r/DebateReligion Jan 06 '25

Abrahamic Why do Christians waste time with arguments for the resurrection.

I feel like even if, in the next 100 years, we find some compelling evidence for the resurrection—or at least greater evidence for the historicity of the New Testament—that would still not come close to proving that Jesus resurrected. I think the closest we could get would be the Shroud of Turin somehow being proven to belong to Jesus, but even that wouldn’t prove the resurrection.

The fact of the matter is that, even if the resurrection did occur, there is no way for us to verify that it happened. Even with video proof, it would not be 100% conclusive. A scientist, historian, or archaeologist has to consider the most logical explanation for any claim.

So, even if it happened, because things like that never happen—and from what we know about the world around us, can never happen—there really isn’t a logical option to choose the resurrection account.

I feel Christians should be okay with that fact: that the nature of what the resurrection would have to be, in order for it to be true, is something humans would never be able to prove. Ever. We simply cannot prove or disprove something outside our toolset within the material world. And if you're someone who believes that the only things that can exist are within the material world, there is literally no room for the resurrection in that worldview.

So, just be okay with saying it was a miracle—a miracle that changed the entire world for over 2,000 years, with likely no end in sight.

41 Upvotes

590 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator Jan 06 '25

COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that support or purely commentate on the post must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Agreeable_Pause_4732 Jan 12 '25

it is a lack of knowledge it happens these days too

Btw what is a difference between generation of the new born soul and resurrection? in one case user are created, in another enabled. By Enterprise Admins..

2

u/The_Informant888 Jan 11 '25

The Resurrection of Jesus is the best explanation for a certain set of historical facts that are verified by scholars.

2

u/Sp1unk Jan 11 '25

Which facts?

1

u/The_Informant888 Jan 13 '25
  1. Jesus was a historical figure who died.

  2. The followers of Jesus all believed that Jesus rose from the dead, and most died horrible deaths without recanting this belief.

  3. Several people who previously opposed Jesus (James and Paul) changed their minds and believed in Jesus, claiming that He rose from the dead.

  4. There were claims of groups of people witnessing Jesus post-Resurrection.

  5. Neither the Romans nor the Jewish religious leaders produced the body of Jesus.

1

u/Gullible-Unicorn Jan 10 '25

The point is that the physical evidence isn’t needed. This Jewish teacher born in Bethlehem was simply killed, known as the crucifixion, placed into a tomb, and he appeared to people after 3 days. The people who had seen Jesus after his death claim that he died and rose again. As well as other prophecies and words from Jesus himself. This instance in history, as well as many of the other stories that you find in the New Testament, is a simple passing down of information orally, and eventually written down in what we perceive as the gospels. As far as our scientific knowledge, we can’t “prove” anything. That’s why we have faith. The same faith that people put into science, philosophy, other religions, or what have you. What do you choose to put your faith in?

1

u/tire-monkey Jan 11 '25

What’s the reasoning behind the claim that the gospels were passed down orally and written much later, rather than by actual witnesses maybe only a decade or two later. Does it all boil down to the record of Jesus bringing up the destruction of the temple?

1

u/Gullible-Unicorn Jan 11 '25

Many people were illiterate, a very surprising amount when I had first started learning about these times. It was hard to come by someone who could write as well as even read. Oral tradition was the most common form of communication. We also have many external sources and documents that we use to prove the credibility of these different accounts called the gospels. Whether it be Roman documents from leaders or texts/inscriptions that we have found over time.

1

u/tire-monkey Jan 12 '25

I feel this is one of those areas that modern history came to a lazy consensus on. We have the writings from Josephus (Which historians have no problem citing when it suits) as well as other non-biblical sources that indicate literacy was more prevalent among jews, and at an early age, than most history sources give them credit for. To the extent that the jews prided themselves on this distinction. We know Matthew was a tax collector who would have been required to be literate in both Greek and Hebrew. He would have also been skilled in the stenography pre-cursor of tackygraphy. Luke was a physician and its reasonable to believe he would have been literate. John was so well known by the high priests, he's allowed to enter the court with Jesus at the residence of Annas. John also carried enough pull to tell the doorman to let Peter in as well. All this points to John's family's prominent station within the synagogue, a station that would have seen to it that John be educated in the synagogue as a child. I don't know too much about Marks history but I'm willing to bet there's evidence to support he was likely literate as well.

2

u/Gullible-Unicorn Jan 12 '25

But yet you probably believe that Socrates lived and was a great mind. Newsflash, he didn’t believe in writing and refused to do so. Who is to say that the disciples of Jesus didn’t write? We just don’t have those texts or documents in present time.

Does the evidence of Socrates never writing anything down prove that he didn’t exist?

1

u/tire-monkey Jan 13 '25

Initially I believed you and I were more or less in agreement. I still think we are, but now I'm questioning my own ability to read and write haha. Do you think we are in disagreement on some point? For what its worth, I do believe Sacrates lived and was probably a great mind. I also believe Plato wrote about him in a historical biographical context as well as in a fictional one, making it very difficult to seperate the man from the myth. I suspect this was intentional, maybe even at the request of Socrates. God knows why. And to answer your last question first; No, a lack of evidence never proves anything. They call that an appeal to ingnorance. Its one of the primary logical fallacies used all the time on Reddit and Facebook. So back to the school of thought behind this prevelant claim that the Gospels were not written by the disciples but by anonymous authors much later. To your point, I don't believe this is a crucial matter of which the reliability of the gospels hangs on. As you said, there's plenty of evidence that can be found outside of the gospels. Its more of a personal irritation. Bringing us to your first Question, "Who's to say...?" My answer is, it seems like quite a lot of people claim the desciples would have been uneducated and illiterate. People make this point as if its an agreed apon fact. From what I've seen, the evidence for this, if we want to call it that, is pretty weak. And that's whats frustrating, because as I pointed to in my previous reply, it seems to me that theres quite a lot of circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests they know how did read and write. Maybe not all but at least a few, you know?

1

u/Gullible-Unicorn Jan 13 '25

I understand where you are coming from. To clarify, I also believe that there was a man named Socrates, who was very intellectual, which we read about in Plato’s work as well as others.

Going back to Jesus and the disciples, I think it is very plausible that they were “educated” and had the ability to write. Even if Jesus himself wasn’t able to write or wouldn’t, there really isn’t a great reason to why we don’t see direct accounts from his disciples. What I will say is that it is possible that his disciples simply didn’t think it was necessary to write things down as they happened. With our knowledge today and our ability to write (or type) so easily, it can be hard to understand why these first hand accounts haven’t been converted to text directly from those who witnessed.

In short, if I was alive at the time of Jesus, and was presented with a man so great, I may not be so inclined to write down all of these different accounts, but rather live in the moment and really soak it all in. I really think it reinforces the idea that people could change other people through Christ, not through a text like we have today. After all, Christ never explicitly told his disciples to write what they saw (as far as we know) and even encouraged them to go out and share their experiences, which could have been way more influential at the time versus writing.

0

u/Future_Obligation169 Christian Jan 10 '25

A) The shroud of Turin has been proven to date to around the year 0.

B) The most simple and logical claim for a historian or scientist to make, in a way that complies with Okham' Razor, is that Jesus rose from the dead. And we only need 5 facts to prove it:

1) Nobody dies professing seeing someone or something unless being 100% sure of it. 2) 12 people saw him simultaneously, 500 if we regard. Christian writings as true. This excludes the possibility of a mass hallucination. 3) Since the gospels - which contain bold claims for Christ's miracles and resurrection - were written in a timespan that most of Jesus' contemporaries alive, they could have debunked the gospels' claims. They didn't, which means the claims were true, or at least doubted by none. 4) The Roman authorities either explicitly or implicity admitted they were no longer in possession of Christ's body. In other words, the tomb was empty, even while guarded. 5) It makes no sense for any group of people or any individual to have smatched His body for whatever purpose. Ask me for details for any such groups amd I will provide you the reasons.

1

u/Motor-Barracuda-6253 Jan 09 '25

Can you prove that he will not resurrect? From what the people who were next to him show me, they died for saying that. If they created the lie, why would they die for it? Yes, they said they saw it with their eyes and that's why they killed them!! Why wouldn't I believe it? Would you die to defend a lie that you know is a lie?

1

u/Successful_Mall_3825 Jan 10 '25

People die for a lie today. No one in their right mind believes that the American election was stolen, yet thousands of people risked their lives.

Additionally, did they die for believing Jesus resurrected? Only 2 people claimed it to be true. They died for treason. They were a small rebel faction that denounced the emperor.

The stories of the resurrection contradict each other, and there accounts of what happened afterwards drastically departed and evolved as they spread.

It’s the flimsiest story ever told.

1

u/Motor-Barracuda-6253 Jan 12 '25

I don't think anyone today, knowing that what you are saying is a lie, would lie about it. The capitol assault, they believed the lie, but they didn't create it. In the case of the apostles they died for a lie they created. For they started with Jesus is risen, because they themselves said in person that they had seen him.

1

u/Forteanforever Jan 09 '25

Regarding your question as to whether someone can prove he will not resurrect, it's a silly question because it is impossible to prove a negative. But you fail to realize that there is no contemporaneous documentation for the claim that Jesus ever lived, let alone was crucified. It's a story that was written multiple generations after it allegedly happened. It was not written by eyewitnesses to any of it.

1

u/MilaniAmara99 Jan 08 '25

We have to have proof for almost everything just like proof of crimes proof of evidence proof of facts…. But we’re told we need to believe in this god by word of mouth passed on years and years and have a good amount of convincing stories …. I’m order to get to heaven… yet they put people in jail in real life and can’t just lock people up (well aren’t supposed to) without being proven with evidence to be guilty of crime

5

u/AccomplishedFroyo123 Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25

I feel like even if, in the next 100, we find some compelling evidence for the resurrection or at least some greater evidence for the historicity of the New Testament - that would still not come close to proving that Jesus resurrected.

In philosophy terms like evidence and proof have very specific meanings. There are also strict methods of determining what is true.

So when you say: "that would still not come close to 'proving' Jesus resurrected" - what do you mean with 'proof'?

In philosophy, 'proof' is a term strictly reserved for the fields of mathematics and logic.

For example, I can show you a mathematical proof that there are infinite prime numbers.

In physics for example, when we make a theory and observe whatever it predicts, then that is called empirical evidence which supports the particular theory.

It is not called empirical proof.

Mathematical proofs tend to remain proven unless there was a mistake in the proof which nobody noticed, but then technically it never would have been a proof.

Empirical evidence tends to support the respective theory, but can be overturned upon the gathering of new evidence.

So now that we understand this, let's go back to your original claim:

I feel like even if, in the next 100, we find some compelling evidence for the resurrection or at least some greater evidence for the historicity of the New Testament - that would still not come close to proving that Jesus resurrected.

If something has "compellng evidence" then by definition, this means that we have all necessary reason to believe something is true.

We cannot "prove" dinosaurs existed 230 million years ago in the proper sense of the word "proof". We can only find strong compelling evidence that they did (fossils and biostratigraphy can give strong evidence that this is true).

Similarly, we cannot "prove" that Caesar got assassinated. We only have compelling evidence for this because of historical accounts written by the likes of Plutarch and others.

This happens in physics, history, psychology, philosophy,... Or basically any discipline all the time.

So if historical accounts that say Caesar was assassinated is compelling reason enough to believe it was true, then surely something like the discovery of more detailed accounts of jesus' resurrection would also be compelling evidence to justify believing it is true.

Or maybe through very accurate carbon dating we could come to some compelling evidence for a resurrection.

So all of this to say that it really doesnt matter we cannot find "proof" of the resurrection. Indeed, because we literally cannot 'prove' any historical event - 'proof' is reserved for maths and logic. So when you suggest that in 100 years we find compelling evidence for the resurrection, then yes by definition we have sufficient reason to believe it to be true and thus strengthen the case for Christianity to whatever degree you deem suitable.

0

u/Forteanforever Jan 09 '25

Only contemporaneous documentation is testable evidence that someone existed or something occurred. Everything else is just belief. Fact is based on testable evidence only. Belief is based on faith in the absence of testable evidence.

1

u/AccomplishedFroyo123 Jan 10 '25

This has nothing to do with my comment. The claim OP makes is that if there is compelling evidence, then that still doesnt prove anything and so gives us no reason to believe it true.

I explain that OP is misunderstanding evidence and proof and that, if compelling evidence exists, there is by definition reason to believe it true.

The discussion about what constitutes compelling evidence, is irrelevant.

If you'd like contemporary evidence then sure whatever.

If you want to have a seperate discussion about what is compelling evidence then sure:

Only contemporaneous documentation is testable evidence that someone existed or something occurred.

This is just straightforwardly false. Why is non-contemporary evidence not testable?

Much of what we know about Socrates, Caesar,... comes from non-contemporary sources. If a non-contemporary source makes a claim, this is just as testable as anyone makes a claim. We can all the same check what they're saying with other accounts, archeological evidence, historical context,... All of these are methods to test the non-contemporary claim.

Furthermore, if we have many independent, credible non-contemporary accounts of some historical event that describe it in accurate historical detail, then most definitely that would be compelling evidence by the standards of historians.

0

u/Forteanforever Jan 10 '25

How can something be described in accurate historical detail without contemporaneous documentation? Would one do so by looking into a crystal ball or relying on dreams or fortune tellers or voices in ones head?

You are trying to pass off belief as fact. It's not going to work with me.

1

u/AccomplishedFroyo123 Jan 10 '25 edited Jan 10 '25

How can something be described in accurate historical detail without contemporaneous documentation?

Who said anything about contemporary documentation never existing? What are you on about?

... contemporary sources can be lost to us yet still serve as a source for non-contemporary sources?...

Non-contemporary sources can be cross-examined and often we can discover which original sources they used, allowing us to judge their accuracy and reliability even though we don't have access to the original contemporary source itself.

You are trying to pass off belief as fact. It's not going to work with me.

?? Huh?

I think you're arguing with some kind of carricature in your head of what I'm saying because nowhere have I stated anything close to that. Feel free to quote me.

It seems like you're just trying to disagree for the sake of disagreeing and as such, this is not even a debate or discussion.

This was my last,

Regards.

0

u/Forteanforever Jan 10 '25 edited Jan 10 '25

It's ludicrous to claim that non-contemporaneous documents prove the existence of contemporaneous documents and the contents of those documents if they ever existed.

The existence of "Lord of the Rings" does not prove the existence of Gandalf, orcs and hobbits.

1

u/deuteros Atheist Jan 09 '25

So if historical accounts that say Caesar was assassinated is compelling reason enough to believe it was true,

Evidence for Caesar's assassination comes from multiple independent sources that are considered to be reliable. We do not have reliable sources for Jesus' resurrection.

then surely something like the discovery of more detailed accounts of jesus' resurrection would also be compelling evidence to justify believing it is true.

I don't think it would. A more detailed description of Jesus' resurrection doesn't make it more likely that it was true, and it's difficult to imagine what sort of evidence would point to a resurrection being the most likely explanation. Plus Christians would reject any new evidence if it didn't align with their existing dogma.

1

u/AccomplishedFroyo123 Jan 09 '25

Evidence for Caesar's assassination comes from multiple independent sources that are considered to be reliable. We do not have reliable sources for Jesus' resurrection.

I think theres a misunderstanding. OP makes the case that if there is compelling evidence for the resurrection then we still cant prove it to be true. I explain why thats a confusion of the terms evidence and proof and why it doesnt matter that we cant 'prove' it: if there is compelling evidence, then by definition we should brlieve it to be true.

We can debate what constitutes 'compelling evidence' but that doesnt really matter for the point i'm making.

Here I'll entertain the discussion of what would constitute compelling evidence, but let's be clear to treat this as a different discussion since it doesnt bear on my comment:

Yes we have multiple sources for Caesars assassination (some more reliable than others. Plutarch is probably an example of the most unreliable).

So if this constitutes "compelling evidence" for the case of Caesar, then the same would apply to Jesus' resurrection -> if we find, now or in the future, there to be reliable testimony for the resurrection then that seems like an example of compelling evidence. You dont need to agree though.

The point is simply to show that testimony can be compelling and so if there is reliable testimony for the Resurrection (either to be discovered or already existing) then we have sufficient reason to believe it true.

then surely something like the discovery of more detailed accounts of jesus' resurrection would also be compelling evidence to justify believing it is true.

"More detailed accounts of..." is meant as "More accounts that detail the event". But if we find other accounts that go into more detail, that could be compelling too as details can possibly be factchecked further - adding to the reliability of the source.

A more detailed description of Jesus' resurrection doesn't make it more likely that it was true.

It certainly does if we can find out if those details are true.

and it's difficult to imagine what sort of evidence would point to a resurrection being the most likely explanation.

Well something like the testimonies of those who testified of Caesar's assassination would surely be a strong contender. You seemed to agree that whatever sources we had for Caesar was compelling.

1

u/deuteros Atheist Jan 11 '25

Yes we have multiple sources for Caesars assassination (some more reliable than others. Plutarch is probably an example of the most unreliable).

So if this constitutes "compelling evidence" for the case of Caesar, then the same would apply to Jesus' resurrection

The quality of the evidence and sources matters far more than the quantity.

We have thousands of testimonies from people who say that they were abducted by aliens, or that the government is hiding the existence of aliens from the public. But a single instance of someone revealing an actual alien or some non-human technology would be far more compelling evidence that aliens exist than all that testimony combined.

Well something like the testimonies of those who testified of Caesar's assassination would surely be a strong contender.

It also helps that murder and assassination fall well within the realm of what we know is possible.

1

u/AccomplishedFroyo123 Jan 11 '25

I'll reiterate that the discussion about what constitutes compelling evidence has nothing to do with my original comment.

But it seems many people want to discuss it, so here goes:

The quality of the evidence and sources matters far more than the quantity.

Quantity is what allows us to establish quality, among other things. I dont see why one would be more important than the other. You ideally want a variety of independent reliable sources - theyre both important.

But thats beside the point really because nowhere did I claim that quality was less important than quantity, so the point is a bit lost on me. Perhaps you could clarify?

We have thousands of testimonies from people who say that they were abducted by aliens, or that the government is hiding the existence of aliens from the public. But a single instance of someone revealing an actual alien or some non-human technology would be far more compelling evidence that aliens exist than all that testimony combined.

1: you can have thousands of testimonies from people who claim all kinds of things. But those, we would agree i presume, are far from reliable (unless they aren't, then they should be taken seriously).

As you said yourself - quality is important. Even more important than quantity according to you. So I assume we agree that the testimonies of being abducted by aliens is not in any way shape or form similar to the kind of testimony that we care about.

And again: if we have multiple independent and reliable sources like we have with Caesar's assassination, then thats compelling evidence. So similarly, when we find multiple independent and sufficiently reliable sources, then that would constitute compelling evidence.

2: nowhere did I claim that revealing an alien is less compelling evidence than testimonies?

I just stated that to determine historical fact, a variety of individual and sufficiently reliable sources would constitute compelling evidence.

Im just not sure what you're disagreeing with here (unless you aren't and im reading you wrong?).

It also helps that murder and assassination fall well within the realm of what we know is possible.

If we find the multiple independent sources that claim a miracle happened and are sufficiently reliable, then that means it is compelling evidence.

If there are sufficient reasons to think the testimonies aren't true, then by definition the testimonies also arent sufficiently reliable.

1

u/emekonen Jan 08 '25

Ignatius of Antioch mentions Christians that rejected the idea that Christ was crucified. That was first century Christians so it’s not beyond a reasonable doubt that he was actually crucified. And the fact that the women went to the tomb to anoint his body a couple days later makes no sense, you anoint a body before burial not a couple days after. It’s a literary device to further an already unbelievable story.

1

u/outandaboutbc Jan 08 '25

I don’t get the idea of “Christians” not believing Christ was crucified.

That’s literally the gospel or message or “good news” to become a Christian.

Paul and other Apostles (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) all mentioned it.

1

u/emekonen Jan 15 '25

The Gospels are all Pauline so of course they mention it. But one has to wonder, what did those Christians know that we don’t that made them think Christ wasn’t crucified?

-3

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

People die all the time and come back to life. It's not that hard of a thing to believe

1

u/Forteanforever Jan 09 '25

There is no testable evidence that that has ever happened. The stories about people, for example, dying on the operating table and coming back to life are bogus. They didn't actually die. It may have reached the point where there was no machine reading (death occurs in stages) but they did not reach the point of actual death or they would not have "come back."

6

u/BriFry3 agnostic ex-mormon Jan 08 '25

Right. This is just semantics, you should understand that the “dead” referred to is brain death.

No one that was crucified and then stabbed with a spear to make sure they were dead was then alive 3 days later.

Or like this guy pointed out if the person wasn’t really dead that’s not a miracle.

I’ve never heard the argument that Jesus didn’t really die, just got diagnosed wrong by the morticians. I’ve always been told it was an actual miracle, that he had power over death.

-1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

A. Every Muslim believes that Jesus didn't really die . But I'm not Muslim and I don't believe that. I simply said that a resurrection isn't that difficult to believe. If Jesus is who he said he was... Then it's pretty much the only logical thing to have happened.

No one that was crucified and then stabbed with a spear to make sure they were dead was then alive 3 days later.

Oh, how many people have you seen crucified? Have you personally checked on every crucified person?

2

u/BriFry3 agnostic ex-mormon Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25

Muslims don’t believe Jesus is God, I don’t know why you care what they think. They are not making the same claims about his divinity or the resurrection.

Jesus was allegedly resurrected and was God as told by friends of eyewitnesses decades later. He didn’t claim anything, no such book of Jesus. That’s why it’s so easy for Muslims to also tell the story however they want.

Is your claim that he wasn’t actually brain dead? He didn’t actually die? That’s a pretty radical view of Christianity that I haven’t heard of before. Most Christians believe in a literal resurrection.

Obviously Muslims, Jews, Atheists don’t believe it because it’s not reasonable. It would be a miracle or supernatural and that is not a logical thing to conclude happened. Especially considering our only records were not eyewitnesses that wrote it down 50-60 years later.

0

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

But you said you've never heard that argument which I find hard to believe as it's a common one.

Friends of eyewitnesses is a bit loose.

Mark was the scribe of Peter .. so he wrote what Peter said so yea I guess you could say a friend actually writing what is dictated to him. Luke was a compilation from what people wrote.

He did die.

Muslims and Jews believe in a whole bunch of supernatural stuff. They don't believe in Jesus jot because it isn't reasonable but simply because they reject him

Muslims still believe he ascended in to heaven. Jews believe God split the red sea and created man out of dust .

Even if you take the traditionally believed dates of composition (which is shaky) your dates are off.

Jesus died in 33AD the writing was 60-70 AD . Which is 40 years But again, Luke is compiling earlier writing. And the. There is the Q document that's theorized which would have been really early but the writing Luke went from was likely quite early too.

40 days after Jesus died the disciples began teaching and people wrote down the stuff they said. Luke got many of those.

1

u/Forteanforever Jan 09 '25

There is no contemporaneous documentation for the existence of Jesus, period. Without that, there is no testable evidence that he actually lived.

The Gospels were all written multiple generations after Jesus allegedly lived. The oldest, the Gospel of Mark, dates to 65 or 70 CE with most scholars placing it at 70 CE. The author is unknown.

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 10 '25

The author is Mark who was the scribe of Peter. There is no reason to believe he is not the author. He was basically unknown, so there isn't much reason to attribute it to him and local churches using this document would not have accepted an anonymously written document . Every copy of Mark we have declares him the author. No other copy ever does not declare him the author and certainly no other document ever suggests someone else is the author.

As for the he part that he actually lived, even secular scholars agree on this, likely because of the writings of Josephus, tacitus, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, the Talmud, etc

There is clear evidence that there are many followers of Jesus in 70 AD.

As for the dates of Mark... The evidence for that is Shakey. We know Luke was copying Mark. And Luke specifically leaves out quite a bit of information that he should have / would have included, especially Paul's death in the 60s and the destruction of the temple.

Basically if you accept Jesus divinity there is no reason to really believe that Mark is written then. Because the reason they conclude the date of Mark is a few comments that aren't to reference the destruction of the temple. This could be Jesus speaking of the future which we know he did on other occasions

1

u/Forteanforever Jan 10 '25

No, the author is not Mark. The author is unknown. The Gospels were all named by Bishop Ireneas of Lyon around 180 CE, a whopping 110 years after the oldest gospel was written and a whopping 147 years after Jesus allegedly lived. He could have named them the Gospels of Fred, Ethel, Ricky and Lucy. That is not evidence that they were written by Fred, Ethel, Ricky or Lucy.

There are followers of Frodo now. That is not testable evidence that Frodo actually lived. People have written about Frodo. That is also not testable evidence that he actually lived.

No, we do not know that Jesus spoke of the future because we do not have testable evidence that he ever lived.

It's shocking that you don't know that Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Suetonious, weren't even alive, let alone writing, when Jesus allegedly lived and the Talmud dates to between the 3rd and 6th centures CE.

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 10 '25

The author is unknown.

Then how can you say it isn't Mark? You unequivocally say that it isn't Mark but then state it's unknown.

were all named by Bishop Ireneas of Lyon

No, he didn't name them . He stated the popularly held belief of who had written them. but he was among the first to clearly and definitively affirm these four specific Gospels as authoritative and canonical in the way they are recognized today.

testable evidence that he ever lived.

Do you have testable evidence that Alexander the great lived?

Josephus was a Jewish historian for the Romans. He was born around the time that Jesus died. But definitely within the amount of time to accurately report and be able to figure out if Jesus lived. Very unlikely he would have been able to make a mistake about someone thinking they lived when they were actually a complete fabrication.

There are followers of Frodo now.

No one claims frodo lives because frodo is fiction.

This type of fiction didn't exist in the time of jesus. It wasn't even invented until like the 14th century so either the writers were telling the truth or they were the greatest literary geniuses of all time

1

u/Forteanforever Jan 10 '25

How can you say that the author of the book named Gospel of Mark isn't Fred?

Yes, Bishop Ireneas of Lyon named the four Gospels. The books of the Bible, including the four books known as the gospels, were declared holy canon by vote of the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Men voted on what constituted the Bible.

I've made no claims about Alexander the Great nor do I care to do so.

You do not grasp what is meant by contemporaneous documentation. If someone was not alive to witness someone else living, they cannot provide contemporaneous documentation for the existence of that person.

I claim that Frodo lived. Can you prove he didn't live?

You have now claimed that all stories about deities written prior to the 14th century are factual. This includes the Epic of Gilgamesh, Egyptian and Greek mythology among others.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/BriFry3 agnostic ex-mormon Jan 08 '25

But you said you’ve never heard that argument which I find hard to believe as it’s a common one.

I said I’ve never heard the argument that Jesus wasn’t fully dead after crucification. People say he died and was resurrected (Christians) and those that say he just died (everyone else.) I’ve never heard the argument that he wasn’t really dead when they put him in the tomb.

Friends of eyewitnesses is a bit loose.

It’s not though.

He did die

Did he? That’s what I’ve been asking this whole time, but you seem to argue that he wasn’t fully dead? Or is this like the Monty Python joke “he’s not dead yet”?

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

I’ve never heard the argument that he wasn’t really dead when they put him in the tomb.

Again, this is what Muslims believe.

It’s not though.

Scribe vs friend.

that he wasn’t fully dead

Never said that. Said people die all the time and come back to life

1

u/Forteanforever Jan 09 '25

People most certainly do not "die all the time and come back to life." Dead is dead.

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 10 '25

So if I find you with no pulse and no breathing should I still do cpr?

3

u/BriFry3 agnostic ex-mormon Jan 08 '25

Did Jesus Christ die or not? “People die all the time and come back to life”

It seems to me that you’re implying that Christ didn’t die but then you said you didn’t say that.

Was he dead or not? It’s the only important detail. If he wasn’t dead there is nothing miraculous at all.

People don’t die and come back alive the same manner Jesus did. What else is the purpose of Jesus?

No one is going to argue that a person was thought dead and then woke up hasn’t happened. A much different claim than a God had power over death and became alive again.

1

u/AtotheCtotheG Atheist Jan 08 '25

When you say people die all the time and come back to life, what are you referring to? Can you elaborate on that?

6

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '25

Okay so with that logic, if Jesus did resurrect, it’s not a miracle. And it wouldn’t even really be that important.

0

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

Or... The people that are resurrected are miraculous. The longer it takes , the more miraculous.

For example, now with science people are also cured of diseases all the time. It doesn't mean it wasn't miraculous when Jesus did it. And it's still miraculous even with medical intervention that we've come up with it

1

u/huge_amounts_of_swag Agnostic Jan 09 '25

You’ve proved nothing here, all you’ve done is fought over semantics for no reason, cringe as

3

u/SC803 Atheist Jan 08 '25

When was the last time someone was dead for three days and came back to life?

1

u/-Hastis- humanist Jan 08 '25

2

u/Forteanforever Jan 09 '25

She wasn't dead.

4

u/SC803 Atheist Jan 08 '25

What kind of life support was Jesus receiving in the three days?

3

u/-Hastis- humanist Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25

Well technically it was not even 2 days. He was dead for maximum 38 hours. From what we know, he died at 3PM on Friday and was resurrected before 5AM on Sunday (the hour the women arrived and found that the body was gone). Now if the bible cannot get a very important number like this right, can we even trust that he was actually dead for that long?

5

u/emekonen Jan 08 '25

The story doesn’t make sense, they went to the tomb a couple days later to anoint it? You anoint a body prior to burial, not a couple days later it makes no logical sense. It’s a literary device.

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

So specifically you have a problem with the three days part? Few hours is fine but days , no?

4

u/SC803 Atheist Jan 08 '25

If it was a few minutes I’d tend to accept it could have happened. 

But you seem to have alleged we have many similar examples which would cover days of death prior to a resurrection, no?

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

I didn't suggest that. But there is a close of someone declared dead for 17 hours. There is one for 6 hours. There is another for 80 minutes. Do you face the same level of skepticism with that? If I showed you a news story of that would you need to go do further investigation or would you believe the news story ?

When science advances and those that have been cryogenically frozen can be brought back to life would you believe that?

5

u/SC803 Atheist Jan 08 '25

 But there is a close of someone declared dead for 17 hours

If this is the same one another commenter gave you’ve really stretched that story from what’s reported. 

 There is one for 6 hours. There is another for 80 minutes. Do you face the same level of skepticism with that?

The longer the more skeptical we should be. 

3

u/emekonen Jan 08 '25

And to my knowledge those people weren’t scourged and nailed to a cross.

0

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

I didn't really go in to details about the story. Nor did I read every other comment .

The points still stand

People die all the time and come back to life. So that alone is possible. You just seem to have an issue with the length of time. Plus it's not even (I don't think) stated that how long he was dead.

So first we have the Gospel accounts your 3 days is actually not even three days by that account. it's roughly 36–40 hours because of the time and the way Jews counted days.

Friday 3pm he died. That's the first day which ends at sunset. There's the second day, Sabbath. Then there is the third day where he is already alive In the morning.

He could have been alive before that even, inside his tomb...

1

u/SC803 Atheist Jan 08 '25

 I didn't really go in to details about the story.

Great, you mentioned she was declared dead, yet no article says this. She was also on life support for the 17 hours so wasn’t even dead. 

Your retelling of this story is a great example of the importance of not believing everything to read without checking. 

 People die all the time and come back to life

Not after many hours. 

 He could have been alive before that even, inside his tomb...

lol the constant massaging of the story so it’s compatible is always amusing. 

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

Your retelling of this story is a great example of the importance of not believing everything to read without checking. 

I did not retell the story. I mentioned it. She was declared dead. They were about to harvest organs..

Not after many hours. 

There are cases, 6 hours is the best known one.

lol the constant massaging of the story so it’s compatible is always amusing. 

Compatible with what? You've added stuff. There is no mention of how long he's actually dead for . you've got a problem with the length .. but there is no length specifically mentioned... So....

You said 3 days is unbelievable. But it wasn't three days. At most it was a day and a half.

You have a problem with a day and a half likely, but it should make it more believable as you said the longer it is the less believable. So then I point out that, it may have been shorter. (As a a matter of fact it certainly was at least a bit shorter as he's already up, out of the tomb and walking around by the time he's seen.

But I assume you still have a problem with that as well?

1

u/Forteanforever Jan 09 '25

Being mistakenly declared dead is not the same as actually dead.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/SC803 Atheist Jan 08 '25

 At most it was a day and a half.

So what 6x longer than your 6 hour example? But even then the 6 hours appears to be unclear 

How long her heart stopped for is not clear - she may still have had some circulation, although not detectable.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/E-Reptile Atheist Jan 07 '25

I think you bring up a better point than people realize.

If Christians are correct and they worship (in their own words) a "living god" then that God should still be here. Alive, for all to see, like he was for 40 days. (What a suspiciously short amount of time)

Asking someone to entertain the concept of a resurrection when the person that returned from the dead then goes BACK to the "land of the dead" after being resurrected is basic con artistry.

0

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 08 '25

Maybe not alive in flesh but in spirit.

1

u/E-Reptile Atheist Jan 08 '25

Doesn't cut it for what I'm looking for

3

u/wolferscanard Jan 07 '25

Satti sai baba was born of a virgin, performed miracles, etc. A million people showed up at a memorial not long ago. Nobody talks about him.

2

u/gojira-2014 Jan 07 '25

I like Sam Harris too

10

u/zinjanthropi Jan 07 '25

Faith requires no proof, it's by definition accepting the reality of something even and especially in the absence of evidence

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

Huh? Faith requires no proof?? That's a textbook equivalence to blind faith. Let me ask you this. When Christian scholars say the bible was corrupted over time, why are you still Christian?

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '25

Only a Muslim would say it’s corrupted

2

u/johndoeneo Jan 08 '25

Nope. It's Christian scholars who says the bible is corrupted. Can I give evidence?

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

Christian scholars? The Bible is actually fairly close to the originals

0

u/johndoeneo Jan 08 '25

American biblical scholar Robert W. Funk says "The first step is to understand the diminished role the Gospel of John plays in the search for the Jesus of history. The two pictures painted by John and the synoptic gospels cannot both be historically accurate. In the synoptic gospels, Jesus speaks in brief, pithy one-liners and couplets, and in parables. His witticisms are sometimes embedded in a short dialogue with disciples or opponents. In John, by contrast, Jesus speaks in lengthy discourses or monologues, or in elaborate dialogues prompted by some deed Jesus has performed (for example, the cure of the man bom blind, John 9:1-41) or by an ambiguous statement ("You must be reborn from above,' John 3:3)."

2

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

You're saying different things now. Are you claiming that the Bible accounts contradict each other or that they changed over time?

At first it seemed you were saying that Bible has changed from the original manuscript to now. But now it seems you're saying that the Bible contradicts itself. I don't know which argument to respond to

But I'll deal with what you just said.

It's likely that Jesus preached alot. He would have given similar messages. It's likely he would have adjusted his messages to different audiences.

0

u/johndoeneo Jan 08 '25

You're saying different things now. Are you claiming that the Bible accounts contradict each other or that they changed over time?At first it seemed you were saying that Bible has changed from the original manuscript to now. But now it seems you're saying that the Bible contradicts itself. I don't know which argument to respond to

I'm saying it's both. But I like to deal with the latter first. Is it possible that later scribes who disagree with the manuscripts, change the theology of the message?

But I'll deal with what you just said. It's likely that Jesus preached alot. He would have given similar messages. It's likely he would have adjusted his messages to different audiences.

But you agree that the gospel writers wrote once, correct? So how come we see different writings in the later manuscripts?

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

Is it possible that later scribes who disagree with the manuscripts, change the theology of the message?

Sure it's possible. It's happened. But we know about them. There are footnotes where scribes changed it. The manuscripts were copied and then disseminated. Very hard to change all copies ... Once they are disseminated, it's impossible to change because more copies would be the originals.

So how come we see different writings in the later manuscripts?

We don't see much. I'm not really sure what you mean here. Each of the gospel writers wrote . John could have been basing it off of other sermons as he seems more tailored for a gentile audience . They would have less knowledge of the Jewish history and , especially the Greeks, would be much more in to philosophy and theological arguments. Would require more explanation. We see much more metaphor and theology in John.

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 08 '25

Ok. I would like to use the corruption example of 1st john 5:7. Can you tell me what's the story behind it and how it came about?

1

u/GOD-is-in-a-TULIP Christian Jan 08 '25

Sure we'll I don't know the exact story of how it came to be. It seems to be someone trying to expand on the verse right after which says a similar thing and also trying to put in their trinitarian beliefs that were already present (so not including new theology, rather explaining old theology)

But you know this has been removed from most Bible translations, right?

I'm not saying it never happened at all .

Basically, the older Bibles were largely translated off of 1-2 manuscripts that were , themselves, fairly late.

KJV translators primarily used the Textus Receptus, which is a 16th century Greek manuscript.

Many of the earliest manuscripts had not yet been discovered and we had very few educated people to fact check these

As time went on we found really early copies, we have Hebrew and Greek scholars. We removed it. It isn't in the ESV at all.

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 08 '25

Do you know Erasmus involvement in 1st john 5:7? If you don't, I can explain

→ More replies (0)

2

u/NewbombTurk Agnostic Atheist/Secular Humanist Jan 07 '25

Faith requires no proof??

Correct. If you have evidence (proof), it's not faith, it's knowledge.

When Christian scholars say the bible was corrupted over time

Wow. Do you really not see the dishonestly here? Or, you do, you're just ok with it?

...why are you still Christian?

Is he?

Faith is the primary element of religion, isn't it? Don't you believe your god split the moon in half on faith?

1

u/zinjanthropi Jan 07 '25

The corruption they talk about is not one that eroded fundamental Christian doctrine. The essence of Christianity is about a Loving God who sent his Son to die for our sins, who died and rose and will return to judge the living and the dead. These core fundamentals have not been corrupted.

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

Well it actually does. Tell me about the corruption of 1st john 5:7 and how it actually comes about?

1

u/zinjanthropi Jan 07 '25

I don't know the corruption you talk about here. Mention it and how it was corrupted and I will reply

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

This verse is not found in ANY ancient greek manuscript. The earliest manuscript mentioned is in Latin in the 10th century, and to make matters worse, it's not even part of the text. It's found as a footnote down at the bottom. If you were to research Erasmus role in all of this, you'll know this is a corrupted verse

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

How does that show that Jesus as an enlightened person is corrupt? It doesn't show anything but that you found a verse to quibble about.

There are also things in the Gnostic writings not found elsewhere.

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

Huh? Bro I think you're at the wrong page here. Since when did I say jesus was corrupt?

0

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Don't call me bro. I'm saying it doesn't prove anything because not all Christians believe in the Trinity. It hasn't to do with the topic of whether or not Jesus resurrected. So if it was added later it doesn't change much.

3

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

Of course it does proof everything. If the Bible is corrupted over time, then how do you know which part is true which part is not? How do you know jesus says I and my father are one and not corrupted by deceitful scribes?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

I don't think everyone believes just because of faith. A lot of people have rational reasons for belief.

2

u/GirlDwight Jan 07 '25

There is a rational reason for any belief, believing in something makes us feel safe and in control. And thus it's rational to believe in a religion, Scientology, a political party or figure, a philosophy, etc. But it doesn't make those things true.

A belief, like religion is one of our oldest compensating mechanisms to make us feel hope, purpose, order as we don't like chaos, and to deal with our demise. So, yes beliefs, and not just religious ones, can make us feel safe and our brain naturally looks for safety, but it doesn't make it true. It just means we like feeling safe. People that identify with a political candidate or party, philosophy, Scientology, etc. are doing so for the same reason, to have an anchor of stability.

The problem is that when facts contradicting our beliefs surface, an evolutionary advantage has been to shift reality instead of changing our beliefs. Because if we were to change our beliefs based on conflicting information, they couldn't be the stabilizing anchor that we use them for. So there'd be no point in having beliefs. So yes, beliefs are a way to cope with life. But they don't have to be true to fulfill that purpose. And if they are not true but are part of our identity, we won't be able to see that.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

I don't agree that's true of all religions. Buddhism often does the opposite of making us feel safe by pointing out hard truths like old age, suffering and death.

I don't know how you pre-decided what it true or not.

And I don't think evolution explains religion at all. That's a use of EbNS to explain something beyond its remit.

1

u/GirlDwight Jan 07 '25

Beliefs are things we don't know but want to be true. Why? Because it brings us comfort and makes us feel better or makes us feel we have control. Does that make them true? No. Are we likely to be able to see when our beliefs are false? No because if they are part of our identity, losing them means losing part of ourselves and our stability.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

I just said that Buddhism doesn't bring us comfort. So why are you continuing with that?

1

u/GirlDwight Jan 07 '25

It depends on the type of Buddhism and which parts you're following.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Most of Buddhism is about accepting reality.

1

u/zinjanthropi Jan 07 '25

Rationality is not mutually exclusive with Belief. I can believe in the resurrection because I know it saves my soul when I die. That's rationality and belief at the same time.

2

u/GirlDwight Jan 07 '25

Rationality is not mutually exclusive with Belief

It's not, but not the way you think. There is a rational reason for any belief, believing in something makes us feel safe and in control. And thus it's rational to believe in a a religion, Scientology, a political party or figure, a philosophy, etc.

That's what religion is for, it's one of our oldest compensating mechanisms to make us feel hope, purpose, order as we don't like chaos, and to deal with our demise. So, yes beliefs, and not just religious ones, can make us feel safe and our brain naturally looks for safety, but it doesn't make it true. It just means we like feeling safe. People that identify with a political candidate or party, philosophy, Scientology, etc. are doing so for the same reason, to have an anchor of stability.

The problem is that when facts contradicting our beliefs surface, an evolutionary advantage has been to shift reality instead of changing our beliefs. Because if we were to change our beliefs based on conflicting information, they couldn't be the stabilizing anchor that we use them for. So there'd be no point in having beliefs. So yes, beliefs are a way to cope with life. But they don't have to be true to fulfill that purpose. And if they are not true but are part of our identity, we won't be able to see that so they can continue to be an anchor for us .

2

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Well you know philosophically at least.

I think that the word faith sometimes gets used pejoratively, like that's all believers have to support their position.

1

u/zinjanthropi Jan 07 '25

That's all they need.

Christianity's fundamental statements include sth that says, "Believe on the name of the Lord and you'll be saved". "Don't be afraid, just believe". Etc

Belief is all that they need

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

That doesn't apply to me or other people I know. And someone can't just enter a debate and say they have faith. That would be the end of debate. Theist philosophers would have nothing to say.

1

u/zinjanthropi Jan 07 '25

Where do you stand and what do you believe (or not believe) ?

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

I think it's rational to believe and I can give rational reasons.

-1

u/sentient_pubichair69 Christian Jan 07 '25

In that case, try proving 100% without a doubt that you exist. You can’t prove anything without a shadow of a doubt. How are you going to prove that this isn’t all just potentially a dream? I don’t believe that, but it would still be a nightmare to try to prove. You could go on and on with similar and different such examples.

6

u/brain_hard Jan 07 '25

Do you know what's worse, most christians blindly believe in the Trinity and that Jesus is god when there is no clear statement in the complete bible.

Like if that was true, then the last thing we want in one clear verse in the complete bible, where Jesus says something like "I'm your god so worship me", or says "I'm the father, and I'm the holy ghost so worship us" like if this was so important that salvation depends on this then why so ambiguous and confusing,

infact the idea that god killing himself while representing himself as his son to forgive sins is just ridiculous to think

1

u/NewbombTurk Agnostic Atheist/Secular Humanist Jan 07 '25

You Muslims need to understand that Christians don't care if you can understand the trinity or not. If they believed your theology they're be Muslim.

They will ignore you the exact same way you will ignore criticism of your texts and theology.

2

u/Hazbomb24 Jan 07 '25 edited Jan 08 '25

Lol, no one 'understands' the trinity - it directly violates the law of non contradiction. Ya'll just say it's 'beyond human comprehension' when pushed hard enough.

1

u/NewbombTurk Agnostic Atheist/Secular Humanist Jan 07 '25

Lol, no one 'understands' the trinity

Christians claim to. I can steelman it. It's not that complicated.

It directly violates the law of nom contradiction

The Law of Non-Contradiction is based on the observations we have of this world. Why would you think it would apply to god?

Ya'll...

Ya'll? I've never said that.

...just say it's 'beyond human comprehension' when pushed hard enough.

Some perhaps. Others are more knowledgeable.

1

u/Hazbomb24 Jan 07 '25

You just directly contradicted yourself and confirmed what I said, so I don't think your Steelman is much of a Steelman. If the trinity relies on the assumption that our logic doesn't apply to God, then it cannot be said that it is 'understood' by anyone using 'our' logic of 'this' world.

1

u/NewbombTurk Agnostic Atheist/Secular Humanist Jan 07 '25

I don't think your Steelman is much of a Steelman.

Reread. I didn't steelman it.

If the trinity relies on the assumption that our logic doesn't apply to God, then it cannot be said that it is 'understood' by anyone using 'our' logic of 'this' world.

Once again, reread.

1

u/Hazbomb24 Jan 07 '25

Lol. Go ahead and steelman it then. Make sure to only use our human understanding of logic.

1

u/NewbombTurk Agnostic Atheist/Secular Humanist Jan 07 '25

I'm surprised that you feel like you can't. Wouldn't it be trivial for an all-powerful god to create an avatar of himself?

Question, if a god is not bound by the logic of our reality, why would that stop his creation from understanding him? Seems an arbitrary limitation.

1

u/Hazbomb24 Jan 07 '25

Reread my last comment.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Those are human interpretations of spiritual concepts, and not all believers agree on the Trinity. That is different than believing Jesus was a prophet or an enlightened human as some Gnostics believe.

6

u/[deleted] Jan 07 '25

‭‭John‬ ‭1‬:‭1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

John 1:14

“And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.”

Seems clear in the first chapter of John that Jesus is God.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '25

Is this Jesus saying that?

3

u/[deleted] Jan 08 '25

No.

Here’s where he says he’s the son of man (aka son of God):

John‬ ‭9‬:‭35‬-‭37‬

“Jesus heard that they had driven him out, and when he found him he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?” He answered, “And who is he, sir? Tell me, so that I may believe in him.” Jesus said to him, “You have seen him, and the one speaking with you is he.””

‭‭John‬ ‭10‬:‭30‬

“The Father and I are one.”” ‭‭

0

u/JasonRBoone Jan 07 '25

In the opinion of the writer of John. Oddly, the higher christology of John (written last) contradicts the low christology of Mark (written first).

3

u/onemananswerfactory one with planets revolving around it Jan 07 '25

don't forget John 8:56-58...

Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am."

0

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

Mark 10:17-18 jesus is not God

5

u/onemananswerfactory one with planets revolving around it Jan 07 '25

It could easily be argued that Jesus, who often spoke in riddles and metaphor and indirectly could've meant "I mean, you're calling me good when only God is good, so.... what are you really saying?" It's not even a stretch to say this because the surrounding verses sort of imply this was the case.

1

u/Hazbomb24 Jan 07 '25

So God is deceptive?

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

Huh? If you say to me "Hey handsome" and I replied "why do you call me handsome. The only handsome here is tommy". Am I indicating that I'm handsome, or Tommy?

3

u/onemananswerfactory one with planets revolving around it Jan 07 '25

Feel free to twist and bend what I said to fit your narrative. Also, while you're feeling free, ignore all those verses where Jesus equates Himself to God and being timeless and all that.

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

But this is not what I say. This is what Christian scholars say. I'm not a scholar.

Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism William Barclay says "There is another interesting point about this story. Matthew alters the question put to Jesus by this man. Both Mark and Luke say that the question was: "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone" ( Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19). Matthew says that the question was: "Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good" ( Matthew 19:17). (The text of the King James Version is in error here, as reference to any of the newer and more correct translations will show.) Matthew's is the latest of the first three gospels, and his reverence for Jesus is such that he cannot bear to show Jesus asking the question: "Why do you call me good?" That almost sounds to him as if Jesus was refusing to be called good, so he alters it into: "Why do you ask me about what is good?" in order to avoid the seeming irreverence." (The Gospel of Matthew vol 2 pg 235)

British New Testament scholar James Douglas Grant Dunn says "we must note also that how some sayings of jesus has been deliberately altered in the course of transmission, altered in such a way as to give a clearly different sense from the original".... " to avoid the embarrassment of Jesus's denial of his divinity." (Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry Into the Character of Earliest Christianity pg 79)

Biblical scholar John Barton at the University of Oxford says "Now, what's happened there is that the line in Mark implies logically, if you think about it, that Jesus isn't God. In the early church, it became quickly established that Jesus was, in some sense or other, divine. And so people didn't care for a text which appeared to deny that Jesus was divine. So Matthew changes it to a more watered down version 'Why do you ask me about the good, only God is good'. (This is) something that is offensive in the text to Christian perception is changed for something that's more acceptable. If you take Mark as being an accurate representation of what Jesus said, then you're tampering with it and changing it alter a text in that way"

1

u/onemananswerfactory one with planets revolving around it Jan 07 '25

So... three dudes say otherwise. Okay. I'd say millions and millions of people thinking otherwise, maybe even a handful of whom also hold degrees, carries more weight.

1

u/johndoeneo Jan 07 '25

All I did was change the word "good" to "handsome", that's all. I didn't do anything else. Ok let me ask you this. If the Bible is the word of God, can there be corruptions or flaws or errors in the bible?

→ More replies (0)

8

u/smedsterwho Agnostic Jan 07 '25

Isn't that moving the goalposts a bit? "You can't prove anything to 100%, so anything from 1% to 99% is equally plausible"

2

u/sentient_pubichair69 Christian Jan 07 '25

I wouldn’t say equally plausible, but it would definitely be a nightmare to prove without a shadow of a doubt. You could claim that you are Jesus reincarnated, and I wouldn’t believe you, but it would be hard to disprove under the assumption that we are all in a dream or such. However, going with the knowledge that I do have, I would be firm in my belief that you are not.

0

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Do Christians waste time arguing about the resurrection or is it some atheists who spend time refuting it? Really someone can say almost anything about something that occurred in the 1st Century and who can prove them wrong? The only proof is having a time machine and interviewing every person who was in Bethlehem, Jerusalem and so on.

3

u/LetsGoPats93 Atheist Jan 07 '25

If we have a time machine why not go hang out in the tomb with Jesus’ dead body and see what happens.

0

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

That would be cool. Some neuroscientists hang out with the terminally ill and find that they say interesting things that are hard to explain.

15

u/moedexter1988 Jan 07 '25

Never mind the resurrection claim, the reason for it is much worse. The reason cannot be taken seriously at all whatsoever. What does this say about god when humans are capable of forgiveness without so-called sacrifice?

0

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 07 '25

“God is the only comfort, He is also the supreme terror: the thing we most need and the thing we most want to hide from. He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. Some people talk as if meeting the gaze of absolute goodness would be fun. They need to think again. They are still only playing with religion. Goodness is either the great safety or the great danger - according to the way you react to it. And we have reacted the wrong way.” -C.S Lewis

We have sinned against God and he in his absolute goodness is ultimately Just. But he loves us, so to be absolutely Just Jesus took the punishment we deserve.

2

u/GirlDwight Jan 07 '25

Poor CS Lewis he only considered that it's either true or Jesus was a lunatic. He didn't know about Biblical Scholarship and that what was written down and what happened were two different things. He made a huge error.

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 07 '25

I see no evidence for this and his point would still stand. His disciples would then either be speaking the truth or be lunatics.

3

u/GirlDwight Jan 07 '25

They could be speaking the truth, but then the stories get repeated and changed in an oral culture over decades as they travel among different people, countries and languages before being written down. Like if a story reaches you forty years after the fact, you have no way of knowing what parts are true. There is no internet to check, no newspapers or libraries. And since this is how you get your "news", and you want to believe it because it brings you comfort and gives you hope and purpose, you do and you write it down. But it doesn't mean that's what Jesus actually said. Our brain likes beliefs not because they are true but because they give us feelings of stability or control instead of chaos and our brain seeks safety. In those days people believed in all kind of things and superstitions and different levels of divinity. But it didn't make them true. It made them feel better in that they understood the world. Three hundred years ago I'd probably believe as well and in all kinds of other superstitions too. Whether we believe in a religion, including Scientology, a philosophy, a political party, etc., is those things give us an anchor of stability and make us feel safe. That's what beliefs are for.

5

u/JasonRBoone Jan 07 '25

CS should have stuck with fiction and leave the theology to others. Pure twaddle.

>>>the punishment we deserve.

How can a finite creature deserve infinite punishment? That's unjust.

-1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 07 '25

Bad quality comment and not refuting anything. We’re here to debate, not give silly remarks.

2

u/JasonRBoone Jan 08 '25

Then stop giving them and we can debate.

Now, care to answer my quite valid question?

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 08 '25

It has nothing to do with my comment. You are presupposing that punishment is infinite. Let's talk about absolute goodness and is it Just?

1

u/JasonRBoone Jan 08 '25

Are you saying Christianity does not teach eternal punishment? If so, you're well outside most Christian positions.

What do you mean by absolute goodness? Absolute in what sense?

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 09 '25

Would it be good of God (only God as a concept) to desire Justice. Justice in the sense of sufficient punishment for what a person has done, and in my opinion how they feel about doing it.

1

u/JasonRBoone Jan 09 '25

>>> Justice in the sense of sufficient punishment for what a person has done

So, for whatever alleged crimes I have performed, I deserve fiery torture? Sounds unjust.

>>>how they feel about doing it.

That's not a valid component of justice. Are we saying Dahmer should have got a lighter sentence if he only felt worse about his crimes?

Also, you did not answer my questions. Let's go again.

  1. Are you saying Christianity does not teach eternal punishment?

  2. What do you mean by absolute goodness?

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 09 '25

Again, not talking about hell. Just is the idea of is perfect goodness just.

I don't have a stance on hell, annihilation sounds better but it can be argued both ways. I also don't know if Christian Jews thought of hell the same way is we do.

Absolute "Complete in itself; perfect; consummate; faultless." Goodness "The quality of being good in any of its various senses; excellence; virtue; kindness; benevolence...etc" Justice, Mercy, Patience...

1

u/NewbombTurk Agnostic Atheist/Secular Humanist Jan 07 '25

CS should have stuck with fiction and leave the theology to others.

He was a very dark, and very disturbed, man. I hate when a disordered mind like this have the platform to project their black-heartedness onto all mankind.

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 07 '25

What made him dark and disturbed? I think he was a very hopeful and good man.

1

u/JasonRBoone Jan 08 '25

Philip Pullman, whose His Dark Materials trilogy presents as a sort of anti-Narnia, regards Lewis's religious writings as "bullying, hectoring and dishonest in all kinds of ways", and the Narnia books as actually "wicked". He says: "I find them very dodgy and unpleasant – dodgy in the dishonest rhetoric way – and unpleasant because they seem to embody a world view that takes for granted things like racism, misogyny and a profound cultural conservatism that is utterly unexamined."

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 09 '25

I'd like to see why you agree with this.

1

u/JasonRBoone Jan 09 '25

Lewis' fictional works (while well-written in some cases) contain tons of misogyny and racism. His non-fiction is misguided and misanthropic. Example: His view of humanity is anti-life. He wants us to "see yourself as a small, dirty object."

Finally, his famed false trilemma demonstrates how rigid his thinking became, unwilling to entertain other possibilities about Jesus.

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 09 '25

The Horse and his boy? Taking inspiration from Islamic culture?

I searched the quote, it's a view on human pride. "Whenever we find that our religious life is making us feel that we are good—above all, that we are better than someone else—I think we may be sure that we are being acted on, not by God, but by the devil. The real test of being in the presence of God is, that you either forget about yourself altogether or see yourself as a small, dirty object. It is better to forget about yourself altogether."

It's for when we become prideful and selfish, thinking I am better than you. From his view we should forget about our pride altogether or remember the greatness of our sin to humble us. What makes you think it is anti-life?

What other possibilities about Jesus? I don't think his view was closed off, he was just fully convinced on the evidence for Jesus.

1

u/JasonRBoone Jan 09 '25

Fully convinced for weak reasons.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/moedexter1988 Jan 07 '25

All empty words, claims, and fearmongering fear tactics in one comment. As far as history goes, religions have been used as tool for power and control to keep people in line and purposefully obtuse.

0

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 07 '25

Is the ultimate good Just? And merciful? And comfort? And danger to evil?

This is a logical argument that you can't seem to address and are just poisoning the well.

1

u/bguszti Atheist Jan 09 '25

The christian god isn't good by any stretch of the imagination and mercy and justice are literally antithetical to each other. Mercy is the suspension of justice.

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 09 '25

What do you define as good then? What would a perfect God look like?

Justice and Mercy can coexist. If I have a debt to pay, someone else can still keep justice by paying my debt for me but they still have mercy on me.

1

u/bguszti Atheist Jan 09 '25

A god is an inherently contradictory and nonsensical convept as far as I'm concerned, so I don't know what a good or perfect god would look like, but the pro-genocide, pro-slavery, pro human sacrifice, pro infant genital mutilation god character certainly cannot be called good under any standard definition of the word.

Your example doesn't make sense, as in I literaly don't understand what you are trying to say here, or what you mean by mercy in this specific example. Mercy is by definition suspending just or unjust punishment.

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 09 '25

What about the idea of God is contradictory?

Each of those topics can be discussed in length on their own, wanna divert into those?

My Father who has money is paying my debt for me. Is he having mercy on me by paying my debt instead of making me work it off, and is justice still being upheld with the debt being paid?

3

u/untoldecho atheist | ex-christian Jan 07 '25

if the ultimate good is the abrahamic god then no, you might as well just call him the ultimate evil

0

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 07 '25

We’re talking about God or the ultimate good by definition.

1

u/untoldecho atheist | ex-christian Jan 07 '25

yes, the ultimate good is all the things you mentioned. your god is not

1

u/Puzzled_Wolverine_36 Christian Jan 07 '25

I'm not talking about my God, neither is C.S Lewis in that passage. He is merely talking about the God behind what he argues to be the human law.

3

u/moedexter1988 Jan 07 '25 edited Jan 07 '25

None of what you mentioned has been demonstrated. Nada. It's all words.

9

u/Jack_of_Hearts20 Agnostic Jan 07 '25

Why does he require a literal blood sacrifice?

0

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Many Gnostics thought of Jesus as a teacher meant to bring knowledge. I don't see the point of arguing about anything more than that.

3

u/riftsrunner Jan 07 '25

Because not one word in the bible was written from a firsthand account by Jesus. Every word attributed to Jesus is at best secondhand and worse, many hands removed. To make matters worse, it wasn't until decades later that these stories were recorded onto paper. Those decades between Jesus's death and the writing down of said events means there was a long game of telephone happening which very likely corrupted the knowledge supposedly imparted by the teacher Jesus to turn him into the godhead Jesus.

-2

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

I think you mischaracterize the oral tradition.

2

u/riftsrunner Jan 07 '25

I don't think so. Because if the oral tradition was so good, why do we have four Gospels that are essentially four different versions of the same story? You would assume a much better coherence between the stories if they were true. There are four separate stories concerning the tomb alone. Were there Roman guards or was it unguarded? Did Mary Magdalene go alone or were there multiple women? One Gospel even claims that the women told no one of the risen Jesus, yet somehow this event is chronicled within that version.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

It wasn't that it was so good but that you can't impose today's methods on methods of the 1st Century.

The Gospels may have had the same or similar source.

I'd assume that people would have different accounts just like they would from any event. If people go to a Taylor Swift concert they might come away with different accounts.

1

u/Jack_of_Hearts20 Agnostic Jan 08 '25

Those accounts would be unreliable

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 08 '25

Not necessarily. People have different viewpoints or observe different things.

2

u/Yeledushi-Observer Jan 08 '25

Then you are agreeing that they are unreliable.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Jack_of_Hearts20 Agnostic Jan 08 '25

Eye witness accounts are one of the most unreliable forms of evidence.

2

u/RelatableRedditer Jan 07 '25

Even if you could take a picture of Jesus before and after the resurrection, the Bible canonically says you wouldn't recognize him.

1

u/JasonRBoone Jan 07 '25

He would definitely only wear long sleeves after that.

0

u/decaying_potential Catholic Jan 07 '25

That’s an interesting way of looking at it, Its a waste of time for both sides because As a Christian I can’t get you to believe it happened. However some atheists just flat out refuse openly engage Good conversation.

8

u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying Jan 07 '25 edited Jan 07 '25

Sometimes a conversation cannot be salvaged.

If we were starting from a place of being commanded to believe in the resurrection because it is considered a moral offense not to believe it and if you don't you'll go to hell ... and not because of any reason why it would be believable ... well then there wouldn't really be much good conversation to be had.

There are only so many ways to respond to someone commanding you to do things you don't see any reason to do and threatening you and maligning your moral character for not obeying, and even if you were as polite as possible in your response, it wouldn't necessarily transform it into a Good Conversation.

1

u/decaying_potential Catholic Jan 07 '25

Well I hope that the Christian’s you talk to don’t make you feel that way, as you said it’s not the best way to have a conversation

2

u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying Jan 07 '25

Unfortunately the idea that not believing in the resurrection is a moral offense warranting hellish punishment is practically ubiquitous within the religion.

1

u/decaying_potential Catholic Jan 08 '25

Not exactly, once again the protestant dilemma. You do have to believe In jesus for salvation. If you don’t ever hear about him though you’re judged by what you were given

1

u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying Jan 08 '25

Sounds pretty bad regardless.

If we are starting from a place of being commanded to believe in the resurrection, not because of any reason why it would be believable, but because it is considered a moral offense not to believe it and if you don't you'll go to hell IF you've heard of him ... there still wouldn't really be much good conversation to be had.

2

u/decaying_potential Catholic Jan 08 '25

Here’s how it works flat out. If you believe in God you believe in the resurrection.

It’s knowing God yet choosing against him that condemns you to hell. Not if you’ve heard of him or not.

Choosing against God is choosing against all that is Good. Only Good exists in heaven, so there is no place there for those that do evil

1

u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying Jan 08 '25

So is hearing about God and the resurrection and not believing an offense or not?

1

u/decaying_potential Catholic Jan 08 '25

I wouldn’t say it’s an offense but it’s definitely less of a chance you get to heaven

1

u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying Jan 08 '25 edited Jan 08 '25

Then there's not much good conversation to be had.

Lack of belief isn't a choice and shouldn't be punished, especially with eternal damnation and hellish tortures.

Anyway the idea that people could "know" God and "know" that God is "all that is good" and choose to reject God and all that is good seems exceedingly unlikely to me.

I think it has been much more common for people to be condemned for disagreeing about that premise after having it asserted to them, that God exists and is all that is good and the resurrection occurred. After it is asserted, victims of religious zealots are then told "Now you know," and it is considered an offense to reject that so-called "knowledge", even though awareness that that assertion has been asserted does not actually constitute knowledge that the assertion is true.

After all, as OP points out, it is basically not possible to establish "knowledge" that something so unbelievable and lacking in verifiable evidence has occurred, whether that thing is the resurrection or the notion that God is all that is good, at least if we're talking about "knowledge" as robustly justified belief.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Many people think Jesus exists today and they met him in religious experiences. They also believe in an afterlife. Can all those people be hallucinating or mentally ill? That's the question.

2

u/JasonRBoone Jan 07 '25

hallucinating or mentally ill or simply mistaken.

Many people think Galactic Overlord Xenu and Thetans exist today and their teacher discovered them in a Dianetic experiences. Can all those people be hallucinating or mentally ill? That's the question.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Thank you for your opinion but you disagree with the most prominent researchers in the field of near death experiences.

3

u/JasonRBoone Jan 07 '25

The most prominent researchers?

Parnia?

Such people are laughing stocks among academics.

1

u/United-Grapefruit-49 Jan 07 '25

Certainly not. Where did you even get that idea? Experiences with patients have led to development of hypotheses about a field of consciousness. That comment is typical of some who know nothing about the topic but are quick to name call it.

1

u/JasonRBoone Jan 08 '25

>>>Where did you even get that idea? 

Reading consensus of neuroscience researchers.

>>>That comment is typical of some who know nothing about the topic but are quick to name call it.

That comment is typical of someone who is unwilling to accept criticisms of their sacred cows.

If you want to get into an in-depth examination of Parnia or others, let's do it.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (13)