Exchange with an Unbeliever

I was reading an article on Yahoo about a fossilized bird egg that sold at an auction. I found an exchange between a couple of Christians and an unbeliever, going by the name Andrew, in the comment section of the article. One of the Christians was contending, among other things (and not very well, IMO) that the "joke was going to be on" the unbelievers on Judgment day. In the following entry I'm going to post the unbeliever's comment and then my response to him.

His post:

“Yeah, finding out men are dirt and women are leftover barbecue, all of humanity was condemned over a bad snack choice, somehow an omniscient God couldn't see it coming, an omnipresent God wasn't around to stop it, and an omnipotent God couldn't fix it...

Finding out that for over four-thousand years, the best solution to the problem of sin an all-knowing God could think of was "stab the sheep, bleed the sheep, burn the sheep, the sheep must pay"...

Finding out after that, the best he could come up with was ‘I'll be my own son who's really me, and go down and wander around claiming I'm sinless as I do morally dubious things like steal from other people, destroy their livestock, kill innocent trees for doing what I know they should be doing, and telling everyone that it's morally okay to take advantage of other people as long as they don't figure out they're being taken advantage of until after it's done... after I've done that long enough for someone to want to kill me, I'll try to act casual but narcissistic enough that they'll definitely kill me, but I can claim to be innocent, and then after I'm tortured and die a gruesome death dangling from a plank of wood, I'll completely change all the rules, stop manifesting my power in any obvious way, like I have up to that point, and tell everyone they now have to take it on faith, and then pin everyone's salvation on whether they hear the story and say 'gee, it was awfully nice of that man to be planked to death for us'...

And finding out that after laying down the laws of physics, creating all matter and energy, igniting fusion across the Universe, creating hundreds of billions of galaxies, each containing hundreds of billions of stars, setting all the planets in motion in their orbits, forming the Earth and giving rise to all life upon it...

Finding out the same mind that was moved to do all that then stopped and thought ‘and now, I think I'll make a species and then tell it to chop off part of its own genitals, murder each other for doing things like wearing gabardine blends and picking up sticks on the wrong day, lay down some rules for when they should start flinging dove blood everywhere, and then force them to abide by a stupid hat policy...’

You're right. If I die and find out that THAT'S what reality boiled down to, the joke will definitely be on me.

And you.

And everyone else.”

My response:

Andrew, I took a look at several of your replies to comments that had argued for the existence of God (among others) from different online articles. I did it just to get a feel about where you're coming from. As I did, I think I got a pretty good feeling about your position, but I also came to the realization that I am not your intellectual equal. You have obviously studied and thought a lot about these issues and make excellent points. From several of your other posts I get the sense that you’re a philosophy major.

In view of the fact that things like tone of voice, body language, and facial expressions are impossible to convey in writing, I want to assure you that I am not being sarcastic when I say that I entertain no delusions that I could match your intellect or successfully persuade you to believe in the Biblical God through logical argument alone. I don't consider it an improbability solely because of my intellectual inferiority, but also because I have come to the realization that the use of logic alone is limited in the pursuit of truth. I'm not sure of all the reasons for this but can see a few. One, logic is applied by finite minds with finite intellectual capacities, experiences, and knowledge. Two, it is easily misapplied due to a number of reasons, among them, bias, emotion, and incorrect presumptions. Another possible reason for the misapplication of logic is that there may be something inherently corrupt in our ability to reason accurately, something having to do with a corruption of the will. The accuracy of this conclusion presupposes the accuracy of the Bible in its contention that human beings have become corrupted, and thus warped, in their ability to reason accurately. I don't expect agreement from you on this point but throw it out there as a possibility.

Intellectual inferiority aside, I would still like to propose an argument for your consideration.  First, a little background about me, as it may eventually figure into the equation. I am now a 58 year old Christian. I have been a Christian since I was 21 years old. Prior to becoming a Christian, without having given the idea of God much thought, I defaulted to atheism. It's interesting to me that the argument I am about to present to you is not an argument that was ever presented to me before I became a Christian. It's also interesting that, though many similar or related arguments may have been presented to me by Christians, it did not end up being any such argument that eventually brought me to faith.

The Bible appeared to be utter nonsense to me back then. I saw Christians as a very strange group of weak, stupid, and gullible people…maybe even a little bit crazy. Your comments that derisively described the Bible’s contents and pointed out their apparent absurdities are echoes of my former thoughts and feelings about it. Even now, I puzzle over much of what I read, especially in the Old Testament. On the one hand, I marvel at the creation…the vast, mathematically precise complexity and immensity of it all. What science discovers is just a scratching of the surface, and I'd be willing to bet that that is the way it will always be. We can never get to the bottom of it all because “it” appears to be bottomless! It doesn't matter if we look at the micro or the macro. Either direction seems to be a path of infinite discovery. And at each stage of discovery we can't quite get to the point where we feel satisfied, like, “ah, now we’re finally getting to the bottom of it.” Rather, as we uncover things, we discover even greater complexity than we could have imagined. Assuming for the minute that all of these things came about by the action of an intelligent entity, how could this entity of infinitely complex creativity and precision be the same as the one described in the Bible as God? The one that, as you pointed out, demands the sacrifice of sheep for the sins of people, along with all the other apparently absurd things you described. On the face of it, the two pictures of this possible entity look incongruous. They don't seem to fit... I can relate to that sense. But does this apparent incongruity prove that they don't fit? Even if these two entities are one and the same, there is no way that I could ever prove it through logic alone. Are they the same? There is a roundabout way to begin addressing that question that I’d like to propose.

Since our presuppositions help us to come to conclusions, it's important to examine the things that cause us to form presuppositions. If we are in error about those things then when our thinking has been corrected our presuppositions may change. Since there are so many topics in the Bible that can be debated, and it seems almost impossible to resolve all of them, it's almost guaranteed that the debate will never end and people will never be brought to a point where they make any meaningful decisions. The dilemma reminds me of my college philosophy professor's statement that he wasn't interested in arriving at the truth because he loved the pursuit too much. His goal was to look for truth, not to find it (which seems nonsensical to me).

The goal in debating should be to arrive at truth. One of the ways to do this is to examine the core issues that our presuppositions emanate from instead of arguing the seemingly infinite number of peripheral issues. If we can arrive at conclusions about these core issues, then it's like taking a shortcut to the truth. With that in mind, I see the following argument as being about one of these core issues, namely, the resurrection of Christ. If one can be convinced of the credibility of the resurrection claim, then that belief becomes a presupposition that implies answers to many of the peripheral questions and, hopefully, brings the overall debate to a place where support for meaningful decisions exists.

With all that in mind, I’d like to ask the question;

Is there a compelling reason to believe or disbelieve that the origination of Christianity, a purported first century man named Jesus, rose from the dead three days after being crucified on a Roman cross?

Before an answer can be determined, some assumptions have to be agreed upon and substantiated. Just as an attorney produces witnesses to prove her case, so will this argument depend on the testimony of witnesses. And just as the credibility of the attorney's witnesses must be established before we know whether to believe them or not, so will this argument examine the credibility of witnesses.

Assumptions:

1) There is a movement that exists that is commonly called “Christianity” that has followers that are known as "Christians".

2) The origins of this movement can be traced to the first century AD.

a. All of the four records known as "the gospels" are written with references to an intact Jerusalem.

b.  Josephus (37-97 AD), the court historian for Roman Emperor Vespasian, recorded the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 AD. Josephus was an eyewitness to this destruction and, in fact, was utilized by the Roman commander, Titus, as a negotiator during the attack.

c.  a. and b. taken together establish that the gospels were probably written in the first century.

d. There is additional evidence that the earliest gospel (Matthew) was written within a few years of the death of Jesus. (see http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=410)

e. The gospels, therefore, existed at the time when there would have been witnesses, both hostile and friendly, to the purported events that they recorded. Anyone disseminating a record of an event into the public eye would be aware of the likely existence of such witnesses and would assume that their manuscript would, therefore, be either corroborated, or exposed as a sham. This possibility would tend to discourage the  production of fraudulent records.

3) A central tenet of this movement, that has been asserted since the first century by the earliest followers, is the belief that a first century man named Jesus was executed by crucifixion at the hands of Roman authorities and that he rose from the dead three days later.

a. That this has been repeatedly asserted since the first century is verified by Roman historians. First, Tacitus (55-120 AD) who wrote regarding Nero's suspected complicity in the burning of Rome (64 AD),

"But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." (from: Tacitus, Annals 15.44)

And, Josephus, who wrote,  

"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure.  He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." (from: The Works of Josephus", book 18, chapter 3, #3) ( The parts of the quote that are italicized are possible interpolations from later copyists. That Josephus recognized the claims was probable, but that he believed them is not.)

b.  Records of the purported events also exist that were written by individuals who were sympathetic to the movement (see #2 a.-e. above). The assertions reportedly made by the first century followers of this movement seem to be consistent with these records. 

c. The assertion that these records (3 b. above), especially those recording the resurrection, should be considered credible is supported by several points, two of which are provided below. (I'm starting to realize that an adequate presentation of this argument will take on book-sized proportions. Since such books have already been written, I'm going to provide examples rather than exhaustive references) :

1. An empty tomb. From the first century onward, there has never been a question as to whether or not Jesus' tomb was empty. The question has always been "why was the tomb empty?", and people have been speculating over the answer to this question since. It would have been simple to prove that the resurrection did not take place by pointing to the tomb containing the dead body of Jesus. The fact that there is no record of this happening is not proof of the resurrection. It is, however, one piece of circumstantial evidence that points to the possible credibility of the written record. It should be noted that, among Jewish and Roman authorities, there likely existed a considerable level of motivation to prevent the circulation of the idea that Jesus had risen from the dead. The gospel records indicate that this motivation was expressed by the Jewish authorities in their request that a Roman guard be posted at the tomb itself to prevent any theft of the body. There are several explanations that have been proposed since, none of which withstand logical scrutiny. One example is that the body was stolen. If this were true, then it implies that the none of the first century followers did, in fact, have any encounters with Jesus after his purported resurrection. This, in turn, implies that these followers were ready to die for asserting something that they knew not to be true. Therefore, holding to this argument defies reason. In the words of Sir Norman Anderson, "The empty tomb, then, forms a veritable rock on which all rationalistic theories of the resurrection dash themselves in vain". (From: The Evidence for the Resurrection. J.N.D. Anderson, O.B.E., M.A., LL. D.)

2. The fact that any first century person's belief in the credibility of the records would require their belief in the credibility of the testimony of women. This point greatly supports claims of the credibility of the records. Why? Because the last testimony that a first century fabricator would have pointed to in an attempt to establish credibility would have been that of a woman. Women had virtually no credibility in first-century Jewish culture, and their testimony in a court of law was considered worthless. For example, a man could not legally have been convicted in a Jewish court on the testimony of a woman alone. Again, if the record of the empty tomb were fabricated, it would make no sense to fabricate female testimony as support. It would, in fact, have hindered them in what they were trying to accomplish. The reasonable conclusion is that the writers of these records were recording actual events (perhaps even while realizing that their stories might be viewed suspiciously because they contained female testimony).

4) This man named Jesus, to whom the origin of Christianity can be traced, existed and was crucified by Roman authorities in the first century at the insistence of Jewish authorities.  (see 3 a. and b. above)

5) At least some of the first century followers claimed to have, and/or were reported to have, experienced one or more encounters with this man after his purported resurrection. (All four gospels record these experiences. In one letter, written by one of the gospel writers, John, he states that he is an eyewitness. See: 1 John 1: 1-3)

6) These followers were heavily persecuted by the Roman authorities, chief among them, Emperor Nero. This persecution included a large number of executions via various means of torture. (See 3 a. and b. above)

7) Much of the aim of this persecution was the eradication of Christianity.

8) The so-called eyewitnesses were, in all probability, among those who were persecuted.

a. Roman historians, Hippolytus (died around 236 AD), and  Eusebius (260-341 AD) documented the violent deaths of 10 of Jesus' 12 disciples. Paul and Peter were both probably killed under the Neronian persecution, Paul by beheading and Peter by crucifixion upside-down. The early followers of Jesus were certainly persecuted heavily and many were killed.

9) Due to their potential or impending suffering of persecution, most if not all of these first century followers would likely have attempted to corroborate the testimonies of the so-called eyewitnesses.

10) In light of the ongoing persecution, if these attempts at corroboration had failed , it is unlikely that there would have been a continued willingness in these followers to persist in their assertions, especially while having doubts as to their authenticity.

11) Additionally, the followers who claimed to have been actual eyewitnesses could also have avoided persecution by abandoning their assertions that they had seen this man, Jesus, after he had been resurrected. It should also be noted, at this point, that the records paint an unflattering picture of some of these eyewitnesses (known as "the disciples") and their behaviors before the resurrection. I.E. their attitudes and actions transitioned from fearful and dejected before the resurrection, to hopeful and courageous afterward.

12) In light of the historical evidence of the persistence of both classes, namely that Christianity continued to spread throughout the first century world , it's reasonable to believe that these likely attempts at corroboration were successful enough to justify the willingness of these Christians to maintain their assertions even upon fear of death.

13) Rational people do not willingly die for claiming to have witnessed something when, in fact, they have not witnessed that thing. I.E. rational people do not die for what they know is a lie.

a. I'd like to pause here and address a common objection heard when this argument is being proposed (that people don't die for what they know is a lie). The objection goes something like this: "Lots of people in history have died for what they believed. Think of the Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire, or fanatical Muslims blowing themselves up. They obviously believe that what they are dying for is the truth. How is that any different from these early Christians dying for what they believe in? It may not be a lie they're dying for. Maybe they're just mistaken or deluded." The distinction between what these people are willing to persist in asserting, even at the risk of death, must be made. On the one hand, Buddhist monks and fanatical Muslims are dying for ideas that they believe to be true. The early Christian witnesses, and those who relied on those witnesses' testimonies were dying for asserting, not an idea, but a physical, visible, verifiable reality, i.e., the resurrected Jesus. Their claims were that they had seen him. Either they had or they hadn't. They were willing to die rather than say they hadn't.

14) The Roman goal of the eradication of Christianity could easily have been accomplished by parading the dead body of Jesus through the streets of Jerusalem or displaying it in its tomb. The story that has been passed down throughout history is that there was no body in the tomb. (see 3 c. 1. above)

15) History contains no record that the Romans were able to produce the dead body of Jesus.

Therefore

1) It is reasonable to assume that these so-called eyewitnesses were in fact eyewitnesses.

2) The belief that the resurrection of this man Jesus, in fact did occur, is a reasonable belief.

3) The belief that the resurrection of this man Jesus did not in fact occur is an unreasonable belief.