Resurrection - Fact Ot Fiction?

[mymistake]

Blue.....I think you have made a real good point here. I always think to myself if someone is that frigging smart - they must know something! And he is smart, but this still boils down to those 2 words - faith and belief!!

 

Really,there is no proof at all!! Thanks!

 

Greenleaf did know many things. He was an authority on the topic of law. However that doesn't mean we can appeal to his authority on every topic. And it doesn't mean that his conclusions will stand forever. New technology has changed the situation. Greenleaf could not consider this technology because he died long ago. If Greeleaf had been born in modern times then it's likely that he would have said something different. These are two themes you will often seen in Creationist, Intelligent Design, or Bible apologetics arguments. The Christian will appeal to the opinion of an expert in some other field or the Christian will cite a study that is at least 10 years old.

[Ouroboros]

Blue.....I think you have made a real good point here. I always think to myself if someone is that frigging smart - they must know something! And he is smart, but this still boils down to those 2 words - faith and belief!!

 

Really,there is no proof at all!! Thanks!

 

Greenleaf did know many things. He was an authority on the topic of law. However that doesn't mean we can appeal to his authority on every topic. And it doesn't mean that his conclusions will stand forever.

Very good point. He did contribute to our law system and is highly respected, but considering that he lived 150-200 years ago, it's not like his views can always be correct in everything. For instance, would it be correct to appeal to some authority in 1850's who said that slavery is morally justifiable? We wouldn't think that opinion was correct even if it was some famous or well respected person. We learn and grow as society as well and the court of law has changed since Greenleaf. Not everything he said is true anymore.

 

New technology has changed the situation. Greenleaf could not consider this technology because he died long ago. If Greeleaf had been born in modern times then it's likely that he would have said something different. These are two themes you will often seen in Creationist, Intelligent Design, or Bible apologetics arguments. The Christian will appeal to the opinion of an expert in some other field or the Christian will cite a study that is at least 10 years old.

Usually even older than that. I made an estimate from one discussion I had on this board a while back. The apologist used science and reports that were at least 40 years old and nothing newer than that. Amazing.

[Mike D]

One of the arguments in the article was that Greenleaf believed this VERY strongly, so therefore it must be true.

I hear this argument over and over and I swear I don't see how any intelligent person cannot see the flaws in it. Even my own father, a Christian, but very intelligent man (and lawyer no less!), tried to use it on me.

 

When they say "oh so and so wouldn't have suffered, been tortured, or have died for a lie, so it must be true!" they fail to consider the fact that faith isn't a lie, at least not in the minds of the faithful - regardless of whether it is true in reality. It's also a logical fallacy (special pleading) because if you make a rule that if someone dies for a belief it must be true, you have to apply the rule to all religions, not just Christianity.

 

This haphazardly thrown around argument actually helped in my deconversion, because it just shows the degree that "faith" has so little to do with reality.

[mymistake]

I hear this argument over and over and I swear I don't see how any intelligent person cannot see the flaws in it. Even my own father, a Christian, but very intelligent man (and lawyer no less!), tried to use it on me.

 

When they say "oh so and so wouldn't have suffered, been tortured, or have died for a lie, so it must be true!" they fail to consider the fact that faith isn't a lie, at least not in the minds of the faithful - regardless of whether it is true in reality. It's also a logical fallacy (special pleading) because if you make a rule that if someone dies for a belief it must be true, you have to apply the rule to all religions, not just Christianity.

 

Oh would I love to hear someone try that in real life. My comeback: "So it must be true that David Koresh was Jesus Christ! Thanks for clearing that up."

[Spectrox]

As C S Lewis boldly asserted there are only 3 possibilities for Jesus. He was either mad, bad or God (or myth, or mistaken or the whole thing has been made up, or combinations of the above).

 

In terms of the resurrection, I genuinely wouldn't know what to believe in detail (and in what chronological order events were supposed to take place). Different women at the tomb according to the different accounts, either 1 angel present or 2 (has anyone actually seen an angel anyway?), the stone either removed from the entrance to the tomb or in the case of Matthew's gospel the stone is still in position then there is an earthquake (Matthew is quite keen on writing about earthquakes that nobody else seems to have noticed!) and the stone rolls dramatically to one side revealing the empty tomb. Christians say that this makes the accounts authentic and adds weight to the claim. I just think it's a total mess and wouldn't be admissable as evidence in a court of law.

 

It's a load of old bollocks.

[DT761138]

I believe its possible that Jesus was "raised from the dead", eg, that he appeared to his disciples after his death. And yet I don't consider myself a Christian and I don't believe the Bible is innerant or historical. Believing in the resurrectioen really has nothing to do with accepting the truth claims or theology of Christianity. To give an example, go read the book "The Good Heart", an exegesis of various biblical passages by the current Dalai Lama. He believes Jesus existed and "Rose from the dead" but interprets them within a completely different framework. So, I find believing that Jesus had miraculous powers or survived death an unconvincing reason to be Christian. Because there's alot of leaps in between believing Jesus was an unusual human being surrounded by mysterious powers, to believing that Jesus is the Son of God and that Martin Luther or Pope Benedict have the only authoritative view of him.

[MichaelS]

My general opinion on the resurrection accounts, briefly, is as follows. Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet whose teachings were largely based on the Essene sect of Judaism, born in Galilee to normal Galilean parents(take that, Virgin Birth!). He falls afoul of the Romans for reasons unknown, and is subsequently executed. His followers flee in fear and go into hiding, and the Romans throw his body into an unmarked grave where it quickly decomposes. Later on, Peter or one of the other disciples has a dream of Jesus, and concludes that he has "risen from the dead." He quickly gathers the disciples, who are extremely excited by this "news," and everything kind of snowballs from there, there's sort of a me-too aspect to these things once they get started, and people are so ready to believe that they are a part of something bigger than themselves that any evidence will do, really, no matter how flimsy. The accounts of the empty tomb and the ascension, along with the details of Jesus's appearances, are later attempts to historize these subjective emotional experiences, and have no basis in history whatsoever.

 

The interesting thing is that I came to this conclusion largely while I was still a Christian. I couldn't understand, given the contradictions in the resurrection accounts, how a historical resurrection was to be taken literally, or was even theologically necessary. Not only is Jesus recorded as performing resurrections of other people, but the prophet Elisha also raised a few people from the dead (including one episode where a man came to life after touching Elisha's dead corpse.) As Hitchens says, resurrection was something of a banality at the time.

 

I think the biggest criticism of the Bible generally and the gospels in particular is not the disputed age of the accounts, or the fact that the gospels are anonymous. It's that those people writing it are in the grip of religious passion, and don't even have to be lying to make stuff up.

[mwc]

Jesus did everything as written. He was product of a virgin and a ghost. He performed magic. He fed a lot of people with a little bread and some fish and had leftovers. He walked on water. He talked in parables so no one could possibly understand him. He kicked some demons out of a few people. Some other guy who didn't follow him could just use his magical name to also kick demons out of people. He shared a mountaintop with Moses and Elijah both of which were recognizable while he was a total mystery. He had some followers that abandoned him. He was killed. He came back to life. He flew into the sky. He now sits on the right hand of a god that has no hands.

 

This is the story. What's so hard to believe?

 

There was once a little boy who went off to wizarding school. His name was Harry Potter. Don't believe it? You should. It all happened. Just the way it was written. It just never happened outside the stories. Even if a lawyer "proves" it all happened inside the books doesn't mean it somehow trancends the books and becomes real. Harry Potter is real inside the world of Harry Potter. Jesus is real inside the gospels. Everything they do in their own worlds is very real and happens exactly as described even if it is absolutely impossible.

 

Did this "jesus" die for your sins? Are you a character in that world? If you are then yes. You should accept him so you don't face its various punishments. If you're not, and if you're reading this then it is probably safe to assume you are not, then nothing happened in your world and it does not affect you. You won't be "judged" by any father or son gods for not believing a story.

 

So did "jesus" resurrect? You bet he did. It's in the stories. I won't say what Harry does since some people still don't know the end of that (and it's a far better story in my opinion).

 

mwc

[florduh]

I believe its possible that Jesus was "raised from the dead"

Why?

 

Technically, anything is possible (fairies, lizard people) but some things are just damn unlikely in a universe governed by the laws of physics. Since there have never been any verified resurrections and such an occurrence would be in conflict with science and reason, I highly doubt this Biblical account is factual. It's as preposterous as the virgin birth or Noah's ark.

[bornagainathiest]

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.

Greenleaf, world-renowned and noted professor of law at Harvard University, examined the facts surrounding

the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and as author of a treatise on the law of evidence, was a veritable expert on how evidence is used in the court of law. This same man, in subjecting the claims of the resurrection to the very tests of evidence used in courts of law, came to a surprising conclusion. He wrote of his findings in his work In Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, and said there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ than for just about any other event in history.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Hi Margee!

 

I'll add my 50 cents worth.

 

The persuasive power of the two paragraphs above (and everything else on that site that relies of the words of Dr. Greenleaf) rests not on facts, but on a fallacy.

 

http://en.wikipedia....al_to_authority

 

Most of what authority a (Greenleaf) has to say on subject matter S (the resurrection of Jesus) is correct.

 

a says p (it's true) about S.

 

Therefore, p is correct.

 

Summing it up, what's being said here is...

 

Because Greenleaf (a) was an expert in his field, his research into and conclusions about the resurrection (S) are therefore correct - it is the truth (p)

 

This line of argument isn't just fallacious, it's also fundamentally flawed. For the following reasons.

 

1.

The evidence of the resurrection cannot be tested in court, because there are no living witnesses who can be cross-examined. As mentioned earlier, these eye-witness testimonies therefore constitute no more than heresay. Any judge worth his salt would advise the jury of this fact, so that they could weigh this before arriving at a verdict.

 

2.

Greenleaf was a legal expert.

He would have had to turn to other experts (in fields like the ancient Hebrew and ancient Greek languages, archaeology, history, Mosaic Law, etc.) for their opinions and then make a personal judgement on what they said. The double catch with this approach is one of personal bias - both Greenleaf's and that of his advisors. The experts would have given Greenleaf their (mostly untestable) opinions and then he had to make a judgement, based on the internal consistency and integrity of that body of information. In both cases, because most of the relevant data was untestable, personal bias on the part of the experts and Greenleaf himself cannot be ruled out.

 

The whole point of cross-examination in a court of law is to strip away the personal bias of any witness. This is done by comparing what witness X says about Y, with what witness Z says about Y. If the testimonies are not in agreement, then the quality of the evidence is in doubt. Ditto, the testimonies of experts. If Professor Q contradicts the expert testimony of Doctor P, then this must be taken into account as well.

 

The untestability of much of the Biblical evidence for Jesus' resurrection places severe constraints on it's quality.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The Wiki page goes on to say...

 

The strength of this argument depends upon two factors:

1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
   
2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.
   

However, as we see above, Greenleaf's expertise and ability to make a sound judgement rests upon shaky ground. Therefore, we should modify this, to read...

 

 

The strength of the argument depends upon two factors:

 

1.

The authority (Greenleaf) is a legitimate expert on the subject of LAW. He was not an expert in other relevant areas and thus he introduced uncertainty and personal bias into his decision-making process by relying almost exclusively on un-testable data.

 

2.

A consensus DID NOT exist among the legitimate experts on the matter under discussion. They were not unanimous. Greenleaf was forced to select from a contradictory body of evidence, rejecting some parts in favor of others. That was 150 years ago. We are now considerably better informed today than experts were at that time. The evidence for Jesus' resurrection is now even more complicated, contradictory and difficult to weigh.

 

Consequently, Greenleaf's conclusion can be shown to be less than satisfactory and certainly no basis for deciding to put one's faith in a carpenter from Galilee!

 

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[oddbird1963]

One of the arguments in the article was that Greenleaf believed this VERY strongly, so therefore it must be true.

I hear this argument over and over and I swear I don't see how any intelligent person cannot see the flaws in it. Even my own father, a Christian, but very intelligent man (and lawyer no less!), tried to use it on me.

 

When they say "oh so and so wouldn't have suffered, been tortured, or have died for a lie, so it must be true!" they fail to consider the fact that faith isn't a lie, at least not in the minds of the faithful - regardless of whether it is true in reality. It's also a logical fallacy (special pleading) because if you make a rule that if someone dies for a belief it must be true, you have to apply the rule to all religions, not just Christianity.

 

This haphazardly thrown around argument actually helped in my deconversion, because it just shows the degree that "faith" has so little to do with reality.

 

That is well put. That is what John Loftus' "Outsiders' Test for Faith" is all about. The arguments for Christianity, many of them at least, are nothing but special pleading. Christians don't hesitate to use rational means to refute other religions. But you dare not apply the same reasonable analysis to their faith.

[mymistake]

It's even worse than that. We can't even demonstrated Jesus existed in the first place. Personally I believe there was some kind of charismatic preacher who was executed. I justify that belief because the first century writings, including Paul, seem like they are trying to take advantage of another's fame. Jesus was a very popular name at the time so there might have been more than one slightly popular teacher named Jesus. We can see this same type of thing happen in modern times. A moderately popular singer gets shot dead and then suddenly some of the biggest actors in Hollywood are working on her life story. Then the movie make more money that the singer it's about ever did. This resurrection thing probably got started from dreams about Jesus the teacher. Having powerful memories about the dead teacher would be part of the morning process but might have been interpreted through religion. I believe Mark is the oldest gospel to survive Rome's purge. The oldest versions of Mark end with an empty tomb. So I think the empty tomb with no resurrected Christ was what the earliest Christians, that is pre-Paul, believed.

[Brother Jeff]

I know and understand that these topics can get very boring for the person who is fully deconverted. But, If any of you bible Scholars would have some time over the weekend, would you please do me a favor and read this article and give me your opinion on it? These articles puzzle me and I know at this time, I should probably not read them. Still, I get nosy to see what 'they' are saying for the proof of the bible. I read these articles and want to ask questions once again!!!Damn!!!

 

I trust you guys more than any 'apologist' on the internet!

 

http://www.av1611.org/resur.html

 

 

Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice.

Greenleaf, world-renowned and noted professor of law at Harvard University, examined the facts surrounding

the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and as author of a treatise on the law of evidence, was a veritable expert on how evidence is used in the court of law. This same man, in subjecting the claims of the resurrection to the very tests of evidence used in courts of law, came to a surprising conclusion. He wrote of his findings in his work In Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, and said there is more evidence for the historical fact of the resurrection of Christ than for just about any other event in history.

 

Sister Margee, I understand what you are going through. There is some part of you that still asks, "What if they're right?" That's the FEAR that is so foundational to the fundamentalist Christian cult talking. It's not reasonable or rational. It's a raw and powerful emotion. I bless the LARD that He magically caused me to read Dr. Marlene Winell's articles on Religious Trauma Syndrome. They are available on the main blog. Quoting from the third article:

 

Problems with self-worth and fear of terrible punishment continue. Virtually all controlling religions teach fear about the evil in ‘the world’ and the danger of being alone without the group. Ordinary setbacks can cause panic attacks, especially when one feels like a small child in a very foreign world. Coming out of a sheltered, repressed environment can result in a lack of coping skills and personal maturity. The phobia indoctrination makes it difficult to avoid the stabbing thought, even many years after leaving, that one has made a terrible mistake, thinking ‘what if they’re right?’

 

I've been through the "what if they are right?" thing many times and for me it led to some short-lived but public and very embarrassing re-conversions. The reality is that there is NO WAY IN HELL THAT THEY COULD BE RIGHT!

 

The Bible starts out in Genesis 1:1 getting basic scientific facts about the universe and our world wrong and then goes rapidly downhill from there. Genesis 1:2 has the Holy Spook in His Bird Form flying over the surface of the biblically flat earth. That's followed up with two contradictory and laughably absurd creation myths and then those are followed up by a hilarious account of the creation of mankind featuring two obviously mythical people and a talking snake! I mean, come on! The foundational doctrines of Christianity can be summed up like this:

• Approximately 10,000 years ago an Invisible Man magically created the universe by speaking a powerful magical spell from Nowhere (presumably in Hebrew).
  
• After magically creating the flat earth the Holy Farter scooped up a handful of dirt, fashioned it into a cool little doll, and then magically breathed life into it via the version of Himself known as the Holy Spook.
  
• The cool magically living little doll and his magical mate (a much cooler-looking little doll) pissed the Holy Farter off and killed their inner spooks (and by extension our inner spooks) because they ate a piece of magical fruit from a magical tree the Holy Farter had warned them not to fuck with because a lying talking snake convinced them to do it.
  
• The way to "get right" with the Holy Farter is to believe that He sacrificed Himself to Himself to save us from Himself and that this absurd action somehow magically nullifies the magical fruit power and restores life to our dead inner spooks.
  
• If you believe this absurd bullshit you get to live in the sky forever! Glory!
  

These absurd stories and claims are what Christianity is based on! Should anyone take them seriously? I don't think so!!

 

I rarely visit Christian sites anymore. I got tired of being alternately assaulted either with laughably absurd claims I could easily refute or abysmal scientific ignorance that made me want scream! The page you found is typically ludicrous. Dr. Greenleaf lacked the benefit of the knowledge we have now about the Bible, its contents, and its origins. His beliefs were based on a faulty premise and he predictably reached a faulty conclusion.

 

As others have said, the gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. Nor are they even remotely historically or factually reliable texts. They are religious tracts written by anonymous authors and as such anything contained within them should be taken with a HUGE grain of salt.

 

Christian apologists have the unenviable chore of propping up ancient fairy tales dreamed up by primitive people as being literally true. They also must do their best to convince modern people who should know better that a collection of ancient documents riddled with scientific, factual, and historical errors is the "inerrant, infallible Word of God". They may reassure the brainwashed, indoctrinated faithful who want to believe, but I doubt that do much else. Once I started reading "the other side" I quickly realized how absurd Christian claims were.

 

The alleged Magical Undeadening of Jesus is exactly what it sounds like and plainly obviously is -- an ancient religious myth with no demonstrable basis in reality.

 

It's a MYTH! Glory!

 

Hope that somewhat rambling response helps, Sister!

 

Glory!

[Guest Valk0010]

There is a reason, that I typical don't care as much about greenleafs work. Mostly because its out of date. And even in his own time, there were people who found decent reason to dispute what happen in the gospels. I will let the other people who know more then me address this in more detail.