Resurrection/Post-Resurrection Accounts - Dr. Jason Gastrich vs. Johnny Skeptic

infidelguy

This is a formal debate between Dr. Jason Gastrich Ph.D. and JohnnySkeptic on the Reliability of the Resurrection and post-Resurrection accounts.

Resolution: The Resurrection and post-Resurrection accounts are congruent and altogether feasible, likely, and even probable. Jason Gastrich will take the affirmative and post first. Johnny Skeptic will take the negative.

Parameters:
1.) Rounds: 8
2.) Maximum words per round: 2,000
3.) Maximum time between posts: 10 days

Peanut Gallery is set up for the rest of us to comment on the debate. Anyone else posting here besides the debaters will have their posts removed immediately.

Have a nice debate!

JasonGastrich · Posted: Sat May 21, 2005 10:29 pm Post subject:

Round 1

Dear Johnny and IG Forums,

I hope you’re well.

First, thanks goes to IG for hosting this debate on his forum. I trust it will be a good location with evenhanded moderation. I also predict that it could be a good location for future debates.

Thanks to Johnny Skeptic for pursuing me as a debate opponent. It is my pleasure to give evidences for the resurrection and support the integrity of the resurrection and post-resurrection accounts.

My argument for the resurrection of Jesus Christ will be made in three parts. They include: 1) The Empty Tomb, 2) The Postmortem Appearances, and 3) The Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection.

The Empty Tomb

The following, credible evidence of the historical account of the burial story supports the empty tomb. It would’ve been impossible for faith in the resurrection to grow if Jesus’ body were in its tomb. Furthermore, it would have been to the great pleasure of Jesus’ opponents if they could produce His body and quiet His supporters.

Paul’s testimony gives us early evidence for the historical accuracy of Jesus’ burial in the tomb.

1 Corinthians 15:3-5 reads, “. . . Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve.”

It’s obvious that Paul knew the stories behind the traditions that He spoke of. We see this in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Plus, Paul’s two week visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 36, recorded in Galatians 1:18, makes this conclusion sound.

Mark’s burial account is very old because his gospel was written early and taken from early source material.

Additionally,

1) There wasn’t enough time for a legendary burial story to formulate and circulate.
2) Eyewitnesses were still alive and present to verify the story and deny a false story.
3) Paul’s likely knowledge of the pre-Markan source

The burial account hasn’t been saturated with theology or apologetics.

Joseph of Arimathea is a very unlikely person to make up. He was part of the Jewish Sanhedrin. In light of the overwhelming, religious, Jewish hostility toward Jesus Christ, the character of Joseph certainly couldn’t have been invented. Furthermore, Mark had already said that the entire Sanhedrin had voted for Jesus’ death. If one were to try and make something up or change it, they wouldn’t have had a Jewish member of the Sanhedrin begging for Jesus’ body to be buried in his tomb.

The account of Joseph laying the body in the tomb is likely historical. These same types of tombs were used in that time period. Plus, he would have laid the body in an empty tomb with no other relatives’ bodies in it because Jesus was considered a criminal and having his body with his relatives’ bodies would have defiled them.

Late on the Day of Preparation, Jesus’ body was buried. This correlates with Jewish tradition of removing the body before nightfall and the gospel account of Joseph doing this and burying Jesus, immediately.

Women being present for the burial is likely historically true. In fact, the women were present at Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. There is consistency.

There is no good reason why a made-up account would include women. The testimony of women, in the first century, was inadmissible in court. It was worthless. This is strong evidence for the actual truth of the account. Surely, an invention would have included the apostles being the first ones to witness the resurrection.

In Jesus’ time, the tombs and graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men were honored and noted. Jesus’ tomb would have been as well. This lends credibility to the burial account that includes the women’s desire to be present at the burial and anoint Jesus (Luke 23:55-56).

There isn’t any other burial tradition in existence. If the account were legendary, then there would have been competing stories. However, we don’t have any; not even in ancient, Jewish literature.

Paul undoubtedly believed the tomb was empty due to the evidence.

a) 1 Corinthians 15:3-5
b) the Jewish concept of resurrection
c) his Pharisaic background and verbiage
d) shown by the phrase “on the third day”
e) revealed by the phrase “from the dead” (Romans 4:24)
f) 1 Corinthians 15:35-50
g) articulated by his belief in the return of Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17)

All of these points reveal Paul’s faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

The empty tomb’s presence in Mark’s source is evidence for its historicity.

The empty tomb account is bound together by the burial account.
The similarities in verbs and syntax bind the empty tomb account to the burial account

In reference to the resurrection, the phrase “the first day of the week,” is used in Mark 16:2 instead of “on the third day.” This reveals an early inclusion and not a late one. The “on the third day” motif started later in the first century and was widely used in the early church. If the empty tomb account was legendary, then it surely would have used the popular motif.

Peter and John investigating the empty tomb is probable. Their visit to the tomb is found in tradition (Luke 24:12, 24 and John 20:3) and revealed by John’s testimony. Further, their investigation logically follows Peter’s denial because he would have wanted to see the tomb after hearing about the resurrection. He also would have been in the right city (Jerusalem) to do this.

If the resurrection were a hoax, then the disciples wouldn’t have started the story in Jerusalem and it would have been virtually impossible for them to perpetuate such a story. The tomb was in Jerusalem! Jesus’ opponents could have squashed the myth in minutes by taking people to the tomb; if it had Jesus’ body in it.

Jesus’ critics didn’t deny the empty tomb. They accepted it. However, they claimed that someone stole the body (Matthew 28:13). So, the earliest Jewish polemic tried to explain away the empty tomb; not deny it.

It was typical for the Jews to enshrine the prophets’ tombs. However, Jesus’ tomb was not enshrined. It wasn’t enshrined because His bones were not in it and there wouldn’t have been any significance to the tomb.

The Post Mortem Appearances

Paul affirms the resurrection and the post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Verses 5-8 reads, “After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.”

The historicity of the Gospels, in general, lend credibility to the historicity of the resurrection accounts in them.

The resurrection couldn’t have been a myth or legend. Not enough time had passed between the actual death and burial of Jesus and an alleged myth. It takes a couple of generations and 100-200 years before legends about actual events can begin. This is evidenced in some of the Apocyrphal traditions that are indeed myths. They were written a couple hundred years after Christ and they portray the language that we see present in myths and legends.

The resurrection account in the non-canonical Gospel of Peter is considered a legend because its authorship does not fall within the lifetime of the first disciples. Plus, it contains symbols and events common to legends. In contrast, the resurrection account we find in Mark is a simple and straightforward account of what happened.

The living eyewitnesses knew what happened and what didn’t happen. They wouldn’t have allowed myths to creep into the truth. Plus, the apostles guarded the truth and tradition.

The resurrection wasn’t simply witnessed by one or two people. We don’t have just one or two accounts or testimonies. We have all of the following of Jesus appearances to:

1. The women
2. Peter
3. The Twelve
4. The Tiberias appearance
5. The Galilee appearance
6. The appearance to 500 believers
7. James
8. Paul

Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in the Resurrection

The resurrection was at the center of the belief system of the earliest Christians. If it did not happen, then what caused this belief?

Jewish religious belief didn’t cause the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. They only knew the resurrection of believers at the end of the world. Plus, according to their religious writings and scriptures, they didn’t know of a resurrection for a single person.

Conclusion

The resurrection appearances have multiple attestations. These include Pauline, Gospel traditions (Johanine and Synoptic), and New Testament attestations.

The resurrection has plenty of dissimilarity. It cannot be traced to Jewish religious beliefs and it cannot be a retrojection of Christian theology.

The resurrection accounts that all tell us how the women found the tomb first would have been embarrassing. This fact would have been something to cover up in a fictional or exaggerated account.

There was no expectation of a dying or rising Messiah. The disciples’s faith cannot be explained in this way.

The conversion of James and Paul, the Jewish assertion that the body was stolen, and the disciples’ awesome transformation after the resurrection attest to its validity. There had to have been a cause for these effects and the resurrection is the best explanation.

Mark’s account of the resurrection doesn’t share any devices of confabulation with myths such as the Gospel of Peter. There is no evidence of apologetical or theological exaggeration.

There is coherence between the following three, independently established facts: the empty tomb, the post mortem appearances, and the origin for the disciples’ belief in the resurrection. Plus, there is coherence in Paul’s teachings on the essence of the resurrection body, Jesus’ physical appearances after His crucifixion, and the empty tomb.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
Director, Jesus Christ Saves Ministries

ADMIN: Post Count 1,644
_________________
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
Over 200,000 web pages!
http://www.jcsm.org/
____________________

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
Over 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org/

JohnnySkeptic · Last edited by JohnnySkeptic on Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total

In my first post, I inadvertently went over the 2,000 word limit. Following is my revised post.

My own alternate burial hypotheses:

Joseph of Arimathea knew of Jesus’ prediction that he would rise from the dead, but like most of the other admirers of Jesus, he didn’t believe the claim. He wanted to protect the good name of his beloved friend by giving the impression that he rose from the dead, so instead of burying the body in his own tomb, which in his view if inspected would contain the body, he buried the body in another tomb in the same cemetery that he also owned.

Joseph quite naturally wouldn’t have left his own tomb open, so he put a stone in front of the entrance in order to give the appearance that the body was inside.

Dr. Gary Habermas is widely acknowledged as the chief defender of the Resurrection. I once debated the empty tomb with a Christian at the Theology Web. He mentioned a study that Habermas conducted where Habermas found that 75% of the scholars whose writings he studied believe that the body was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and that 25% believe that the body was not buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.

I asked the Christian what the world views of the scholars were, who the scholars were, how many scholars there were, upon what evidence the 75% based their conclusions, and how Habermas chose whose writings to consult, but he couldn’t answer any of my questions. Well-known skeptic Farrell Till says that there are plenty of scholars who do not believe that the body was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb.

Christians often ask skeptics “Why would the New Testament writers have invented a false religion?” Well, the very same question could be asked of the writers of all religious books. Lying and/or innocent but inaccurate revelations are obvious reasons to start a new religion, and Christians will have to admit that historically, the use of these motives has been widespread and quite typical among humans. Why should anyone conclude otherwise regarding Christianity?

Regarding the issue of legendary corruption, in a debate with Christian apologist Michael Horner, Farrell Till said the following:

“And I want to get to this matter that you need two or three generations before a legend has time to develop. We talked about history. History doesn't agree with that, and I'm going to throw some names out to you: Wyatt Earp, Buffalo Bill, Wild Bill Hickok, Jesse James. How many legends developed about these people in their own lifetime before they were dead? You know, Wyatt Earp died just four years before I was born. Who will ever know the truth about the shootout at the O.K. Corral, because there have been so many legends built around that?”

Regarding claimed eyewitnesses who supposedly saw Jesus after he rose from the dead, what we need are external corroborative sources regarding how many people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, and whether the sources were second hand, third hand etc. As far as I know, there are not any first hand sources in the entire New Testament. There might not even be any second hand sources. Paul’s claimed vision of Jesus is by no means an acceptable first hand source. Paul did not claim that he saw Jesus. All that he claimed was that he heard a voice that claimed to be Jesus.

The anonymous Gospel writers always wrote in the third person. None of them ever claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, none of them ever said who their sources were, and none of them ever said whether their sources were second hand, third hand etc.

As far as eyewitnesses still being around as Jason said “to verify the story and deny a false story,” consider the following:

Rodney Stark, Ph.D., sociology, wrote a book titled ‘The Rise of Christianity,’ for which he received a Pulitzer Prize nomination. He is a prolific author, with over 50 books and publications, and he is a college professor of sociology and comparative religion. In ‘The Rise of Christianity’ Stark estimates the size of the Christian Church at various times. He estimates that there were 7,530 Christians in 100 A.D., or in my own words only about the size of three good size high schools. If Stark’s estimate is anywhere near being reliable, then there is no doubt whatsoever that the numbers of Christians claimed in the New Testament are lies, calling into question New Testament claims of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. People who will tell a few lies will always tell more lies.

Stark’s nomination for a Pulitzer Prize was justified. His bibliography in ‘The Rise of Christianity’ is twenty pages long, attesting to the fact that he has a lot of corroborative support from a good number of scholars. Consider the following:

“This book raises, simply and brilliantly, just the kinds of questions anyone concerned with early Christianity should ask.” The Christian Century

“Compelling reading…highly recommended.” Library Journal

“Anyone who has puzzled over Christianity’s rise to dominance in the Roman Empire…must read [this book]. Here is theoretical brashness combined with disarming common sense, a capacious curiosity, and a most uncommon ability to tell a complicated story in simple prose.” Wayne Meeks, Yale University

“A provocative, insightful, challenging account of the rise of Christianity.” Andrew Greely, National Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago

“This brilliant and highly provocative book will revolutionize the way people think about both biblical scholarship and church history….[This is a] book nobody interested in the study of religion can ignore.” Irving Hexham, University of Calgary

“Exciting and stimulating, highly readable, and full of new perspectives, Rodney Stark’s book will surely bring about a revolution in thinking about the growth in the numbers of Christians in the Roman world.” Roger S. Bagnall, Columbia University

“There is no book quite like this one on early Christian history….[Stark’s] views, stated with candor and clarity, are fresh and insightful….There is much to learn here.” Robert L. Wilkin, University of Virginia

“Rodney Stark answers the question of how early Christianity became a successful religious movement with significantly greater clarity than anyone else has to date.” Jeffrey K. Hadden, University of Virginia.

What is the minimum number of claimed eyewitnesses that it takes to make a good case for the Resurrection, and how can we be reasonably certain how many people claimed to have seen Jesus after he rose from the dead?

Jason said “There isn’t any other burial tradition in existence. If the account were legendary, then there would have been competing stories. However, we don’t have any; not even in ancient, Jewish literature.” Jason is using an argument from silence, a tactic that Christians often accuse skeptics of using. The best argument from silence that I can think of, and which Christians reject as an argument from silence, is the complete lack of any external records of the plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea, supposed events that had hundreds of thousands, in not millions of supposed eyewitnesses. If true, the stories would have been passed down from generation to generation and been recorded by historians, but they weren’t.

There are some very good reasons for the lack of competing stories. Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Dr. Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Jason said “Jesus’ critics didn’t deny the empty tomb. They accepted it. However, they claimed that someone stole the body (Matthew 28:13). So, the earliest Jewish polemic tried to explain away the empty tomb; not deny it.” Typical of Christian apologists, Jason frequently calls upon the Bible to be its own witness. That simply will not do. What we need are corroborative external 1st century sources regarding what critics said.

Jason said “Paul affirms the resurrection and the post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Verses 5-8 reads, ‘After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.’” Again, what we need are corroborative external 1st century sources. I invite Jason to make a case based upon external 1st century records regarding how many disciples there were, what their names were, how long they lived, what they believed, and what they publicly said about the Resurrection.

In Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For Christ,’ William Lane Craig mentions “multiple, independent attestations.” Even if there were multiple attestations, what evidence is there that they were independent? I asked ancient historian Richard Carrier (a number of articles by Carrier can be found at the Secular Web) about this. He said “All four accounts are not independent. Matthew and Luke without doubt follow Mark and embellish upon Mark. Therefore, at most we have two independent accounts, not four. But John shows strong evidence of borrowing and modifying material from Luke -- therefore, it is doubtful we even have two independent sources (and there is no evidence they are independent either -- e.g. it cannot be shown that John didn't get the empty tomb idea straight from Mark). It appears there is only one actual source: Mark. Every other source simply follows him, or follows
someone else who followed him.”

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that the gospel of Mark “is attributed to John Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a disciple of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in Matthew's, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke.”

Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would still not be a Christian. God’s motives are suspect, and logically, it is impossible to worship someone whose motives are largely unexplained.

From Christians' point of view, if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of view, if they became Christians and it eventually turns out that they will become dust in the ground, they will be no worse off than before they became Christians. Therefore, skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads completely free of coercive influences.

In conclusion, a writer is only as good as his source(s), and Jason hasn’t told us which and how many sources the New Testament writers used, and whether the sources were second hand, third hand, etc.

Johnny Skeptic

ADMIN: Post Count 1,963

infidelguy · Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2005 6:15 am Post subject:

NOTE: Jason Gastrich complained about a +600 word overpost by Johnny Skeptic made May 26th, 2005. Johnny has made the changes as of June 1st, 2005. Mr. Gastrich has requested 10 days to respond to Johnny's latest post. June 11th 2005, is when we expect to see Mr. Gastrich's latest post.

JasonGastrich · Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:18 pm Post subject:

Dear Readers and Johnny,

I hope you’re well. Thanks for following the debate.

Although I do expect Johnny to address the points I made in my initial post, I will begin by taking apart his burial hypothesis.

JohnnySkeptic · Posted: Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:39 am Post subject:

Greetings everyone,

William Lane Craig calls the Gospels “multiple, independent attestations,” but there is no good evidence at all that the Gospels are independent. Ancient historian Richard Carrier says “All four accounts are not independent. Matthew and Luke without doubt follow Mark and embellish upon Mark. Therefore, at most we have two independent accounts, not four. But John shows strong evidence of borrowing and modifying material from Luke -- therefore, it is doubtful we even have two independent sources (and there is no evidence they are independent either -- e.g. it cannot be shown that John didn't get the empty tomb idea straight from Mark). It appears there is only one actual source: Mark. Every other source simply follows him, or follows someone else who followed him.”

The Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says that the Gospel of Mark “is attributed to John Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a disciple of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in Matthew's, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke.”

The Gospel’s are woefully inadequate non-eyewitnesses attestations that cannot even be reasonably proven to be second hand attestations.

Christians are well aware that it is important for them to claim that the Gospel stories were circulating soon after the death of Jesus, and Jason is no exception. He gave it a try, but not a very good one. In Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For Christ,’ William Craig says “We can tell from the language, grammar, and style that Mark got his empty tomb story—actually, his whole passion narrative – from an earlier source. In fact, there’s evidence it was written before A.D. 37, which is much too early for legend to have seriously corrupted it.”

Regarding this matter, Richard Carrier told me “Craig argues that the Markan empty tomb story predates Mark based on incredibly specious reasoning not accepted by objective experts in the field. His argument is entirely rooted in the presumption that the story is not theologically adorned and that it contains semitisms (i.e. Greek phrases that indicate an underlying Hebrew text or speaker). But the latter
evidence is useless, because such semitisms are used even by Luke and others, and so do not indicate date--semitic speakers of Greek were
still around and still members of Christian communities for hundreds of years, and so the fact that Mark was writing like a Hebrew tells us
nothing about when he wrote. Also, the key Hebraicism that Craig claims to find comes verbatim from the Septuagint, and therefore is not from any pre-Markan empty tomb ‘source.’
In short, Craig's argument that the empty tomb story predates 37 AD is absurd.”

Actually, there is no good evidence that the empty tomb story predated 50 AD.

Jason said:

“Why would Jesus’ disciples knowingly die for a lie?”

Other than the New Testament, who says that they did?

Regarding my quotes from Farrell Till regarding myths and legends, Jason said:

“As far as I know, nobody claimed that Wyatt Earp rose from the dead, so this is awfully disanalogous. Wyatt Earp’s friends didn’t tell people that he rose from the dead, either.”

It is not disanalogous at all. The issue is how long it takes for myths and legends to develop, not specifically what myths and legends claim happened. At infidels.org, readers will find a debate between Farrell Till and Michael Horner. One of the topics discussed was how long it takes for myths and legends in general to occur, not specifically what myths and legends claim happened. By the way, Till got the last word. Horner gave up his argument on myths and legends and proceeded to other matters.

Jason said:

“If the resurrection were a hoax, then the disciples wouldn’t have started the story in Jerusalem and it would have been virtually impossible for them to perpetuate such a story.”

Who says that the disciples were able to perpetuate the story to any sizeable extent? No reliable external records confirm such a notion. The books of Acts claims that there were “many thousands” of Christians not long after Jesus died, but there are no good reasons to assume that the claim was anything more than Christian propaganda designed to make the Christian Church look good.

Jason said:

“The tomb was in Jerusalem! Jesus’ opponents could have squashed the myth in minutes by taking people to the tomb; if it had Jesus’ body in it.”

Jason assumes that is was well-known that Jesus was buried in Joseph’s tomb, but that claim is far from being reasonably established. Gary Habermas is widely acknowledged as the chief defender of the Resurrection. He conducted research regarding the empty tomb and stated that 75% of the scholars whose writings he consulted, handpicked by him of course, believe that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and that 25% did not believe that Jesus was buried in Joseph’s tomb. First of all, there is no evidence that that the percentages reflect the views of the majority of scholars. Second of all, the opinions of 25% of the scholars are sufficient enough to question the Gospel accounts. A murder suspect cannot be convicted if 25% of the jurors believe that he is innocent.

Regarding Joseph, the Britannica 2002 Deluxe Edition says “according to all four Gospels.” The Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia says “according to all four Gospels of the New Testament, a rich Jew of Arimathea, probably a member of the Sanhedrin.” What we need is external corroboration, but as usual, Jason doesn’t have any. _

Jason said:

“The resurrection was at the center of the belief system of the earliest Christians. If it did not happen, then what caused this belief?”

“What caused this belief?” Probably lying and/or innocent but inaccurate revelations, the very same factors that account for all religious beliefs.

It is important to note that although some skeptics claim that there were mass hallucinations, there is no need for them to make such a claim. Just a few innocent but inaccurate revelations and/or a few lies could easily have done the job.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then the Christian Church would not likely have been able to begin to grow rapidly until after the deaths of the supposed still living eyewitnesses, which would have been late in the 1st century. Until then, most people would have said “Hey, we were there, and we didn’t see the risen Jesus.” There are no good reasons to exclude such a possibility.

Historically, it has been quite natural for humans to dream up all sorts of religions. Why should anyone make an exception in the case of Christianity?

Jason said:

“Jewish religious belief didn’t cause the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. They only knew the resurrection of believers at the end of the world.”

What do Jews have to do with anything? In spite of what the book of Acts claims, there is no good evidence that Christianity has ever been popular among an appreciable number of Jews.

Jason said:

“There were a number of unanswered issues, but I take it readers have already recognized this.”

Yes, there are a number of unanswered issues, such as how many provably independent sources do we have regarding the burial of Jesus and the Resurrection, were the sources that the New Testament writers used second hand, third hand etc., what credible external corroborative sources can Jason provide regarding the burial and Resurrection of Jesus, how large was the 1st century Christian Church, and what credible external sources can Jason provide regarding the martyrdom of the disciples?

The most important aspect of the Resurrection accounts is the eyewitnesses. Jason needs to provide external corroboration regarding how many people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, but as usual, he doesn’t have any.

Jason, what was the point of the appearances? Was it to provide tangible evidence for what faith alone obviously was not able to provide? In your opinion, how many people did Jesus have to appear to in order to provide that generation and subsequent generations sufficient evidence that he had risen from the dead?

In my previous post I said “Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would still not be a Christian. God’s motives are suspect, and logically, it is impossible to worship someone whose motives are largely unexplained.” I would appreciate it if Jason would tell us why anyone should worship an entity who they have never met and never had an opportunity to question. Presidential candidates are voted for after they explain their motives, intentions and past actions in great detail, not before. Jason needs to tell us upon what evidence he has concluded that all of God’s motives, intentions and past actions are good.

Johnny Skeptic

Admin Post Count: 1509

JasonGastrich · Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 12:02 am Post subject:

Hello IG Forum and Johnny,

I hope that all is well.

Johnny opens his last post with:

Matthew and Luke without doubt follow Mark and embellish upon Mark . . . But John shows strong evidence of borrowing and modifying material from Luke . . . It appears there is only one actual source: Mark. Every other source simply follows him, or follows someone else who followed him.

In a debate, one needs to not just assert, but to argue and prove. In my humble opinion, mere assertions deserve mere assertions in response; or even less. I’m going to give Johnny a chance to support his statements above; not that they will help his case any, but since it’s the angle he wishes to take, he needs to provide some proof and argue his case. When he does, I’ll be happy to rebut..

Now, I had to snip a few paragraphs. It seems that Johnny thinks he is debating someone else. He needs to address my arguments and avoid worrying about other people’s arguments. I suppose this is a sort of straw man tactic. He isn’t going to be accountable for answering Lee Stroebl or William Lane Craig. However, he is responsible for answering me and trying to rebut my arguments. I challenge him to begin trying to do so. Furthermore, I believe that Johnny should apologize to readers who were expecting more from this exchange. It seems that he quickly goes off topic and ignores my arguments.

JohnnySkeptic · Posted: Sun Jun 26, 2005 6:59 am Post subject:

Jason wrote:

The New Testament is a credible testimony of several accounts of what happened.

Johnny: Why are they credible? What are the criteria for what is credible and what is not credible?

Jason wrote:

They are congruent, harmonious accounts as well.

Johnny: Merriam-Webster’s 11th Collegiate Dictionary define “congruous” as “being in agreement, harmony, or correspondence.” The Gospels in fact frequently disagree with on another, or at the very least are inconsistent enough to be discredited in any modern court of law.

A good example of an inconsistency is where in Matthew, upon arriving at the tomb, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary see an angel, and the angel tells them that Jesus has risen from the dead. In John, however, it is Jesus himself who causes Mary, in her uncorroborated second visit to the tomb, to believe that he has risen from the dead. John 20:13-16 say “And they (the angels) say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him. And when she had thus said, she turned herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away. Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

Notice the words in verse 14 “and when she had thus said,” indicating that right after that, still not knowing that Jesus had risen from the dead, she saw Jesus. The New International Version says “At this (or right after that), she turned around and saw Jesus standing there…….”

Matthew says that Mary learned that Jesus rose from the dead on her first visit to the tomb, but John says that it was on her second visit to the tomb.

Jason wrote:

Furthermore, their inerrancy and the inerrancy of the rest of the scriptures that can be verified helps us to even trust the accounts; as historians do.

Johnny: What qualifies various texts as being Scripture? For instance, what indicates that Paul’s letters to various churches were anything more than ordinary letters?

Regarding my comments about myths and legends, Jason said:

Not exactly. This analogy doesn’t work for several reasons. First, the legends surrounding Earp do not involve supernatural phenomena. They involve natural things that have been observed.

Johnny: All the more reason to distrust the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Today, the existence of natural phenomena is easily provable. The existence of supernatural phenomena is not easily provable.

Many Christians insist that the methodology for examining claims of the supernatural should be exactly the same as the methodology for examining ordinary historical claims. Such a notion is preposterous. Everyone agrees that ordinary historical events have always occurred everywhere in the world every day, and that they will continue to occur every day for everyone to see. On the other hand, the odds are astronomical against someone 1) being the only begotten Son of God, 2) being conceived by the Holy Spirit, 3) being born of a virgin, 4) never committing a sin, 5) dying for the sins of mankind, 6) performing many miracles, 7) walking on water, bodily rising from the dead, and 9) one day returning to earth.

Jason wrote:

If a legend sprouted up about Earp robbing a bank that he really didn’t rob, at least it’s feasible. How could a legend close to the actual event regarding the resurrection of Christ be feasible? Answer: it isn’t feasible at all.

A legend on the magnitude of someone rising from the dead would have taken a great deal of time after Christ’s death. Why? Because:

“The Pharisees would have exposed such a lie.”

Johnny: Who says they didn’t? Jason is using an argument from silence, but Christians themselves frequently criticize skeptics for using arguments from silence. Since Jason wants to bring up arguments from silence, then I ask him why the extraordinary claims of the plagues in Egypt and the parting of the Red Sea appear nowhere outside of the Bible?

Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: ‘...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.’

Larry Taylor: “How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.”

“The followers of Christ wouldn’t have died for something they knew was a lie.”

Johnny: Outside of the New Testament, who says that they did die for their beliefs?

“The empty tomb was verifiable in the very place where this legend allegedly arose.”

Johnny: Says who? Can Jason produce a sizeable consensus of modern historians who agree with him? Well of course he can’t. He frequently accuses me of making unsupported assertions, and yet that is exactly what he frequently does himself.

Who witnessed the body put in Joseph’s tomb? Matthew and Mark say Joseph, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. John says Joseph and Nicodemus. Jason asks people to stake heaven, hell and all of eternity of this kind of evidence? In typical fashion, Matthew, Mark and John do not reveal their sources, which were by no means provably Joseph, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary.

In my previous post I wrote:

Who says that the disciples were able to perpetuate the story to any sizeable extent?

Jason replied: This isn’t the issue. The issue is where the story/account/legend began. It began in Jerusalem.

Johnny: And where else would it have begun? In Rome?

Jason wrote:

There was an empty tomb there. Why would it begin there and how would it begin there?

Johnny: “How would it begin.” How do the stories in all religions begin?

Jason wrote:

You have yet to show why the gospels and the book of Acts are not reliable accounts.

Johnny: As I said previously, “You have no eyewitness testimonies at all, and you can’t even reasonably prove that you have any second hand or third hand evidence.”

Jason wrote:

Would you care to argue about the tomb and make a case for why you think Jesus wasn’t buried in it?

Johnny: As the claimant, just like a claimant in a lawsuit, would you care to argue about the tomb and make a case for why you think Jesus was buried in it? You seek to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. That is not the way it works, Jason.

Regarding external corroboration for Jesus being buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, Jason wrote:

We only need “external corroboration” if there is sufficient reason to doubt all of the accounts that we do have.

Johnny: Why is there sufficient reason to believe the accounts that we do have? We need external corroboration because Jason hasn’t given us any good reasons at all to believe that Jesus was buried in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, and instead he asks me to make a case why I think that Jesus was not buried in Joseph’s tomb. It is not my current position that Jesus was not buried in Joseph’s tomb, only that there are not any good reasons at all to believe that he was buried in Joseph’s tomb.

Jason wrote:

Who lied? Why did they lie?

Johnny: Who lied indeed? That is just the point. The Gospel writers and Paul never revealed any of the sources. They themselves might not have lied. Their sources might have lied, or at least there are not any good reasons at all to rule out such a possibility, and there are not any good reasons at all to rule out the possibility of innocent but inaccurate revelations, which in fact Jason will have to admit have been quite common in various religious books.

Jason wrote:

Why would Jesus’ followers die for their faith in something they just made up?

Johnny: As usual, Jason calls upon the Bible to be its own witness without providing any external corroboration whatsoever.

Jason wrote:

You have yet to give us any reason to believe your assertions, so I hope you begin supporting them next round.

Johnny: And I hope that you begin supporting your assertions in the next round. My counter arguments have been made subsequent to your initial, primary assertions. The only reason that I have made counter arguments is because you asked for them. You asked me how I account for this belief. As the claimant, how do you account for it? You have no eyewitness testimonies at all, and you can’t even reasonably prove that you have any second hand or third hand evidence.

Johnny wrote:

The most important aspect of the Resurrection accounts is the eyewitnesses. Jason needs to provide external corroboration regarding how many people claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, but as usual, he doesn’t have any.

Regarding Paul’s claim that Jesus appeared to over 500 people in one place at one time, noted skeptic scholar Dr. Robert Price told me “there is no reference to it until a variant reading in a copy of the Acts of Pilate/Gospel of Nicodemus from the 4th century!” Jason previously mentioned the words “congruent” and “harmonious,” but you can’t have congruence and harmony with only a single uncorroborated claim. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that the story of the 500 eyewitnesses was written by Paul, or even that it was written in the 1st century.

Jason replied:

Untrue. This is only a possibility if Johnny is able to discredit the accounts we do have.

Johnny: I don’t need to discredit anything. Again Jason attempts to change the widely accepted burden of proof into the burden of disproof. There is no rule of logic that states that all assertions are true until proven false. Courts of law certainly don’t work that way.

infidelguy · Posted: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:22 pm Post subject:

Jason Gastrich has requested a 7 day extension because he is moving. I have granted it.
_________________
----
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious." - Sam Harris - An Atheist Manifesto

JasonGastrich · Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:21 pm Post subject:

Dear Readers and Johnny,

I hope you’re well.

J_Lazarus · Soldier of Truth

Johnny Skeptic has requested a 7 day extension for his next post submission. We have granted it.
_________________
Heaven's not a place that you go when you die,
It's that moment in life when you actually feel alive.
So live for the moment.
And take this advice, live by every word.
Love is completely real, so forget everything that you have heard.
And live for the moment, now.

- Spill Canvas

JohnnySkeptic · Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 5:30 am Post subject:

All leading Christian apologists place great emphasis on the eyewitnesses, Gary Habermas and J. P. Moreland being among the most noteworthy. Such being the case, this issue must be dealt with before moving on to other issues.

In this post I will discuss the 500 eyewitnesses. It is suspicious that the Gospels do not mention the 500 eyewitnesses, although they frequently mention things of much less importance. Eyewitness testimony is the very best kind of testimony, and either the Gospel writers were not aware of this, which is doubtful since they mention a number of other eyewitnesses, or they never heard of the 500 eyewitnesses, which is doubtful if there were 500 eyewitnesses. The Gospel writers were trying to convince people that Jesus rose from the dead as best they could, not only during their generation, but future generations as well, and if there were 500 eyewitnesses the Gospel writers would most certainly have known about them and said so.

All four Gospel writers mention Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb, the women at the tomb and Jesus’ appearances to the disciples, so any rational minded person knows that if there were 500 eyewitnesses, at the very least one Gospel writer would have mentioned it.

Second Corinthians 13:1 says “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”
Well, where are the two or three witnesses regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses?

William Lane Craig speaks of “multiple, independent attestations” regarding the Resurrection. That is debatable, but what is not debatable is the fact that the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses is not multiple, but is in fact singular.

In Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For Christ,’ Lee Strobel asks Craig “Are you convinced that there were Roman Guards?” Craig answered “Only Matthew reports that guards were placed around the tomb. But in any event, I don’t think the guard story is an important fact of the evidence for the Resurrection.” Following Craig’s own same line of reasoning he must also conclude that “Only Paul reports the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses, so I don’t think the story in an important fact of the evidence for the Resurrection.”

Some Christians ask “If there weren’t 500 eyewitnesses, how could Paul have gotten away with claiming that there were 500 eyewitnesses?” Assuming for the sake of argument that Paul did write the claim, and if people took the claim to mean that Jesus bodily rose from the dead, there is no evidence that Paul did get away with it to any great extent. One possibility is that the claim was believed by “many thousands” of people as claimed in the book of Acts. Another possibility is that it was immediately rejected by 99.99% of everyone who knew about it, which is exactly what would have happened if Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead.

At infidels.org, Farrell Till discusses a debate between Dan Barker and Michael Horner. Following are some excerpts:

Farrell Till: He (Dan Barker) noted that Paul's statement in verses 3-8 (in 1st Corinthians 15) is recognized by most biblical scholars to be the earliest known statement about the resurrection.

[Regarding] the words ‘buried,’ ‘raised,’ and ‘appeared’ in Paul's text, [Barker] did an analysis of each as they were used in the Greek text of the NT. He pointed out that the word ‘thapto’ (bury) meant to inter or bury and carried no necessary connotations of entombment, so this would be consistent with the known practice of taking the bodies of crucifixion victims and burying them in a common grave. He pointed out that the word translated ‘rose’ or ‘raised’ in English translations of this passage was ‘egeiro,’ which meant to ‘arouse’ or ‘awaken.’ He noted that this was the word that Paul used in referring to the resurrection in such places as 2 Corinthians 5:15 and that it was the word used in Ephesians 5:14, where Paul said, ‘Awake (egeiro), thou that sleepest and arise (anistemi) from the dead.’ The latter word that means ‘arise’ or ‘raise up’ is the word used in reference to resurrection, but ‘egeiro’ (awake) is the word that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:4, 12 in speaking of Christ arising.

I don't recall that Barker said this, but ‘egeiro’ was used by Paul eleven other times in 1 Corinthians 15:15-52, as he spoke about the apostles being false witnesses if the dead are not raised, faith being dead if the dead are not raised, and his analogy of seed and bodies that are sown corruptible but raised in incorruption, etc.

Barker's argument was that the meaning of the word that Paul used in this earliest account of the resurrection was sufficient to believe that Christians at this time had believed only in a spiritual awakening of Christ after his death. Then, later, when legend had built the spiritual arising into a literal resurrection of the dead, the gospels were written to put the resurrection into a specific historical setting. (Johnny: Regarding Barker’s words “when legend had built,” he was not making an assertion. As he said earlier in the debate, he was not going to assert what happened, only what was plausible and more likely.)

Barker than analyzed the word ‘appear’ to show that Paul and others used it in visionary senses. In Matthew 17:3, Moses and Elijah ‘appeared’ at the time of the transfiguration, and the Greek word here is the same one that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 in listing the appearances that Jesus made to Cephas, to the twelve, to the 500 brethren, to James, and finally to Paul himself. Barker asked if Horner thought that Moses and Elijah had been bodily resurrected in their appearances at the transfiguration. In Acts 16:9, a vision appeared [same word as in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8] to Paul in the night in which a man from Macedonia stood praying for Paul to come there to help them. Since the same word for ‘appear’ was used in 1 Corinthians 15:8, where Paul said, ‘And last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also,’ Barker argued that there is sufficient reason to assume that the other appearances were like the appearance to Paul. Barker then showed that the only records that exist of the appearance of Jesus to Paul show clearly that this was just a vision that Paul had and that he had actually not even seen Jesus in the vision. He heard only a voice speaking from a bright light (Acts 9:3-8; 22:6-11; 26:12-1, and the men who were with him saw only the light but didn't hear the voice (according to one of the accounts). So if this was the way that Paul saw Jesus, and since the same word for ‘see’ or ‘appeared’ (depending on translation) was used for all of the appearances in this passage, why should we believe that the other appearances were any more than just visionary appearances? The actual bodily appearances came much later in the gospel narratives. Barker also referred to other places in 1 Corinthians 15 to show that Paul had had in mind a spiritual resurrection, not a bodily one. He referred to the gospel narratives to show that by the time they were written, there was sort of a composite view of the resurrection. It was a resurrected body that showed its wounds that could be touched and examined, yet it was also a body that could be teletransported, appear suddenly, and even pass through closed doors. At this point, Barker called to the audience's attention that Thomas who was a ‘buddy’ of the apostles wouldn't believe the claim of his ‘buddies’ that the body had been resurrected until he had seen it and touched it himself. ‘So why should we?’ Barker asked.

In his ‘rebuttal,’ Horner said very little about Barker's points, which he had spent most of his speech developing. Horner simply said that it was silly to think that a spiritual resurrection meant that the body itself was spirit. (Johnny: Well, it wasn’t at all silly to the Gnostics.)

One of Horner's points was that legends need two generations to develop, and so Barker showed examples of how legends develop quicker than that. During the cross-examination, Barker brought up the appearances of the virgin Mary in Yugoslovia and asked Horner if he believed these appearances were real or legendary. Horner was evasive, but Barker pressed him until he said that they could have been either. End of quotes.

I quoted a good amount of texts, but it was necessary due to the great importance of what Paul believed.

If Jesus did not bodily rise from the dead, and if I agree with Christians for the sake of argument that stories claiming that he bodily rose from the dead started to circulate soon after he died, then it was the claim that he bodily rose from the dead that was in fact the legend.

infidelguy · Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 7:03 am Post subject:

Jason Gastrich has requested a one week extension before his next post as he will be out-of-country. Granted.
_________________
----
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious." - Sam Harris - An Atheist Manifesto

JasonGastrich · Posted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 11:34 pm Post subject:

Dear readers and Johnny,

I hope you’re well.

Since Johnny opened his last round post with some musings and information that he simply felt was pertinent, I’ll do the same. Rest assured, I’ll rebut his post as well. This is just my introduction.

Introduction

Sometimes, I wish I lived in the 1800's when atheism was in its peak. The learned ones, professors and philosophers, proposed reasons why they thought there was no God. Atheism was seen as an intellectual position.

Where are they now? Who are they now? Eddie Tabash? Julia Sweeney (in between her waning acting jobs)? You would have to think so. They are the keynote speakers for the largest atheist organizations in the world.

Why has atheism waned? Why isn’t it seen as such an intellectual position any more? Why can we count the famous, influential atheists of today on one hand? The answer lies with the evidence for God’s existence; and, of course, the reason is found in the scriptures.

It’s no longer enough for atheists to naysay. Trying to discredit the scriptures is no longer beneficial to their cause. As atheists such as Doug Krueger, Dan Barker, Steve Wells, and countless others have found, there are solid, concrete, and convincing answers to every attack against the scriptures. Not even one question has went unanswered. Not even one attack has went undefended.

Where does that leave us? I’m not suggesting that theism or Christianity is the default position because atheism fails so miserably. However, I am suggesting that the Christian worldview, based on the scriptures, is the most reasonable and the most tenable.

During my concurrent debates, I’ve challenged my opponents and every reader to submit questions about the inerrancy of the scriptures. I’ve challenged them to contact me with things that they think are errors in the Bible. However, I haven’t received even one email! This is astonishing since my current, two debates alone have been read over 10,000 times to date!

I’m hereby renewing my offer and it will remain open, indefinitely. If you or anyone you know thinks they have found an error in the Bible, please submit it to me. I’d be happy to address it. All you have to do is contact me through the contact form at http://jcsm.org/contact.php .

In the future, I hope to offer a sizeable, cash prize to the one who can prove that there is an error in the Bible. This will be a challenge akin to James Randi’s challenge. More details will be forthcoming on my web site.

I don’t make these claims and these challenges for no good reason. I make them because I’ve found sound answers to every, alleged Bible error. I’ve rebutted a possibly exhaustive collection of alleged, Bible errors: The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible. After I wrote this full rebuttal, I have declared that the Bible is a book without error. I can no longer say I have “blind faith.” I must say that I have “informed faith.”

Now, I’m not suggesting that atheism has only declined because of my rebuttal. Atheism has declined because of its lack of merit. It has declined because the scriptures have predicted that it would. It has waned because of the large and convincing body of evidence for theism; and specifically, Christianity.

Many atheists haven’t seen the prophesies regarding the decline of atheism, so I will provide them and give some insight, now.

Matthew 24:24, 25 reads, “For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time.”

False Christs and false prophets will exist. By definition, these aren’t atheists. Furthermore, they will performing “great signs and miracles” and even deceiving some of the true believers in Christ.

Johnny’s logic regarding the 500 witnesses is very flawed. The gospels are eyewitness accounts. Simply saying there were 500 eyewitnesses is impertinent and it isn’t even the kind of evidence that Johnny is seeking. Furthermore, instead of musing about why the gospels omitted this fact, Johnny should be trying to disprove it. One claim is one argument. Too bad we don’t have one rebuttal.

infidelguy · Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2005 10:46 pm Post subject:

To keep everyone updated, this is Jason's 5th round. We are going to 8.
_________________
----
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious." - Sam Harris - An Atheist Manifesto

JohnnySkeptic · Posted: Mon Aug 15, 2005 10:24 pm Post subject:

[quote=Jason] During my concurrent debates, I’ve challenged my opponents and every reader to submit questions about the inerrancy of the scriptures.[/quote]

Very well. Revelation 22:18-19 say “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

If tampering with the texts was not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. There is no evidence that the texts have not been tampered with. Actually, what are the texts? What qualifies any text as being Scripture? By what means was it determined that the writings of Scripture had been completed? With the possible exception of the writer of the book of Revelation, there is no evidence at all that any the New Testament authors thought that they were writing Scripture.

[quote=Jason] Johnny’s logic regarding the 500 witnesses is very flawed. The gospels are eyewitness accounts.[/quote]

Now that is cute. First of all, the identities of the Gospel authors are unknown. Second of all, the Gospel writers always wrote in the third person, a clear indication that they “were not” eyewitnesses. Third of all, just because someone claims that they are an eyewitness does not mean that they are an eyewitness.

[quote=Jason] Furthermore, instead of musing about why the gospels omitted this fact, Johnny should be trying to disprove it. One claim is one argument. Too bad we don’t have one rebuttal.[/quote]

I don’t need to try to disprove it. Paul asserts that there were 500 eyewitnesses, but I never asserted that there weren’t 500 eyewitnesses. Therefore, it is up to Christians to prove Paul’s assertion.

The question needs to be asked, “Would Jesus appearing to 10,000 people with disparate world views instead of appearing to 500 of “the brethren” have helped the spread of Christianity, hindered the spread of Christianity, or not made any difference at all? Obviously, the first choice would have been the best choice. If Christianity is true, if choice number one had actually been the case, a lot more people would end up in heaven and a lot less people would end up in hell.

[quote=Johnny] Second Corinthians 13:1 says “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” Well, where are the two or three witnesses regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses?[/quote]

[quote=Jason] Johnny took this single verse out of context. In context, we see that it is referring to decisions within the church and by the church leaders. It isn’t referring to the scriptures. If he thinks it is, then he needs to prove it.[/quote]

Actually, I don’t need to refer to the verse. In Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case For Christ,’ William Lane Craig defends the claim that Jesus rose from the dead by mentioning ‘multiple, independent attestations.’ His argument doesn’t work regarding the claim of the 500 eyewitnesses. The claim is not multiple, and it is not corroborated anywhere else in the New Testament or in any external records. In addition, there is no evidence that Paul wrote the claim, or even that it was written in the 1st century.

1 Corinthians 15:6 says “After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.”

There is no indication that Jesus was recognized by anyone from a close distance. The texts mention that he was not recognized on at least two other occasions. Mark 16:12 says “After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.” Luke 24:13-16 say “And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him.” There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to conclude that 1 Corinthians 15:6 is any different from Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:13-16.

Christians appropriate to themselves great latitude when interpreting the two dissimilar accounts of the death of Judas, and that latitude is greater than the latitude that I have appropriated to myself regarding interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:6 as compared with Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:13-16. Consider the following Scriptures:

In the Revised Standard Version, Matt 27:3-10 say:

When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. But the chief priests, taking the pieces of silver, said, "It is not lawful to put them into the treasury, since they are blood money." So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in. Therefore that field has been called the Field of Blood to this day. Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel, and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."

Acts 1:15-20 say:

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office let another take.'

The question needs to be asked, “Would Jesus appearing to 10,000 people with disparate world views instead of appearing to 500 of “the brethren” have helped the spread of Christianity, hindered the spread of Christianity, or not made any difference at all? Obviously, the first choice would have been the best choice. If Christianity is true, if choice number one had actually been the case, a lot more people would end up in heaven and a lot less people would end up in hell.

Who needs 500 eyewitnesses? Luke 24:33-34 say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.” Here we have the disciples “and them that were with them” believing that Jesus rose from the dead based solely upon the testimony of Simon, even though initially virtually no one thought that Jesus would rise from the dead. John adds credibility to my arguments where he says that when Peter saw the empty tomb he went away confused, and when Mary saw the empty tomb she thought that the body had been moved. Clearly, the prevailing attitudes at that time as indicated by the texts themselves preclude any reasonable possibility that Luke 24:33-34 is factual, calling into question the truthfulness of the New Testament.

Jason loses hands down even if Jesus did rise from the dead. Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would not become a Christian unless God first answered a lot of questions to my satisfaction. For instance, I would like for him to explain some of his questionable actions and allowances in the Old Testament, some of his questionable allowances in the world today, such as allowing tsunamis, hunger and plagues, why he gives humans such a brief amount of time to accept him, why he doesn’t provide more proof of his existence, and why Jesus hasn’t returned to earth.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

We have only the Bible writers’ word for it that God is good. If an evil God created the universe, he could easily make prophecies that come true, heal the sick, cause anyone to rise from the dead and be responsible for pleasing spiritual experiences.

Christians often accuse skeptics of being predisposed against the existence of miracles. Skeptics are in fact predisposed against the existence of miracles because there is no evidence that any have ever occurred, but any skeptic would love for miracles to be available to help us with our many burdens. If I thought that there was only a 10% chance that miracles exist, I would go out of my way to prove that they do exist. I am defining miracles as events that are beyond the abilities of humans, and made possible by an extra-terrestrial being for the express purpose of benefiting humans.

The Bible claims that there is tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention, calling into question claims that miracles occurred thousands of years ago.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.” We need compassion today just as much as people did back then. It seems to me that there are only two possibilities here, either that God is no longer compassionate in tangible ways, or that he never was compassionate in tangible ways.

Isaiah 55:8 says “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” The verse is often used by Christians when they are unable to provide skeptics with reasonable answers to difficult questions. The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God thoughts and ways are in order to know that they are different from our own, which of course he didn’t. If I had been alive back then, I would have asked Isaiah “How do you know that?” His response might have been “God told me so.”

JasonGastrich · Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2005 9:06 pm Post subject:

Dear Johnny and Readers,

I hope you’re well.

[quote=Jason] During my concurrent debates, I’ve challenged my opponents and every reader to submit questions about the inerrancy of the scriptures.[/quote]

JohnnySkeptic · Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:44 am Post subject:

Johnny wrote:

“We have only the Bible writers’ word for it that God is good.”

Jason replied:

“We actually have 66 books that describe God and His relationship with humans. They reveal Him as a good God who loves humankind; a God who has continually tried to reach out to us and redeem us ever since the Fall in the Garden of Eden.”

The Bible does not “reveal” that God is good. It “claims” that God is good. There is a difference you know.

Johnny wrote:

“If an evil God created the universe, he could easily make prophecies that come true, heal the sick, cause anyone to rise from the dead and be responsible for pleasing spiritual experiences.”

Jason replied:

“I think this is leaving the scope of the debate and making such arguments only helps my case for God’s existence. This debate isn’t over whether or not God is good; although there is plenty of evidence that He is.”

Discussing the nature of God is not at all leaving the scope of the debate, and the nature of God is in fact the very foundation of the debate. The texts claim that Jesus suffered and died because of his love for mankind. You need to produce evidence that God is good.

Jason wrote:

“You must be awfully naive or sheltered to think that miracles do not exist. Miracles happen all the time. Surely, you have heard about miracles from friends or other people. Whether you believe them or not is another story. However, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn’t heard about a miracle.

“In my debate with Doug Krueger on IIDB ( http://iidebate5.jcsm.org ), I’ve mentioned some of the miracles I have done in Jesus’ name. I’ve cured my own eyestrain headaches. I’ve healed a man of epilepsy. These things were done in the Spirit and with the power of God and I was merely the vessel. Nonetheless, they are proof that miracles exist.”

You must be awfully naïve or sheltered to believe that miracles “do” exist. Your claims are preposterous and outlandish. The same exact kinds of things, and in many cases more dramatic things, sometimes happen to non-Christians. Now please, Jason, you couldn’t even cure someone of a common cold, not to mention someone with cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis. Try curing someone in your church congregation of a cold. The healing must be immediate in order to qualify as a miracle healing. That is the way that the texts claim that Jesus and the disciples supposedly healed people. Please be sure to give me the person’s name and e-mail address.

Johnny wrote:

“The Bible claims that there is tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today?”

Jason replied:

“All kinds of evidence. Go to church for 30 days and attend a weekly Bible study during that time. Talk to the people there. You’ll hear all kinds of accounts of miracles.

“Do you want to avoid church? Look around the internet for accounts of miracles. I estimate you won’t have to look very far.

“Now, whether you believe or not is another story. However, miracles do exist and accounts of them are everywhere.”

Your problem is that the texts say that Jesus’ power to cast out demons was OBVIOUS to the Pharisees, and that he did so by the power of Beelzebub. In other words, Jesus’ power was OBVIOUS to unbelievers. Your “miracle” healings ARE NOT OBVIOUS to unbelievers. Are not miracles that are OBVIOUS much more needed to convince non-Christians of God’s power than people who are ALREADY Christians?

John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the [tangible] works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." The New International Version translates "works" as "miracles." The verses contradict Romans 10:17, which says "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The verses also contradict Hebrews 11:1, which says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." As I said previously, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who [tangibly] confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do signs and wonders. The New International Version of the Bible says “miraculous signs and wonders.”

The texts clearly indicate that Jesus was offering OBVIOUS evidence of his power to UNBELIEVERS.

Johnny wrote:

“An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians.”

Jason replied:

“It sounds like you have heard some accounts of miracles. Why else would you write this? It also sounds like you have written them off as non-miracles.”

Your attempt at trickery will get you nowhere. You are well aware that what I meant was that similar results are also claimed by many atheists, agnostics, and some of the followers of other religions, not that miracles actually occur.

Jason wrote:

“Furthermore, how does any of this musing discredit ancient accounts of miracles in the inerrant Bible?”

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick." We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics [I challenge you to prove otherwise], not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

The question needs to be asked, "Would Jesus appearing to 10,000 people with disparate world views instead of appearing to 500 of “the brethren,” reference 1 Corinthians 15:6, have helped the spread of Christianity, hindered the spread of Christianity, or not made any difference at all? Obviously, the first choice is the best answer. If Christianity is true, if choice number one had actually been the case, a lot more people would end up in heaven and a lot less people would end up in hell.

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman wrote a book titled ‘One Nation Under God.’ Billy Graham said “‘One Nation Under God’ is quite possibly the most comprehensive and thoughtful profile of contemporary American religious life in print.” The authors cite a substantial amount of documented research that shows that geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age are the chief factors that determine religious beliefs.

Consider the following from page 210:

“A Gallup Poll that inquired into one key measurement – how important a role people say religion plays in their own lives – showed that women (66%) are far more likely than men (48%) to attach great importance to religion, and
that men (18%) are more than twice as likely as women (8%) to say that it is not very important to them. Age differences are also significant. Less than half of those under age 30 (46%) say that religion is very important to them, whereas among those who are 50 and older, 70% consider religion of great importance in their lives.”

Kosmin and Lachman’s research does not indicate supernatural factors at work, but rather the natural factors of geography, family, race ethnicity, gender and age, the very same factors that account for the spread of all other religions. The important factors of geography and family are well attested to by the fact that 90% of South Americans are Roman Catholics. Geography and family account for an even higher percentage of Muslims in Iraq and Syria.

Jesus supposedly told the disciples to go into all of the world with the Gospel message, but millions of people have died over many centuries without ever having heard the Gospel message. Even today, everyone in the world has not heard the Gospel message. Such being the case, why was it important that ANYONE hear the Gospel message?

Luke 24:33-34 say “And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon (Peter).” The word “indeed” confirms that the group had no doubts whatsoever regarding Simon’s claim. Luke 24:34 in the New International version says "It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Again, notice the assuredness of the declaration, including the exclamation point used by the translators. The New American Standard Bible says “saying, The Lord has really risen and has appeared to Simon.” The use of the word “really” indicates assuredness. What we have here is a unanimous belief that Jesus rose from the dead based solely upon the testimony of one person, even though initially virtually no one believed that he would do so. John says that when Peter saw the empty tomb, he went away confused, and the Mary Magdalene thought that the body had been moved. Clearly, according to the prevailing views at that time as indicated BY THE TEXTS THEMSELVES, it is highly unlikely that the occurrence claimed in Luke 24:33-34 is factual.

infidelguy · Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 4:03 pm Post subject:

Jason Gastrich has asked for a 5 day extension and I have granted it:

JasonGastrich · Posted: Tue Sep 06, 2005 10:33 pm Post subject:

Dear Readers, Reggie, and Johnny,

I hope you’re well.

First, thanks to Reggie for giving me a much-needed, 5 day extension. Plus, I commend him for providing a way on his web site for people to give aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Unfortunately, this debate has gotten a little off-track. In my online debates, I don’t mind small tangents because it gives me a chance to explain alleged Bible errors (for example), defend somewhat impertinent passages of scripture, and articulate various arguments that are important, yet perhaps not on the same line as the resolution of the debate.

In this post, I’m going to get back to the resolution of this debate and my support of it. Since this is the last round for new information (next round must be a summary post), it’s very important that I get back on topic, now.

The topic of this debate is the resurrection and whether or not it is feasible and supported with evidence or not. I’ve supported my position with ample evidence. The main points were the Empty Tomb, the Postmortem Appearances, and the Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection. Johnny has not rebutted these points or the arguments that accompanied them. Nonetheless, in order to avoid repetition, I will offer some new arguments in support of my position that the resurrection is not only feasible and supported with evidence, but probable and even very likely.

The Christian Faith

Throughout history, the Christian faith has been based solely and completely on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there is no resurrection, then there is no salvation. If there is no resurrection, then Jesus was just another human. If there is no resurrection, there is no Christianity.

For the sake of this point, I’m going to consider all varieties of Christianity that affirm the resurrection as Christians. In other words, I’m not going to worry about denominational or doctrinal differences.

The issue is one of reasonableness. Adherents.com - http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html - shows that over 90% of the world currently believes in God. This number was likely even higher in the past. Now, not that many of them believe in the resurrection, but over 2 billion people in this world do.

What should we make of this?

I’ve never seen an atheist offer any answer of substance. Usually, what comes next is something condescending. They like to take their 8% minority and claim that they are more reasonable than the rest, they want us to believe they are smarter for rejecting the myth of the resurrection, and they hope we reject the same with them. I find these wishes nonsensical.

The Fact of the Holy Spirit’s Influence

Jesus promised His disciples a number of things. Among them, He promised to rise from the dead and He promised that after He ascended to Heaven, the Comforter (the Holy Spirit) would come upon them like never before. The scriptures reveal that this happened at Pentecost and the believers in Christ, ever since, have been given the Holy Spirit to live inside them.

Now, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven as He promised, then it is reasonable to assume that His Holy Spirit didn’t come upon Christians and begin living within them. If He didn’t return from the dead, then we shouldn’t see the work of this Holy Spirit; not now and not throughout the last two millennia. Is this what we see, though?

If Christians didn’t receive the Holy Spirit, then they shouldn’t have the same convictions. However, by and large, those that believe in Jesus Christ do have the same convictions. These convictions unify people in a phenomenal way and ignore the color of one’s skin, the amount of money one has, the part of the world one lives in, culture, etc. If there were no resurrection and no Holy Spirit, then we wouldn’t see similarities that cross these vast barriers. Nothing else helps to bridge this void like Christianity (belief in the risen Christ) and the (same) Holy Spirit.

The Supernatural Integrity of the Scriptures

We’ve touched on this a little already, but the scriptures are inerrant. I’ve challenged any atheist to support an error in the Bible and nobody has been able to do it. Why is that so? It’s so because the scriptures are God-breathed as His Holy Spirit entered men and directed them to write the words of God.

I’m renewing my challenge and it will remain, indefinitely. In fact, I’m strongly considering offering a cash prize to the one who can prove that there is an error in the Bible. This is how certain I am that there are none. I’ve read, researched, and rebutted every single one that is in The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible.

In the meantime, I’ve created a web page for those that wish to try and prove a biblical error. I’ll post your name and question and my answer to it. The question will remain on jcsm.org and will be seen by anyone who visits; and so will my answer. It’ll be your 15 minutes of fame! This new page is located at http://jcsm.org/15minutes/ .

If the resurrection were a hoax, then the New Testament scriptures surely wouldn’t be inerrant. They wouldn’t be inerrant for a number of reasons. However, they are. Therefore, the scripture’s inerrancy is great proof that the resurrection happened.

Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. The unverifiable claims can be taken and accepted on informed faith. Consider the following analogy.

Four men have been called to testify in a courtroom. These men witnessed a murder and they know a number of important details. Let’s call these men Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

On every important detail and even minor details, these four men have congruent accounts that agree.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all describe the murderer in the same way. He was 6' tall, had blue eyes, and wore blue jeans. He had no shirt on and he had long hair and a mustache.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all describe the location and time of the murder in the same way. The tragedy occurred on the corner of Main St. and Third. The murderer was on the North side of the street. It happened at 4:35pm.

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all agree on the murder weapon and the murder details. A pistol was used to shoot the victim three times. The bullets pierced the victim at point blank range. All of them went into his stomach.

This analogy parallels the New Testament gospel accounts. They are true and congruent. They give enough details to reveal what happened. They’re supported by all kinds of important details and facts.

Do these accounts give every single possible detail? No. It would be absurd, impossible, and frankly impertinent for them to do so. However, do they give enough details to affirm the story? Yes. Do they give enough details to conclude that the shooter is guilty? Yes.

In the same way, the gospel accounts and the rest of the inerrant New Testament gives us enough evidence to affirm the entire New Testament; which includes the resurrection.

Every verifiable detail is true. Therefore, the details that cannot be confirmed can be concluded as true.

Issues like this are entertained by courtrooms and judges all the time. Not every fact is verifiable, yet people are convicted and set free by the evidence that is available and affirmable.

Currently, in the courtroom of life, over 2 billion people have judged the resurrection and found it to be true. In America, over 75% of its citizens have judged the resurrection and found it to be true.

Messianic Prophecy

The Bible is a prophetic book. It contains all kinds of prophecies. Most of them have already been fulfilled.

One kind of prophecy is Messianic prophecy. This sort of prophecy foretold all kinds of things about the Messiah. The Bible contains hundreds of them and Jesus fulfilled them all. Isn’t this phenomenal?

I’d like to copy and paste the 60 Messianic prophecies and fulfillments that are on my web site into this debate post. However, they would take up too much of my allotted space. I will provide the link to them and I will mention them, though. Link: http://fmp.jcsm.org/ .

These Messianic prophecies were given hundreds of years before Christ. They were recorded in the Septuagint, so we can confirm this claim.

These Messianic prophecies foretold details about Christ that could not have been staged. They include his lineage, his method of execution, the way His people would treat Him, how He would be tortured, etc.

As I said, I wish I could copy and paste them all here, but I can’t. If you visit the link above, you will see them AND the Old Testament prophecy references and verses and the New Testament fulfillment references and verses.

Conclusion

The three main arguments I gave in my initial post are the ones that I feel are most convincing. They articulate why the resurrection accounts are sound and why the resurrection is true. However, the points that I made in this post: the Christian Faith, the Fact of the Holy Spirit’s Influence, the Supernatural Integrity of the Scriptures, and Messianic Prophecy are important and convincing as well.

I’m looking forward to Johnny’s reply. My prayers are with him and all of the people who read this debate. May God richly bless you.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
_________________
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
Over 200,000 web pages!
http://www.jcsm.org/
____________________

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
Over 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org/

JohnnySkeptic · Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:09 am Post subject:

Johnny wrote:

“We have only the Bible writers’ word for it that God is good.”

Jason replied:

“We actually have 66 books that describe God and His relationship with humans. They reveal Him as a good God who loves humankind; a God who has continually tried to reach out to us and redeem us ever since the Fall in the Garden of Eden.”

The Bible does not “reveal” that God is good. It “claims” that God is good. There is a difference, you know. Any religious writer can claim that any particular God is good. So what?

Johnny wrote:

“If an evil God created the universe, he could easily make prophecies that come true, heal the sick, cause anyone to rise from the dead and be responsible for pleasing spiritual experiences.”

Jason replied:

“I think this is leaving the scope of the debate and making such arguments only helps my case for God’s existence. This debate isn’t over whether or not God is good; although there is plenty of evidence that He is.”

There is in fact no more evidence that the God of the Bible was or is good than there is that the God(s) of any other religion is good. Discussing the nature of God is not at all leaving the scope of the debate. The nature of God is in fact the very foundation of the debate. The texts claim that Jesus suffered and died because of his love for mankind. However, there is no evidence whatsoever that his death actually atoned for the sins of mankind. Your hypothesis is no more valid than the hypothesis that Jesus was a powerful alien who wanted people to worship him, or the hypothesis that God is amoral.

Jason wrote:

“You must be awfully naive or sheltered to think that miracles do not exist. Miracles happen all the time. Surely, you have heard about miracles from friends or other people. Whether you believe them or not is another story. However, you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who hasn’t heard about a miracle. In my debate with Doug Krueger on IIDB ( http://iidebate5.jcsm.org ), I’ve mentioned some of the miracles I have done in Jesus’ name. I’ve cured my own eyestrain headaches. I’ve healed a man of epilepsy. These things were done in the Spirit and with the power of God and I was merely the vessel. Nonetheless, they are proof that miracles exist.”

You must be awfully naïve or sheltered to believe that miracles “do” exist today. Your claims are preposterous and outlandish. The same exact kinds of things, and in many cases more dramatic things, sometimes happen to non-Christians. You can’t even cure someone who has a common cold, not to mention someone with cerebral palsy or multiple sclerosis. Try curing someone in your church congregation who has a common cold. The healing must be immediate in order to qualify as a miracle healing. That is the way that the texts claim that Jesus and the disciples supposedly healed people. Please be sure to give me the person’s name and e-mail address.

You wouldn’t by any chance have any documentation from respected medical sources, would you? I know that you don’t. I just want to see what your answer will be.

Jason wrote:

“Furthermore, how does any of this musing discredit ancient accounts of miracles in the inerrant Bible?”

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Your problem is that the texts say that Jesus’ power to cast out demons was OBVIOUS to the Pharisees, in other words, to BOTH SIDES, and that he did so by the power of Beelzebub. In other words, Jesus’ power was OBVIOUS to unbelievers. Your “miracle” healings ARE NOT OBVIOUS to unbelievers, and they are in fact not even obvious to a large percentage of Christians. Are not miracles that are OBVIOUS much more needed to convince non-Christians of God’s power than people who are ALREADY Christians?

John 10:37-38 say "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the [tangible] works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." The New International Version translates "works" as "miracles." The verses contradict Romans 10:17, which says "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The verses also contradict Hebrews 11:1, which says "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." As I said previously, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who [tangibly] confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do signs and wonders. The New International Version of the Bible says “miraculous signs and wonders.”

The texts clearly show that Jesus showed OBVIOUS evidence of his power to UNBELIEVERS. It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of "the message of his grace" that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

Regarding God’s questionable allowances in the world today, what about hurricane Katrina? As usual, God favors the rich. The people who are best able to deal with Hurricane Katrina are people who are well off financially. People who could afford to travel simply left the area. Poor people who lost their homes or had their homes damaged are much worse off than people who have adequate financial resources to pay for the damage or rebuild their homes. The same argument also applies to people who are able to afford adequate medical treatment, college educations and a host of other advantages that are available to people who are well off financially. Clearly, good things and bad things are frequently not distributed to those in greatest need, which precludes the possibility that the God of the Bible is loving even if he exists.

In conclusion, even if Jesus did rise from the dead, there are not any good reasons for anyone to become a Christian.

JasonGastrich · Posted: Mon Oct 03, 2005 4:17 pm Post subject:

Dear Johnny, Reggie, and everyone reading,

Thanks to Reggie for hosting this debate on infidelguy.com. I hope it’s the first of many interesting and productive debates on his site; not on this topic, of course. In my humble opinion, I’ve sufficiently and convincingly defended the resurrection and post-resurrection accounts.

I appreciate the moderation of this debate. The time allowed between posts and the generous extensions to both of us showed some class and understanding. Kudos to Reggie.

Here is my summary.

The Empty Tomb

The following, credible evidence of the historical account of the burial story supports the empty tomb. It would’ve been impossible for faith in the resurrection to grow if Jesus’ body were in its tomb. Furthermore, it would have been to the great pleasure of Jesus’ opponents if they could produce His body and quiet His supporters.

Paul’s testimony in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 gives us early evidence for the historical accuracy of Jesus’ burial in the tomb.

It’s obvious that Paul knew the stories behind the traditions that He spoke of. We see this in 1 Corinthians 11:23-26. Plus, Paul’s two week visit to Jerusalem in A.D. 36, recorded in Galatians 1:18, makes this conclusion sound.

Mark’s burial account is very old because his gospel was written early and taken from early source material.

Additionally,

1) There wasn’t enough time for a legendary burial story to formulate and circulate.
2) Eyewitnesses were still alive and present to verify the story and deny a false story.
3) Paul’s likely knowledge of the pre-Markan source

The burial account hasn’t been saturated with theology or apologetics.

Joseph of Arimathea is a very unlikely person to make up. He was part of the Jewish Sanhedrin. In light of the overwhelming, religious, Jewish hostility toward Jesus Christ, the character of Joseph certainly couldn’t have been invented. Furthermore, Mark had already said that the entire Sanhedrin had voted for Jesus’ death. If one were to try and make something up or change it, they wouldn’t have had a Jewish member of the Sanhedrin begging for Jesus’ body to be buried in his tomb.

The account of Joseph laying the body in the tomb is likely historical. These same tombs were used in that time period. Plus, he would have laid the body in an empty tomb with no other relatives’ bodies in it because Jesus was considered a criminal and having his body with his relatives’ bodies would have defiled them.

Late on the Day of Preparation, Jesus’ body was buried. This correlates with Jewish tradition of removing the body before nightfall and the gospel account of Joseph doing this and burying Jesus, immediately.

Women being present for the burial is likely historically true. In fact, the women were present at Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection. There is consistency.

There is no good reason why a made-up account would include women. The testimony of women, in the first century, was inadmissible in court. It was worthless. This is strong evidence for the actual truth of the account. Surely, an invention would have included the apostles being the first ones to witness the resurrection.

In Jesus’ time, the tombs and graves of Jewish martyrs and holy men were honored. Jesus’ tomb would have been as well. This lends credibility to the burial account that includes the women’s desire to be present at the burial and anoint Jesus (Luke 23:55-56).

There isn’t any other burial tradition in existence. If the account were legendary, then there would have been competing stories. However, we don’t have any; not even in ancient, Jewish literature.

Paul undoubtedly believed the tomb was empty due to the evidence.

a) 1 Corinthians 15:3-5
b) the Jewish concept of resurrection
c) his Pharisaic background and verbiage
d) shown by the phrase “on the third day”
e) revealed by the phrase “from the dead” (Romans 4:24)
f) 1 Corinthians 15:35-50
g) articulated by his belief in the return of Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:14-17)

The empty tomb’s presence in Mark’s source is evidence for its historicity.

The empty tomb account is bound together by the burial account.
The similarities in verbs and syntax bind the empty tomb account to the burial account

In reference to the resurrection, the phrase “the first day of the week,” is used in Mark 16:2 instead of “on the third day.” This reveals an early inclusion and not a late one. The “on the third day” motif started later in the first century and was widely used in the early church. If the empty tomb account was legendary, then it surely would have used the popular motif.

Peter and John investigating the empty tomb is probable. Their visit to the tomb is found in tradition (Luke 24:12, 24 and John 20:3) and revealed by John’s testimony. Further, their investigation logically follows Peter’s denial because he would have wanted to see the tomb after hearing about the resurrection. He also would have been in the right city (Jerusalem) to do this.

If the resurrection were a hoax, then the disciples wouldn’t have started the story in Jerusalem and it would have been virtually impossible for them to perpetuate such a story. The tomb was in Jerusalem! Jesus’ opponents could have squashed the myth in minutes by taking people to the tomb; if it had Jesus’ body in it.

Jesus’ critics didn’t deny the empty tomb. They accepted it. However, they claimed that someone stole the body (Matthew 28:13). So, the earliest Jewish polemic tried to explain away the empty tomb; not deny it.

It was typical for the Jews to enshrine the prophets’ tombs. However, Jesus’ tomb was not enshrined. It wasn’t enshrined because His bones were not in it and there wouldn’t have been any significance to the tomb.

The Post Mortem Appearances

Paul affirms the resurrection and the post-mortem appearances of Jesus Christ in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The historicity of the Gospels, in general, lend credibility to the historicity of the resurrection accounts in them.

The resurrection couldn’t have been a myth or legend. Not enough time had passed between the actual death and burial of Jesus and an alleged myth. It takes a couple of generations and 100-200 years before legends about actual events can begin. This is evidenced in some of the Apocyrphal traditions that are indeed myths. They were written a couple hundred years after Christ and they portray the language that we see present in myths and legends.

The resurrection account in the non-canonical Gospel of Peter is considered a legend because its authorship does not fall within the lifetime of the first disciples. Plus, it contains symbols and events common to legends. In contrast, the resurrection account we find in Mark is a simple and straightforward account of what happened.

The living eyewitnesses knew what happened and what didn’t happen. They wouldn’t have allowed myths to creep into the truth. Plus, the apostles guarded the truth and tradition.

The resurrection wasn’t simply witnessed by one or two people. We don’t have just one or two accounts or testimonies. We have all of the following of Jesus appearances to:

1. The women
2. Peter
3. The Twelve
4. The Tiberias appearance
5. The Galilee appearance
6. The appearance to 500 believers
7. James
8. Paul

Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in the Resurrection

The resurrection was at the center of the belief system of the earliest Christians. If it did not happen, then what caused this belief?

Jewish religious belief didn’t cause the belief in Jesus’ resurrection. They only knew the resurrection of believers at the end of the world. Plus, according to their religious writings and scriptures, they didn’t know of a resurrection for a single person.

The Christian Faith

Throughout history, the Christian faith has been based solely and completely on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. If there is no resurrection, then there is no salvation. If there is no resurrection, then Jesus was just another human. If there is no resurrection, there is no Christianity.

For the sake of this point, I’m going to consider all varieties of Christianity that affirm the resurrection as Christians. In other words, I’m not going to worry about denominational or doctrinal differences.

The issue is one of reasonableness. Adherents.com ( http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ) shows that over 90% of the world currently believes in God. This number was likely even higher in the past. Now, not that many of them believe in the resurrection, but over 2 billion people in this world do.

What should we make of this?

I’ve never seen an atheist offer any answer of substance. Usually, what comes next is something condescending. They like to take their 8% minority and claim that they are more reasonable than the rest, they want us to believe they are smarter for rejecting the myth of the resurrection, and they hope we reject the same with them. I find these wishes nonsensical.

The Fact of the Holy Spirit’s Influence

Jesus promised that after He died the Holy Spirit would come upon them like never before. The scriptures reveal that this happened at Pentecost and the believers in Christ, ever since, have been given the Holy Spirit to live inside them.

Now, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven as He promised, then it is reasonable to assume that His Holy Spirit didn’t come upon Christians and begin living within them. If He didn’t return from the dead, then we shouldn’t see the work of this Holy Spirit; not now and not throughout the last two millennia. Is this what we see, though?

If Christians didn’t receive the Holy Spirit, then they shouldn’t have the same convictions. However, by and large, those that believe in Jesus Christ do have the same convictions. These convictions unify people in a phenomenal way and ignore the color of one’s skin, the amount of money one has, the part of the world one lives in, culture, etc. If there were no resurrection and no Holy Spirit, then we wouldn’t see similarities that cross these vast barriers. Nothing else helps to bridge this void like Christianity (belief in the risen Christ) and the (same) Holy Spirit.

The Supernatural Integrity of the Scriptures

I’ve challenged any atheist to support an error in the Bible ( http://jcsm.org/15minutes/ ) and nobody has been able to do it. Why is that so? It’s so because the scriptures are God-breathed as His Holy Spirit entered men and directed them to write the words of God.

If the resurrection were a hoax, then the New Testament scriptures surely wouldn’t be inerrant. They wouldn’t be inerrant for a number of reasons. However, they are. Therefore, the scripture’s inerrancy is great proof that the resurrection happened.

Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. The unverifiable claims can be taken and accepted on informed faith. Consider the following analogy.

(The analogy has been snipped to meet the 2000 word requirement. If you wish to read it, please read my Round 7 post.)

Messianic Prophecy

One kind of biblical prophecy is Messianic prophecy. This sort of prophecy foretold all kinds of things about the Messiah. The Bible contains hundreds of them and Jesus fulfilled them all. Isn’t this phenomenal?

I’d like to copy and paste the 60 Messianic, (mainly) Old Testament prophecies and the New Testament fulfillments that are on my web site into this debate post. However, they would take up too much of my allotted space. I will provide the link to them and I will mention them, though. Link: http://fmp.jcsm.org/ .

These Messianic prophecies were given hundreds of years before Christ. They were recorded in the Septuagint, so we can confirm their claims.

These Messianic prophecies foretold details about Christ that could not have been staged. They include his lineage, his method of execution, the way His people would treat Him, how He would be tortured, etc.

The resurrection and post-resurrection accounts are congruent and altogether feasible, likely, and even probable.

Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
http://jcsm.org/
_________________
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
Over 200,000 web pages!
http://www.jcsm.org/
____________________

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
Over 4,000 answers to the tough questions about the Bible!
http://skepticsannotatedbible.org/

JohnnySkeptic · Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:59 am Post subject:

Hello everyone,

Jason Gastrich’s summary consists of seven topics as follows:

1 - The Empty Tomb

Johnny: I concede the empty tomb for the sake of argument.

2 - The Post Mortem Appearances

Johnny: I concede the post mortem appearances for the sake of argument.

3 - Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in the Resurrection

Johnny: I concede the disciples’ belief in the Resurrection for the sake of argument.

4 - The Christian Faith

Jason wrote:

The issue is one of reasonableness. Adherents.com http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html ) shows that over 90% of the world currently believes in God. This number was likely even higher in the past. Now, not that many of them believe in the resurrection, but over 2 billion people in this world do.

What should we make of this?

Johnny: Ah, the fallacy of argumentum ad populum. If most people believe something, it must be true. Regardless, since I am an agnostic, I do not have any problem at all with a reasonable possibility of intelligent design.

5 – The fact of the Holy Spirit’s influence

Jason wrote:

Jesus promised that after He died the Holy Spirit would come upon them like never before. The scriptures reveal that this happened at Pentecost and the believers in Christ, ever since, have been given the Holy Spirit to live inside them.

Now, if Jesus didn’t rise from the dead and ascend to Heaven as He promised, then it is reasonable to assume that His Holy Spirit didn’t come upon Christians and begin living within them. If He didn’t return from the dead, then we shouldn’t see the work of this Holy Spirit; not now and not throughout the last two millennia. Is this what we see, though?

If Christians didn’t receive the Holy Spirit, then they shouldn’t have the same convictions. However, by and large, those that believe in Jesus Christ do have the same convictions. These convictions unify people in a phenomenal way and ignore the color of one’s skin, the amount of money one has, the part of the world one lives in, culture, etc. If there were no resurrection and no Holy Spirit, then we wouldn’t see similarities that cross these vast barriers. Nothing else helps to bridge this void like Christianity (belief in the risen Christ) and the (same) Holy Spirit.

Johnny: Contrary to what Jason claims, atheists, agnostics and Deists DO “ignore the color of one’s skin, the amount of money one has, the part of the world one lives in, culture, etc.” Whenever I meet a fellow skeptic or a Deist (my best friend is a Deist) in person or at the Internet, no matter what the color of his skin is, the amount of money that he has, or what part of the world that he is from or lives in, there is an immediate rapport and a sense of unity.

Regarding “Nothing else helps to bridge this void like Christianity (belief in the risen Christ) and the (same) Holy Spirit,” the most popular and unifying world view at any given time in history need not necessarily be the only true world view. A thousand years or less from now, some other world view might displace Christianity as the most popular and unifying world view. If there is any lesson that can be learned from history, it is that in every millennium, the distribution of world views has been markedly different.

It is interesting to note that this “unity” that Jason talks about has accounted for the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion, an empire acquired by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property. In addition, for about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, this “unity” favored slavery and the subjugation of women.

6 – The supernatural integrity of the Scriptures

There is no such thing as supernatural. If in the year 2,000 B.C. a jet plane had flown over a crowd of people, most people would have considered the event to be supernatural, but the event would have been quite natural to the people who built the jet plane.

Why should anyone limit the ability to convert energy into matter to the God of the Bible? Given enough time, who knows what humans might eventually accomplish, or what advanced aliens might have already accomplished? How can we tell the difference between a God and an advanced alien? The correct answer is, we can’t.

Jason wrote:

“I’ve challenged any atheist to support an error in the Bible ( http://jcsm.org/15minutes/ ) and nobody has been able to do it. Why is that so? It’s so because the scriptures are God-breathed as His Holy Spirit entered men and directed them to write the words of God.”

I have challenged any Christian to support the claim that God is good in tangible ways, either today or in the past, and for years no Christian has been able to do it even after repeated attempts in debates at the Theology Web, at the Secular Web, and in private e-mails. I always eventually have the last word in such debates. Jason tried to prove that God is good (regarding miracle healings that he has performed and seen) in his previous post, but he conveniently abandoned that approach.

Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, there is no evidence at all that he died for the sins of mankind, there is no evidence at all that he was conceived by the Holy Spirit, there is no evidence at all that he never committed a sin, and there is no evidence at all that ever performed any miracle healings, or that he fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish.

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "are not" aware of God's supernatural power. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then.

Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of "the message of his grace" that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

In the New International Version of the Bible, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite "tangible" evidence of Jesus' power.

More "tangible" evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." In the NIV, Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Today, there is no evidence that God is good in tangible ways. An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably to those in greatest need, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

7. Messianic prophecy

Jason wrote:

One kind of biblical prophecy is Messianic prophecy. This sort of prophecy foretold all kinds of things about the Messiah. The Bible contains hundreds of them and Jesus fulfilled them all. Isn’t this phenomenal?

Johnny: Not at all. All supposedly messianic prophecies are completely useless. Isaiah 53:4 says “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.” As I said previously, there is not any evidence at all that Jesus died for the sins of mankind. As far as the other supposedly fulfilled messianic prophecies are concerned, Jesus might have been an advanced alien who was aware of the Old Testament and wanted people to worship him. This is a separate argument from my arguments against the nature of God. This argument assumes that the alien being did heal people, and that he did feed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish.

Another possibility is that the alien being was evil and wanted to deceive people.

Hurricane Katrina is reason enough for rational minded people to reject Christianity. Only a barbaric monster would allow such a thing to happen. Fair and just oversight is one matter, but Hurricane Katrina is another matter entirely. God created hurricanes, not Adam and Eve. God determines where hurricanes go, not Adam and Eve. In order for God to be considered loving and good, he must be consistently loving and good. God is not like that. If a human father normally takes very good care of his young son, but occasionally allows the boy next door to seriously injure his son, such a father would not be respected. In fact, he could be prosecuted for allowing it.

Love cares, love protects, love helps, and love heals. God is not provably like that in tangible ways. Good things and bad things are frequently not distributed to the people who are in greatest need, indicating that they are not distributed by intent.

In conclusion, philosophy trumps apologetics every time hands down. The Resurrection IS NOT the most important issue. The most important issue is the nature of God. No Christian can ever adequately prove that God is good. Such being the case, there are not any good reasons at all for anyone to ever become a Christian even if Jesus “did” rise from the dead, and even if God “can” predict the future.

I have gotten off-topic, but I can correctly say that even if Jason has won the battle over the Resurrection, he has lost the much more important war regarding the nature of God.

infidelguy · Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 6:42 am Post subject:

This concludes the "debate" between Johnny Skeptic and Jason Gastrich on the Reliability of the Resurrection and post-Resurrection accounts.
_________________
----
"Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply a refusal to deny the obvious." - Sam Harris - An Atheist Manifesto