Christianity

In response to his points, I have a couple of points as well: Tacitus and the Crucifixion I think I have provided more than enough evidence to justify the belief that Jesus was executed by crucifixion, a fact with which even most liberal New Testament scholars agree. Con doesn’t really deny this point, but he says I haven’t offered “proof” that this is true. True proof can only be found in logic and mathematics, in the real world we assess the validity of facts with probabilities. For example, Tacitus’s contempt for Christians (a fact Con thinks supports his position) makes it unlikely Tacitus would consult them as a source for his writings and more likely that he used a Roman or Jewish source. This provides independent, unfavored, confirmation of Jesus’ existence and basic historicity. I have provided evidence for the crucifixion and my opponent, rather than provide evidence for an alternative account (another Gospel tradition, ancient secular historians, evidence from Paul’s letters, etc. ) merely speculates that “it could have been different. ” Yes it could, but we must go where the evidence leads. The Accuracy of the Gospels Con claims that my facts rely on the Gospels being accurate documents, but this is not true. They only rely on the New Testament documents being as reliable as any other ancient text, such as Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. [i] Plutarch’s writing is full of miracles and his account was written centuries after the events it describes, but historians do not dismiss the core historical truths that can be mined from it. Con asks why I accept sources like Tacitus but not the extra-canonical Gospels. The answer is that the extra-canonical Gospels, like the so-called Gospel of Peter, were written in the second and third centuries well after the events they describe. In contrast, the canonical Gospels were written within the first century. Mark comes from within one generation of the crucifixion and his source for the Passion has been dated to within 7 years of that event. Likewise, I showed that the creed that Paul uses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7 can be dated to within 5-10 years of the crucifixion. This is just not enough time for legend to develop and wipe out the core historical facts that are described in these accounts. Greco-Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White, after conducting a textual study of Herodotus for comparison, says that the rate of legendary accumulation in the Gospels would have to occur at an “unbelievable” rate for them to be simply myth that formed in such a short time after the events they describe. [ii] While it is true that Tacitus and Josephus are written later than the Gospels (but earlier than most extracanonical Gospels) they both have a proven track record in the ancient world as being reliable historians, so I consider their sources trustworthy. This is also the reason I trust the accounts in Acts and Luke. Luke, the author of both documents, proves himself to be a historian of the first rate. Richard Carrier, whom I cited before as probably the chief critic of the resurrection, remarked in a radio interview that while Luke was not a “critical” historian (or a naturalist), he was a “careful” historian. [iii] Questions that Con Posed: 1. How can someone be both man and god? To follow C. S. Lewis’s approach, the same way an author could insert himself into his own novel. The character in the novel would have all the attributes of the author and would transcend the characters, but he could also act immediately with the characters and share their attributes as well. Likewise, God the Son became man but he “emptied himself” of the independent use of his God-like abilities so that he could share our human nature. [iv] 2. How can god die? God cannot die, but if God assumed a human nature to compliment his divine nature, then he could experience death by allowing his human nature to be killed while the divine nature remains. 3. How can someone come back from the dead? I agree that a natural resurrection from the dead would be highly improbable. However, if God resurrected someone from the dead, then for a being that is capable of creating an entire universe, such a feat would be well-within his abilities. Furthermore, if Jesus claimed to be identical to this being, then his resurrection would vindicate those divine claims and give us a plausible explanation for such an unusual event. One last point, even if these theological questions cannot be resolved, they only count against the way that Christ was resurrected, not the fact that he was resurrected, which was the main point I was arguing. The Natural Explanation Con offers the following: “Jesus was a wise man who spoke about loving each other and warned people of a coming justice. He was crucified for political reasons. His body was placed in a tomb. On the third day after his burial his tomb was found empty. Following that many of jesus close friends had grief visions of their dead savior. As a result they either converted or reaffirmed their religion. ” I find this explanation much more improbable than the claim that Jesus validated his claims to divinity by rising from his own grave. First, why was Jesus killed by the Romans for “political reasons” when he was merely a wise man who taught people how to love? That would be like the President executing Mr. Rogers in order to maintain stability in the country. Second, why was the tomb empty? Con says that there are “near infinite” other explanations, but I don’t find them convincing. Stolen – By whom, and for what reason? If the apostles stole it, then why die for the obvious lie of the resurrection? If the Romans or Jews did it, then why not present the body and crush the Christian proclamation? Who else would have the motive to steal the body? Eaten by Animals – A dingo took my savior! Wouldn’t the apostles have noticed the torn burial clothes, bloodstains, and leftover parts of Jesus the animals had not eaten? Never Buried – Con must overcome the evidence I presented in favor of the burial account in order to make this claim. This is especially the case since no competing burial/death account exists in the ancient sources. As for grief-induced hallucinations, this is improbable because a hallucination is an individual occurrence. A group of people sharing a hallucination is as improbable as a group of people sharing a dream (inception not withstanding). If the Apostle’s had hallucinated, then why do they see Jesus acting the same way in the same place when each person is producing their own hallucination? Wouldn’t they describe his resurrected body and actions in radically different ways when they saw him as a group? Furthermore, Con says these grief induced hallucinations caused reaffirmation AND conversion. But Paul wasn’t suffering from grief as he even describes in his letters about how he, “used to persecute the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. ”[v] Grief induced hallucinations cannot explain his conversion. Finally, I think that Con finds supernatural explanations to be intrinsically more improbable than naturalistic explanations, but why should we believe that? I will discuss this more in my conclusion, but if Jesus’ resurrection adequately explains all five facts and doesn’t contort the data to do so, then why not accept it as, maybe not a 100% proof (since we can’t attain that in history), but a rational inference to the best explanation? [i] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [ii] A. N. Sherwin-White. Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963) 188-91. [iii] . http://infidelguy.libsyn.com... [iv] Philippians 2:7 [v] Galatians 1:13