accept that it was written by people from stories told by other people, then I wouldn't take it to court, but I also don't see any reason to doubt the boring, mundane bits.

Also, not all christians think it the inerrant word of God, and even some that do accept that a lot of it is parable and such. So, figuratively true but not literally true.

As to flippant, I thought I was being obviously sarcastic about the supernatural bit. But, I should know by now that sarcasm doesn't work on the internet. That was my point about the disappearing body and how it's awfully convenient. What's our evidence for the resurrection? Well, where's his body? Must have walked away. Check mate! That is absurd on a number of levels. Some dude getting crucified by Romans, an average Tuesday in 33AD.

ETA:

Back to the OP. I think you and agree as to that being nonsense. "ACB", in this case, my understanding of your position, not trying to strawman, just state what I think you probably believe.
1. Jesus was crucified,
Me, sure why not.
ACB, no evidence, with all the other BS, why should anyone believe.
2. Three days later, some wonen found tomb empty.
Me, why not, who cares.
ACB, no evidence, with all the other BS, why should anyone believe.
3. He was resurrected and his followers saw him after.
Me, Never happened before or after, didn't happen unless there's a lot more to that story, like he didn't actually die in the first plate. Still, no reason to believe in the resurrection.
ACB, Obvious BS


Number 3 being the important part, it is obvious nonsense that either didn't happen or happened in some non-miraculous way. Dude being tortured to death in public returning to life after requires some extraordinary evidence and some accounts of his closest friends seeing him after that weren't written down for 100 years, not exactly extraordinary.

Dude being tortured to death by romans, meh, I'll take your word for that.

But, it's not their word. Their word is irrelevant to whether all of it happened, a tiny bit of it, or none of it.

In my view, no one liviing today has warrant to believe that any of it happened. That does not suggest that none of it didn't. It's a story. Written by people who were not there. Decades after the events. In a language that the characters almost certainly did not speak. What part of that is believable?

Just because some details in the story were mundane does not make any part of the story more believable. That we agree that Superman and Spiderman were fiction does not mean that Clark Kent and Peter Parker were real.

 

[arthwollipot]

The resurrection accounts are virtually identical. The fact that they vary in a few details is just further proof that they were not fabricated.

Or maybe they were all independently copied from the same source.

 

[Apathia]

Empty Tomb:
Undoubtedly, the Sanhedrin had the Romans remove the body from the tomb and burn it, so that the disciples couldn't steal it and claim a resurrection.
(My nonsense as good as any other.)

 

[Norman Alexander]

So...

The topic of this thread is: A Scientist Explains Why He Believes in the Resurrection

And the discussion has once again devolved into the truth or otherwise of the resurrection story. Which we already have a long-running thread for. So perhaps we should ask the Mods to transfer the discussion here to the thread there?

Meanwhile, we have a cute little story of a Christian who is fully immersed in the religion who grows up and becomes a scientist and does science stuff for a living. Therefore..."science proves the Christian Jesus"??

If so, wouldn't that be precisely the same argument that "science proves Allah (and by inference, the Muslim prophet Jesus)" for Muslim scientists? Or "science proves Buddha" for Buddhist scientists? Or "science proves a pantheon of gods" for Hindu scientists? And indeed "science proves a atheism" for non-believers? All are equally valid.

 

[Orphia Nay]

A scientist believes in the resurrection?

Aw, bless.

 

[arthwollipot]

I'd like to see how this physicist scientifically explains how a dead person can be returned to life.

 

[mikegriffith1]

We have tangible evidence that you were wrong when you claimed that all four gospels state that the women arrived to find the stone already moved. Matthew does not say this. Are you going to address this?

You are correct. Matthew's account can be read to say that the stone was moved in the presence of the women. On the other hand, Matthew may have simply truncated the sequence of events. But let's keep in mind that Matthew's account agrees in the most important elements: that the stone was moved, that the tomb was empty, that the resurrected Christ appeared to the women.

Again, if the apostles had fabricated the resurrection, one would expect they would have ensured that the resurrection accounts were consistent in every detail, not just in the essential elements.

 

[Darat]

You are correct. Matthew's account can be read to say that the stone was moved in the presence of the women. On the other hand, Matthew may have simply truncated the sequence of events. But let's keep in mind that Matthew's account agrees in the most important elements: that the stone was moved, that the tomb was empty, that the resurrected Christ appeared to the women.

Again, if the apostles had fabricated the resurrection, one would expect they would have ensured that the resurrection accounts were consistent in every detail, not just in the essential elements.

The fallacies are strong with this one.

 

[Darat]

A scientist believes in the resurrection?

Aw, bless.

I can find Christians and even vicars and priest that don't believe in it!

So that's game, set and match to me.

 

[acbytesla]

Or maybe they were all independently copied from the same source.

Exactly! There's a reason Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic Gospels.

You are correct. Matthew's account can be read to say that the stone was moved in the presence of the women. On the other hand, Matthew may have simply truncated the sequence of events. But let's keep in mind that Matthew's account agrees in the most important elements: that the stone was moved, that the tomb was empty, that the resurrected Christ appeared to the women.

Again, if the apostles had fabricated the resurrection, one would expect they would have ensured that the resurrection accounts were consistent in every detail, not just in the essential elements.

Who says the Apostles fabricated anything? It's a story. The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were not Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They were anonymous individuals in Greece, Turkey or Rome. These are the remaining copies of stories that were told orally for ten, twenty or 50 years.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

You are correct. Matthew's account can be read to say that the stone was moved in the presence of the women. On the other hand, Matthew may have simply truncated the sequence of events. But let's keep in mind that Matthew's account agrees in the most important elements: that the stone was moved, that the tomb was empty, that the resurrected Christ appeared to the women.

You realize that Matthew is the only gospel in which Christ is described as appearing to all the women at the tomb, right? In Mark and John, we only read about him appearing to Mary Magdalene, and in Luke we don't have him appearing to any of the women at all. I guess this "important element" wasn't all that important?

Again, if the apostles had fabricated the resurrection, one would expect they would have ensured that the resurrection accounts were consistent in every detail, not just in the essential elements.

A lot of assumptions here. The first being that the apostles were in cahoots with one another, and concerned with whether their gospels agreed in every detail. In which case, why duplicate effort? Why not simply get together and write one big, definitive Gospel of MaMarLuJo?

And in that case, why would they not do exactly the same thing if the story were true? To suggest that the discrepancies show the story to be true is simply bizarre.

 

[catsmate]

So the usual complete bollocks

Yep.

Why does a scientist have to "confess" that an electron is round? It either is or isn't, surely.

It isn't.

Or did he previously know that it was round but tried to vigorously insist it wasn't? For money or personal gain? Or because Jesus had told him personally? Or for Satan?

Meh, god-botherers.

Silly from the outset.

True,

There are plenty of Christian inculcated children who grow up to become scientists. Many of them lose their faith when reality strikes them. Some, like the chap referenced in the OP, don't.

Exactly.

Mike, enjoy your religion, don't suffer from it. Happy Easter from an atheist.

Some people take their opinions too seriously.

The resurrection accounts are virtually identical.

Not even close.

The fact that they vary in a few details

Oh look, wallpaper words.....

Just another christian expressing belief without evidence. His vocation is irrelevant.

Yeah.

Posts discussing the Shroud of Turin have been sent to the appropriate thread.

Posted By: Agatha

Ah, I wondered why the Shroud thread got so busy again.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Again, if the apostles had fabricated the resurrection, one would expect they would have ensured that the resurrection accounts were consistent in every detail, not just in the essential elements.

"The apostles all conspired to fabricate the story" is not a reasonable alterative to the resurrection actually occurring. The reasonable alternative is that this is rumor and mythology that got out of hand, changing little by little each time the story was retold, over the course of several decades.

 

[Darat]

You realize that Matthew is the only gospel in which Christ is described as appearing to all the women at the tomb, right? In Mark and John, we only read about him appearing to Mary Magdalene, and in Luke we don't have him appearing to any of the women at all. I guess this "important element" wasn't all that important?


A lot of assumptions here. The first being that the apostles were in cahoots with one another, and concerned with whether their gospels agreed in every detail. In which case, why duplicate effort? Why not simply get together and write one big, definitive Gospel of MaMarLuJo?

And in that case, why would they not do exactly the same thing if the story were true? To suggest that the discrepancies show the story to be true is simply bizarre.

And Paul of course never saw a physical Jesus, resurrected or otherwise.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

And Paul of course never saw a physical Jesus, resurrected or otherwise.

Now I'm hearing Depeche Mode singing "See your own physical Jesus"

 

[turingtest]

It seems a little misleading (at least) to frame the Synoptic Gospels in terms that suggest that they just happen to agree in overall detail, when it's more the case that they're canon because they agree in those details, in preference to other Gospels (Peter, Thomas, etc) that are excluded because they don't. A shared verisimilitude that's required for canonical inclusion is no evidence for any truth outside that agreed-upon story. There are any number of Star Trek novels by different authors that are accepted as canon because they largely have the same in-universe detail- that's not evidence that that universe is real, only that the fanfic demands consistency.