Debate Thursday Resurrection BS!

Debate Thursday. There is no reason to believe that the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ occurred.

This is my rough draft so far (I’ve borrowed heavily from several sources):

Today I am going to tell you why I don’t buy the resurrection story.
By that, i mean the tales in the Gospels, of Jesus physically rising
again from the grave.

I will cover the most important reasons why I don’t buy the
resurrection story.  It actually begins with a different tale.  In 520
AD an anonymous monk recorded the life of St. Genevieve, who had died
only 10 years before that. In his account, he describes how, when she
ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a
fatal stench on many men for hours, while she was sailing, eleven
ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again
spontaneously.  she cast out demons, calmed storms, created water and
oil from nothing before astonished croweds, healed the blind and the
lame, and several who stole from her actually went blind instead.

No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and
there were written very near the time the events supposedly happened–
by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin.  Yet,
do we believe any of it?  Not really, and we shouldn’t.

But, we should try to be more specific in our reasons, and not rely
solely on our common sense impressions.  There are specific reasons to
disbelieve the story of Genevieve, and they are the same reasons we
have to doubt the gospel accounts of the Resurrection of Jesus. The
parallel is clear: the Gospels were written no sooner to the death of
Jesus than the Genevieve account to her death. Like that account, the
Gospels were also originally anonymous – the names now attached to
them were added by speculation and oral tradition half a century after
they were written.  Both contain fabulous miracles supposedly
witnessed by numerous people.  Both are a sacred account of a holy
person regarded as representing a moral and divine ideal.

Christian apologist Douglas Geivett has declared that the evidence for
><!–
D(["mb","the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, "the highest
standards of historical inquiry" and "if one takes the historian’s own
criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the
resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of
the ancient world." As well attested, he says, as Julius Caesar’s
crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.

Let’s take a look at Caesar’s crossing.
First of all, we have Caesar’s own word on the subject.  The Civil War
written by Caesar himself and one of his general who was definitely an
eye-witness.  In contrast we do not have anything written by Jesus and
we do not know for certain the name of any authors of any of the
accounts of his physical resurrection.
Second, we have many of Caesar’s enemies, including Cicero, a
contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing; whereas we have not
hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a
hundred years after the event.
Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after
the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing; including
mentions of battles and conscriptions, which form an almost continuous
chain of evidence for Caesar’s entire march. On the other hand we have
absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the
resurrection.
Fourth, we have the story of the "Rubicon Crossing" in almost every
historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the
age.  moreover, these scholars have a measure of pr oven reliability
since a great many of their reports on other matter have been
confirmed in material evidence and in other sources.  In addition,
they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading
of the witnesses and documents, and they show a regular desire to
critically examine claims for which there is any dispute.  If that
wasn’t enough, all o them cite or quote sources which were written by
“,1]
);

//–>
the physical resurrection of Jesus meets, and I quote, “the highest
standards of historical inquiry” and “if one takes the historian’s own
criteria for assessing the historicity of ancient events, the
resurrection passes muster as a historically well-attested event of
the ancient world.” As well attested, he says, as Julius Caesar’s
crossing of the Rubicon in 49 B.C.

Let’s take a look at Caesar’s crossing.
First of all, we have Caesar’s own word on the subject.  The Civil War
written by Caesar himself and one of his general who was definitely an
eye-witness.  In contrast we do not have anything written by Jesus and
we do not know for certain the name of any authors of any of the
accounts of his physical resurrection.
Second, we have many of Caesar’s enemies, including Cicero, a
contemporary of the event, reporting the crossing; whereas we have not
hostile or even neutral records of the resurrection until over a
hundred years after the event.
Third, we have a number of inscriptions and coins produced soon after
the Republican Civil War related to the Rubicon crossing; including
mentions of battles and conscriptions, which form an almost continuous
chain of evidence for Caesar’s entire march. On the other hand we have
absolutely no physical evidence of any kind in the case of the
resurrection.
Fourth, we have the story of the “Rubicon Crossing” in almost every
historian of the period, including the most prominent scholars of the
age.  moreover, these scholars have a measure of pr oven reliability
since a great many of their reports on other matter have been
confirmed in material evidence and in other sources.  In addition,
they all quote and name many different sources, showing a wide reading
of the witnesses and documents, and they show a regular desire to
critically examine claims for which there is any dispute.  If that
wasn’t enough, all o them cite or quote sources which were written by
><!–
D(["mb","witnesses, hostile and friendly of the crossing and its repercussions.
Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single
historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and
then only by Christian historians.  And those few people who do
mention it within a century of he event, none of them show any wide
reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or
critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature
or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and
accuracy, and are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared
bias toward persuasion and conversion.
Fifth, and most importantly: the history of Rome could not have
proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into
Italy.  Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief
that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or

conscripted
Italian menagainst Pompey’s forces in Greece. On the other hand, all
that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief – a
belief that the resurrection happened.  There is nothing that an
actual resurrection would have cause that could not have been caused
by a mere belief in that resurrection.  Thus, an actual resurrection
is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar’s
crossing of the Rubicon.
It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar
crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the
resurrection. In fact, when we compare all 5 point, we see that in 4
of the 5 proofs of an event’s historicity, the resurrection has NO
evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not
the best, but the very worst kind of evidence — a handful of biased,
uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses.  This is not
a historically well-attested event, and it does NOT meet the highest
standards of evidence.

But, reasons to be skeptical do not stop there.  We must consider the
“,1]
);

//–>
witnesses, hostile and friendly of the crossing and its repercussions.
Compare this with the resurrection: we have not even a single
historian mentioning the event until the 3rd and 4th centuries, and
then only by Christian historians.  And those few people who do
mention it within a century of he event, none of them show any wide
reading, never cite any other sources, show no sign of a skilled or
critical examination of conflicting claims, have no other literature
or scholarship to their credit that we can test for their skill and
accuracy, and are completely unknown, and have an overtly declared
bias toward persuasion and conversion.
Fifth, and most importantly: the history of Rome could not have
proceeded as it did had Caesar not physically moved an army into
Italy.  Even if Caesar could have somehow cultivated the mere belief
that he had done this, he could not have captured Rome or conscripted
Italian menagainst Pompey’s forces in Greece. On the other hand, all
that is needed to explain the rise of Christianity is a belief – a
belief that the resurrection happened.  There is nothing that an
actual resurrection would have cause that could not have been caused
by a mere belief in that resurrection.  Thus, an actual resurrection
is not necessary to explain all subsequent history, unlike Caesar’s
crossing of the Rubicon.
It should be clear that we have many reasons to believe that Caesar
crossed the Rubicon, all of which are lacking in the case of the
resurrection. In fact, when we compare all 5 point, we see that in 4
of the 5 proofs of an event’s historicity, the resurrection has NO
evidence at all, and in the one proof that it does have, it has not
the best, but the very worst kind of evidence — a handful of biased,
uncritical, unscholarly, unknown, second-hand witnesses.  This is not
a historically well-attested event, and it does NOT meet the highest
standards of evidence.

But, reasons to be skeptical do not stop there.  We must consider the
><!–
D(["mb","setting in which these stores spread. In today's society, the claim or
belief that another person is resurrected from the dead (and not in
the near-death sense), is absolutely absurd.
To use some examples within the New Testament itself: Mark 6:14-17,
"King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known.
Some were saying, "John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and
that is why miraculous powers are at work in him." Others said, "He is
Elijah."  And still others claimed, "He is a prophet, like one of the
prophets of long ago." But when Herod heard this, he said, "John, the
man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!"  For Herod himself had
given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in
prison."

Which is echoed in Matthew and Luke as well.  Apparently, resurrection
was a common explanation that was accepted at that time – even by
Kings!  Herod apparently thought that Jesus was John, even though John
had just recently died and the people must have known what he looked
like.

This was an age where magic and ghosts were everywhere, and almost
never doubted.  By the estimates of William Harris, author of Ancient
Literacy, only 20% of the population could read anything at all, and
fewer than 10% could read well, and far fewer still had any access to
books.  The result was that the masses had no understanding of science
or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled nor even
interested in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like
that of the Gospels: Utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class
society — even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life.
Who wouldn’t have bought a ticket to that lottery?  People back then
based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller,
by his ability to impress them with a show, and by the potential
rewards his story had to offer.  At the same time, doubters didn’t
“,1]
);

//–>
setting in which these stores spread. In today’s society, the claim or
belief that another person is resurrected from the dead (and not in
the near-death sense), is absolutely absurd.
To use some examples within the New Testament itself: Mark 6:14-17,
“King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known.
Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and
that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.” Others said, “He is
Elijah.”  And still others claimed, “He is a prophet, like one of the
prophets of long ago.” But when Herod heard this, he said, “John, the
man I beheaded, has been raised from the dead!”  For Herod himself had
given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in
prison.”

Which is echoed in Matthew and Luke as well.  Apparently, resurrection
was a common explanation that was accepted at that time – even by
Kings!  Herod apparently thought that Jesus was John, even though John
had just recently died and the people must have known what he looked
like.

This was an age where magic and ghosts were everywhere, and almost
never doubted.  By the estimates of William Harris, author of Ancient
Literacy, only 20% of the population could read anything at all, and
fewer than 10% could read well, and far fewer still had any access to
books.  The result was that the masses had no understanding of science
or critical thought. They were neither equipped nor skilled nor even
interested in challenging an inspiring story, especially a story like
that of the Gospels: Utopian, wonderful, critical of upper class
society — even more a story that, if believed, secured eternal life.
Who wouldn’t have bought a ticket to that lottery?  People back then
based their judgment on the display of sincerity by the storyteller,
by his ability to impress them with a show, and by the potential
rewards his story had to offer.  At the same time, doubters didn’t
><!–
D(["mb","care to waste the time or money debunking yet another crazy cult, of
which there were hundreds then.  And so it should not surprise us that
we have no writings by anyone hostile to Christianity until a century
after ti began – not even slanders or lies.  Clearly, no doubter cared
to check or even challenge the story in print until it was too late to
investigate the facts.  These are just some of the reasons why we
cannot trust the extraordinary reports from that time without
excellent evidence, which we do not have in the case of the physical
resurrection of Jesus.

Even so, it is often said in objection that we can trust the Gospels
more than we normally would because they were based on the reports of
eye-witnesses o the event who were willing to die for their belief in
the physical resurrection, for surely, no one would die for a lie.
Besides the fact that Matthew 28:17 claims that some of the
eye-witnesses didn’t believe what they saw, which suggests the
experience was not so convincing after all, there are two other key
reasons why this argument sounds great in sermons, but doesn’t hold
water under rational scrutiny.
First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any
reliable evidence of any kind. None of the gospels or Epistles mention
anyone dying for their belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus.
The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the
stoning of Stephen in Acts – but stephen was not a witness, he was a
later convert – so if anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in
acts the story has it that  he was not killed for what he believed,
but by a mob whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted.
Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told he says nothing about dying
for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions
only his belief that Jesus was th messiah, and was at that moment in
heaven.
The second and only other ‘martyr’ recorded in Acts is the execution
“,1]
);

//–>
care to waste the time or money debunking yet another crazy cult, of
which there were hundreds then.  And so it should not surprise us that
we have no writings by anyone hostile to Christianity until a century
after ti began – not even slanders or lies.  Clearly, no doubter cared
to check or even challenge the story in print until it was too late to
investigate the facts.  These are just some of the reasons why we
cannot trust the extraordinary reports from that time without
excellent evidence, which we do not have in the case of the physical
resurrection of Jesus.

Even so, it is often said in objection that we can trust the Gospels
more than we normally would because they were based on the reports of
eye-witnesses o the event who were willing to die for their belief in
the physical resurrection, for surely, no one would die for a lie.
Besides the fact that Matthew 28:17 claims that some of the
eye-witnesses didn’t believe what they saw, which suggests the
experience was not so convincing after all, there are two other key
reasons why this argument sounds great in sermons, but doesn’t hold
water under rational scrutiny.
First, it is based on nothing in the New Testament itself, or on any
reliable evidence of any kind. None of the gospels or Epistles mention
anyone dying for their belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus.
The only martyrdoms recorded in the New Testament are, first, the
stoning of Stephen in Acts – but stephen was not a witness, he was a
later convert – so if anything, he died for hearsay alone. But even in
acts the story has it that  he was not killed for what he believed,
but by a mob whom he could not have escaped even if he had recanted.
Moreover, in his last breaths, we are told he says nothing about dying
for any belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus, but mentions
only his belief that Jesus was th messiah, and was at that moment in
heaven.
The second and only other ‘martyr’ recorded in Acts is the execution
><!–
D(["mb","of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about hwy he was
killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought
he died for. Yet, that is the last record of any martyrdom we have
until some unnamed Christians are burned for arson by Nero in 64 AD,
but they were killed on the false charge of arson, not for refusing to
deny belief in a physical resurrection.
There is no indication of any witness who was killed yet could have
been saved by recanting their belief in the physical resurrection of
Jesus.

The second point is that it is distinctly possible, if not definite,
that the original Christians did not in fact believe in a physical
resurrection, but that Jesus was taken up to heaven, and then the
"risen Jesus" was seen in vision and dreams, just like the vision
Stephen has before he dies, and which Paul has on the road to
Damascus.  Visions of gods were not at all unusual, a cultural
commonplace in those days, well documented by Robin Fox in his book,
Pagans and Christians. But whatever their cause, if this is how
Christianity actually started, it means that the resurrection story
told din the Gospels, of a Jesus risen in the flesh, does not
represent what the original disciples believed, but was made up
generations later. So even if they did die for their beliefs, they did
not die for the belief that Jesus was physically resurrected from the
dead.

That the original Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection is
hinted at in many strange features of the Gospel accounts of the
appearances of Jesus after death, which may be survivals of an
original mystical tradition later corrupted by the growing legend of a
bodily resurrection; such as a Jesus that they do not recognize, or
who vanishes into thin air.

Paul’s writings are the earliest record we have of Christianity, and
it’s important to note that he never mentions Jesus having been
resurrected in the flesh.  He never mentions any empty tomb, physical
“,1]
);

//–>
of the Apostle James, but we are not told anything about hwy he was
killed or whether recanting would have saved him, or what he thought
he died for. Yet, that is the last record of any martyrdom we have
until some unnamed Christians are burned for arson by Nero in 64 AD,
but they were killed on the false charge of arson, not for refusing to
deny belief in a physical resurrection.
There is no indication of any witness who was killed yet could have
been saved by recanting their belief in the physical resurrection of
Jesus.

The second point is that it is distinctly possible, if not definite,
that the original Christians did not in fact believe in a physical
resurrection, but that Jesus was taken up to heaven, and then the
“risen Jesus” was seen in vision and dreams, just like the vision
Stephen has before he dies, and which Paul has on the road to
Damascus.  Visions of gods were not at all unusual, a cultural
commonplace in those days, well documented by Robin Fox in his book,
Pagans and Christians. But whatever their cause, if this is how
Christianity actually started, it means that the resurrection story
told din the Gospels, of a Jesus risen in the flesh, does not
represent what the original disciples believed, but was made up
generations later. So even if they did die for their beliefs, they did
not die for the belief that Jesus was physically resurrected from the
dead.

That the original Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection is
hinted at in many strange features of the Gospel accounts of the
appearances of Jesus after death, which may be survivals of an
original mystical tradition later corrupted by the growing legend of a
bodily resurrection; such as a Jesus that they do not recognize, or
who vanishes into thin air.

Paul’s writings are the earliest record we have of Christianity, and
it’s important to note that he never mentions Jesus having been
resurrected in the flesh.  He never mentions any empty tomb, physical
><!–
D(["mb","appearances, or the ascension of Jesus into heaven afterward. In
Galatians 1, he tells us that he first met Jesus in a "revelation",
not in the flesh, and Acts gives several embellished accounts of this
event that all clearly reflect not any tradition of a physical
encounter, but a startling vision (a light and a voice, nothing more).
Then, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul reports that all the original
eye-witnesses, Peter, James, the 12, and hundreds of others saw Jesus
in essentially the same way Paul did, the only difference, he says,
was that they saw it before him.  He then goes on to build an
elaborate description of how the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of
God, and how the resurrected body is a spiritual body, and all this
seems god evidence that Paul did not believe in a physical
resurrection of Jesus, but something fundamentally different.

Finally, when we examine the Gospel record closely, it becomes
apparent that the physical nature of the resurrection was a growing
legend, becoming more and more fabulous over time, a good sign that it
wasn’t the original story.  Scholars hold that Mark was written first
and then Matthew and Luke around the same time, and the latest written
was John.
So we start with Mark: Many of you may know that the ending of Mark,
everything after verse 16:8, does not actually exist in the earliest
versions of that Gospel.  That means that his Gospel ended only with
an empty tomb and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man that Jesus
would be seen in Galilee — but nothing is said of how he would be
seen. When we consider the original story, it supports the notion that
the original belief was of a spiritual rather than a physical event.
The empty tomb for mark was likely meant to be a symbol, not a
historical reality, it was not unusual in the ancient world for the
bodies of heroes who became gods to vanish from this world: being
deified entailled being taken up into heaven, as happened to men as
“,1]
);

//–>
appearances, or the ascension of Jesus into heaven afterward. In
Galatians 1, he tells us that he first met Jesus in a “revelation”,
not in the flesh, and Acts gives several embellished accounts of this
event that all clearly reflect not any tradition of a physical
encounter, but a startling vision (a light and a voice, nothing more).
Then, in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul reports that all the original
eye-witnesses, Peter, James, the 12, and hundreds of others saw Jesus
in essentially the same way Paul did, the only difference, he says,
was that they saw it before him.  He then goes on to build an
elaborate description of how the flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of
God, and how the resurrected body is a spiritual body, and all this
seems god evidence that Paul did not believe in a physical
resurrection of Jesus, but something fundamentally different.

Finally, when we examine the Gospel record closely, it becomes
apparent that the physical nature of the resurrection was a growing
legend, becoming more and more fabulous over time, a good sign that it
wasn’t the original story.  Scholars hold that Mark was written first
and then Matthew and Luke around the same time, and the latest written
was Joh