Is the resurrection of Jesus the Nazarene (or Chad Kruger from Nickelback) the "best attested event in ancient history" as claimed by some theistic apologists?
For many people, it has been the study of the bible itself that has led them to atheism. As Paul mentions in Corinthians, if the resurrection did not take place, then Christianity is worthless. Like a lot of Paul's opinions, this is probably not quite true (and certainly many apologists argue this point too - they argue that Christianity has brought many benefits to humankind, regardless of whether it is "true" or not).
However, one thing that is very clear is that the resurrection of Jesus is not only NOT the best-attested event in ancient history, the bible actually contains a stack of evidence that shows it to be false. The accounts of the resurrection and the post-resurrection appearances (rather, visions) of Jesus are all flawed in a number of particulars, and the motivations of the people who made the gospels are all there in the text.
Far from the resurrection being the "best explanation of the facts" as claimed by some apologists, several explanations present themselves that are far far more likely - including the idea that the whole story is complete fiction, from Bethlehem to Calvary.
In future posts we'll have a look at some of this evidence, but for now it is probably worth thinking about what the resurrection means as a story for the Christian Atheist. Feel free to comment...
Brought to you by... Daz, the soap you can believe in! ;-)
ReplyDeleteGo for it! Bring it on! etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteGraham
By the way - it strikes me that your expositional style is very good on the "mathematical universe" thread, and on these blogs.
ReplyDeleteYou've never thought of taking up the pen...producing a book?
Especially on topics like the Singh trial, and Venter etc?
Not enough time, I expect. Maybe you could transfer to anaesthetics. They're bound to have spare hours.
Chaps, I like to keep my audience waiting... ha - I kid myself that they are on tenterhooks, rather than crushingly bored!
ReplyDeleteGraham, you are right - I do need to get stuck into the resurrection, because it's one of the most interesting aspects of Christianity. I have to make a few assumptions in the development of my tale - assumptions that would make many think that I go too far.
One such out-there assumption is that there was a Messiah candidate called Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate. In other words, Jesus existed.
More later, if you can stand it! :-)
I've been reinforcing my glass jaw with layers of perspex. So bring it on. (-:
ReplyDeleteI notice that you're avoiding the issue of authorship. Don't underestimate what you managed to do on W&T recently. You made Tegmark's idea *fun*. Not just interesting. That's a remarkable trick.
Seriously, when you get time to have a life, and if you find a topic that grabs you, you should seriously get penning.
GV
Authorship is a tricky one. The synoptics base most of their history on "Mark", plus other sources, e.g. "Q" (whatever that really is) and blatant embellishments and "fixes". "Matthew" is notorious for this (FWIW, I think the original "Gospel of Matthew" was probably Q itself, in Aramaic, but what we now call "Matthew" came a good deal later, as an attempt to tidy up what were perceived as Mark's loose ends).
ReplyDeleteAt any rate, we know that the Gospel of Matthew contains errors and fakes, so BANG does "biblical inerrancy". We have no option but to be critical in our appraisal of the whole thing, and with that, the notion of "doctrine" goes out the window, and we are left with a Jesus who at best can only be humanistic.
Later :-)
-Shane
So down to basics - what exactly do you think the word 'Christ' stands for ? Given the true meaning of the word Christ - "Jesus Christ atheist" is an oxymoron - but no doubt you were aware of that! :-)
ReplyDeleteTraditionally "Christ" has been interpreted as being the "anointed one", the "holy one of God". Of course, if there is no god (and there is not the slightest evidence for one, which is why many Christians are atheists), we need to reinterpret the word "Christ".
ReplyDeleteSo who confers the title "Christ" on Jesus the Nazarene? That actually becomes a moot point. The real Jesus is probably irrecoverably hidden behind the fog of the gospels, but for the Christian Atheist (indeed, for the Christian Theist too), it is *we* who confer the title "Christ" on the Jesus of the *story*.
I would recommend listening to the podcast "Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot" - some of the guests discuss these issues in the context of the Emerging Church or "Open Christianity". It turns out that Christian Atheism seems to go under a number of different names, but the central points seem to be common - "God" is a feature of our language, not of the real universe.