lab@qubix.UUCP (06/10/83)
(This article deals strictly with the Resurrection. I have posted a
separate article to reply to other events of the last couple of weeks.
I know the article is long, but it's been a week and a half, and will
likely be another week and a half before my next.)
Much has been said in the Resurrection discussion about the burden
of proof and the desire for "solid" evidence. Perhaps the first
thing we need is to pin down the level of evidence desired. In
"Therefore, Stand," Wilbur Smith brings out an excellent analogy:
"The criteria for determining what Caesar did at Gaul, or how the
Goths sacked Rome, or what happened at Waterloo, are the criteria
by which we determine what happended on the first Easter Sunday."
"Therefore, Stand" is perhaps the most outstanding apologetic
written. In his Preface, Smith noted he "considered no trouble too
great, no prolonged research too taxing, to suppoort everything
that is set forth in this volume with adequate, abundant, and
dependable quotations and references...Nowhere in this volume, I
hope, have I stooped to second-rate, or third-rate, or tenth-rate
stuff...Quotations and footnotes are purposely full and elaborate."
Smith deals primarily with the themes covered in Paul's sermon on
Mars' Hill (Areopagus) in Athens: creation, resurrection, and
coming judgment. The first is before history, the last is
prophecy, but the middle strictly belongs to the realm of HISTORY.
(End of commercial. The book is a major volume but not expensive.)
One contributor quoted at length from a court session regarding evidence and
the burden of proof. The evidence of the New Testament has already been given
a thorough going over by no less an authority than Simon Greenleaf in "The
Testimony of the Evangelists Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered
in Courts of Justice" (reprint Baker Book House, 1965) Case closed.
On to the biases:
The first and foremost bias is the unwillingness to accept the testimony
given. To reject testimony requires a REASON, like counter-testimony. The
testimony is not the word of one man, but several, and the implications of
the witness of 500 (more on that later). To say you "know" it couldn't be
true doesn't stand. If you want to dismiss the testimony, it's YOUR job to
prove them wrong. They were there - you weren't. Ken Arnold notes there
are many ancient writings that are "provably false." OK, prove these false.
Second bias is the "lack of independent historical records," or nothing
written by "secular historians." As far as Rome was concerned, Jesus was
just another Jewish troublemaker. There were probably thousands of
crucifixions in those days - how many of the executees had their names
recorded by anyone? And I think we can forgive the Jerusalem Gazette for
not knowing how to store their records on microfilm.
The third bias is the "vested interest" or "biased witnesses" idea. This
loses on several counts: 1) As Greg Gadeholt mentioned some time back, rarely
is ANY witness unbiased. Those for the prosecution are usually biased for
the prosecution, those for the defense are biased for the defense. 2) What
"vested interest" did the apostles have? They saw what happened to James
and Stephen - Paul knew VERY well what happened to Stephen, and knew he
would suffer a similar fate. By his own words and lifestyle, Paul had no
interest in gain in this world. 3) Someone with even half a vested interest
would not have written many of the things contained in the New Testament -
and a LOT of the things written in the Hebrew Scriptures. The shortcomings
and downfalls of many are recorded - hardly expected in the FREEWILL
testimony (i.e., not under cross-examination) of a "biased witness."
Bias #4 is that the resurrection "is a matter of faith, no more, no less."
Dead wrong. If the Resurrection is not a historical event, Christianity is
dead. The question is NOT "do I believe it happened" but "DID it happen?"
The value of the "faith" is not in the believer but in the OBJECT trusted.
Many have taken issue with Paul's claim to 500 witnesses to the resurrected
Jesus. How did Paul know about them? How could they be cross-examined? If
one will stop and think, one will realize that Christianity was mainly
confined to Jerusalem for FOUR YEARS, until the Great Persecution (led by a
rather forceful fellow named Saul). Further, after Saul's conversion,
Barnabas personally took him to Jerusalem. In both cases, Paul (= Saul, for
those who may not know) had access to all the evidence he needed - the
witnesses, the empty tomb, the Roman soldiers, etc. Anyone in Jerusalem,
particularly the Jewish rulers, had full access to the tomb. They could
have done better than kill Christianity in the cradle; they could have
killed it in the womb! The apostles' message was constantly "resurrection"
- the learned scribes could have shot them down easily if they could have
disproved it.
On to some of the attempts to explain the Resurrection away:
The hallucination theory is older than most people think. Even the
disciples thought they had just seen his ghost! That it cannot stand is
obvious when one recalls the apostles' frame of mind. The psychological
preconditioning for visions is simply not there. Re-read the appearance at
the Sea of Galilee (John 21:1-12). The apostles were not expecting to see
Jesus - they CONCLUDED that it was him. Further, they weren't expecting a
little kitchen (with food!) already set up on shore! Smith (pp. 393-397)
and McDowell present very well the impossibility of the simultaneous
hallucinations, especially by such as the apostles. The works cited include
those of known neurologists and psychiatrists.
The swooooooon theory ("playing possum") is also old, apparently started by
an English Deist, Peter Annet, in 1768 and repeated in an anonymous work
"Ecce Homo" in Edinburgh in 1799. Even some skeptics themselves have
repudiated it. "It is impossible that one who had just come forth from the
grave half dead, who crept about weak and ill, who stood in need of medical
treatment, of bandaging, strengthening, and tender care, and who at last
succumbed to suffering, could ever have given to the disciples that
impression that He was a conqueror over death and the grave,- that He was
the Prince of Life,- which lay at the bottom of their future ministry. Such
a resuscitation could only have weakened the impression which He had made
upon them in life and in death,- or at most could have given it an elegaic
voice,- but could by no possibility have changed their sorrow into
enthusiasm, or elevated their reverence into worship." [David Strauss (who
did NOT believe in the Resurrection of Christ): "The Life of Jesus for the
People" Eng. trans. 2nd. ed. 1879.I.412.] Several works have been written
on the reality of Christ's death. Perhaps the simplest refutation of the
"possum" idea is the small problem of a spear in the side, producing a FLOW
of blood and water. A person in good condition can afford to give one pint;
Christ was in a lot worse condition and gave a lot more.
Regarding Steve Den Beste's epistemological examination:
Steve did a very good job of restating the challenge:
"6, Are there any other suppositions contradictory to the supposition in
question which are nonetheless consistent with the evidence?"
That is exactly the question. ARE THERE ANY?
It is not that a "person" is presenting the evidence - there are plenty of
extant manuscripts from before the 4th century. The question of the person
giving evidence would be applied to the writers of the New Testament. Most
were eyewitnesses; the rest knew the witnesses. "Ulterior motives" were
essentially discussed above under "vested interest." The evidence is not
neutral - I am waiting to see any in opposition (if such exists). Whether
the Resurrection "suggests any predictions about the world" is irrelevant -
the question is not "what does it mean?" but "did it happen?" That which is
"considered reliable" will change with time, and is a shaky test.
The answers to the midterm: 1) Yes 2) That is "The Excitement of the
Unexpected."
Still waiting for an unbiased jury and a serious challenge,
Larry Bickford
{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix!labbch@unc.UUCP (06/10/83)
Despite Larry Bickford's extensive apologetic, I am left with the following:
(1) The only descriptions of the Crucifixion and Resurrection are in the
New Testament.
(2) None of these descriptions are actually first hand. All are heresay
and, as such, are inadmissable by legal standards.
(3) The New Testament is not an unbiased account of historical events, but
is a set of documents selected specifically to promote a specific
set of beliefs. Much of it was written decades after the events it
purports to describe -- not only heresay, but *reconstructed* heresay.
(4) There are no other parallel historical documents describing the set
of events the New Testament purports to describe. While this may be
understandable, this does not alter the fact that they still don't
exist.
(5) The use of evidence of the same "quality" as that which describes
other unprovable historical events does not prove the Resurrection --
it only affords the Resurrection the same degree of unprovability
as the other events.
In other words I find the fact of the Resurrection to be unsubstantiated.
------
So What! I sincerely hope that the structure of Christianity will not crumble
on the basis of whether or not the Resurrection took place. The body of
thought, ethic, morality etc. that has come to compose the best of Christian
thought will last whether or not a few events took place or not. The
teachings that we have exist whether they were taught by Jesus in Galilee
or by some writer centuries later. Their validity and importance stand
apart from their roots. I have no problem believing what I believe on the
basis of faith alone, and no fear of saying that my beliefs are on the
basis of faith and not provable. Do you?
Byrontim@unc.UUCP (06/11/83)
A challenge to non-believers. Disprove the Nirvana of Buddha, or admit that in fact all that lives is Illusion, and the veracity of the Four Noble Truths. That's right, friends, Larry has converted me to his way of seeing things! I now see that the people who were reported to be witnesses to His miraculous processions were not, as I had believed, simply something made up by later commentators! I see that there is no way that such a thing could have occurred: the TV network news magazines would have jumped all over it! And everyone living then was a bright, educated person, not easily taken in by big-talking Prophets of the Truth who claimed to have witnessed miracles! After all, what possible personal gain could there have been for the early Buddhists? They saw how they were scorned by the Hindus. It would have been much easier to just go back and become good little worshippers of their pagan deities, but NO!! They STUCK with their difficult course, STUCK I say, and WHY DO YOU THINK THAT WAS, my friends? I'LL TELL YOU WHY IT WAS!!! The only reasonable explanation, and this has been supported by many Buddhist lawyers, is that they WITNESSED THE NIRVANA! Let the heathen try to disprove that, my friends. Remember that as you walk through this hideous, atheistic pit we call net.religion. Remember that Buddhism STANDS OR FALLS solely on YOUR BELIEF IN THE NIRVANA! And to those who keep their heads in the sand, refusing to recognize the consequences of Avidhya (primal sin) and their own delusions of selfhood, you will be born again and again, EACH TIME FALLING INTO A LOWER CYCLE OF REBIRTH!!! Let's see those Christians match that, my friends. Why, there are documented cases from reliable witnesses that tell of people having hot lead poured in their ears, sexual abuse by vast and hideous demons, and things more grisly even than that. It doesn't matter if you believe this or not. You will be judged by your own illusionary self and thrown into those fiery lakes, so far from Nirvana, unless of course you can disprove this. But you can't. Nyah nyah nyah. So choke on it. Tim Maroney P.S. My girlfriend has bet me five dollars that Paul Dubuq will reply to this and say that I am a Buddhist.
levy@princeton.UUCP (06/11/83)
Byron raises some points to counter Larry Bickerford's long article. Some are valid and some are not. (1), (3) and (4) are actually the same argument. It says that the only accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection are in the NT, and the latter is not a reliable document. The first part is true. The second is more or less void: what we are trying to establish is exactly the reliability (or lack thereof) of the NT (or at least of these accounts). I find the theory that the apostles made up the story of the resurrection on purpose very hard to believe, since, as Larry points out, they had nothing to gain from it, and were in fact being perse- cuted for preaching it. Besides the apostles wrote many things in the NT which were not flattering to any of them or to the church -- they were truthful in the small things, so this argues for truthfulness in the big ones. On the other hand, if they were convinced of the resurrection but it did not take place, it must have been quite a hallucination. (The not-quite- dead hypothesis I find impossible to even entertain, although it has been sometimes advocated since the gnostics in the first century -- not, as Larry says, since 1768.) Now how many people can we be sure think they saw Jesus alive after the crucifixion? In spite of Byron's paragraph (2), at least two people left first-hand accounts -- Matthew and John. THE GOSPELS OF MATTHEW AND JOHN ARE NOT HEARSAY TESTIMONY, much less "reconstructed hearsay": The two apostles were there and wrote what they remembered from the facts. Whether they remember well or not is another matter, already discussed. Finally, I take Byron's paragraph (5) to mean that no historical event is provable. While in my opinion *nothing* is 100% provable, I do believe factual historical accounts unless there is something to contradict them. Why not believe Tacitus, or Josephus, or Herodotus? "I have no problem believing what I believe on basis of faith alone." I don't either. But some people attack believers because of this attitude, and in any case our faith has to be coherent with reality. So I think there is room for apologetics, and the more so since those who do *not* believe are quite vocal spreading their unbelief!...
cng@burdvax.UUCP (06/13/83)
I beg to differ with you, Byron. Christianity, unlike most religions, does stand or fall on the basis of the historicity of the resurrection. If the resurrection did not occur, then Christianity is a fraud and should not be believed by anyone. My faith is not based on historical proof from "unbiased sources", but by the Holy Spirit bearing witness with my spirit that these things are true.
pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (06/15/83)
I feel kind of silly responding to his article; I don't know if
you're serious or not. But, assuming you are, or someone reading it
thinks you are, I don't want to disappoint you by ignoring it.
A challenge to non-believers. Disprove the Nirvana of Buddha,
or admit that in fact all that lives is Illusion, and the veracity of
the Four Noble Truths.
That's right, friends, Larry has converted me to his way of
seeing things! I now see that the people who were reported to be
witnesses to His miraculous processions were not, as I had believed,
simply something made up by later commentators! I see that there is
no way that such a thing could have occurred: the TV network news
magazines would have jumped all over it! And everyone living then was
a bright, educated person, not easily taken in by big-talking Prophets
of the Truth who claimed to have witnessed miracles!
After all, what possible personal gain could there have been
for the early Buddhists? They saw how they were scorned by the
Hindus. It would have been much easier to just go back and become
good little worshippers of their pagan deities, but NO!! They STUCK
with their difficult course, STUCK I say, and WHY DO YOU THINK THAT
WAS, my friends? I'LL TELL YOU WHY IT WAS!!! The only reasonable
explanation, and this has been supported by many Buddhist lawyers, is
that they WITNESSED THE NIRVANA!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see how the Buddist concept of
nirvana can be compared to an event like the resurrection of Christ.
Nirvana is a religious concept or experience. As to what actually
constitutes nirvana, even Buddists can't completely agree on.
So how do you *witness* nirvana? Does it leave any physical evidence?
An event like someone rising from the dead could be easily observed
by anyone. There would be opportunity for anyone disbelieving to
investigate.
It's true that many people are willing to suffer and die for their
religious beliefs, and this does not make their beliefs true. But
it doesn't seem that Jesus disciples were ready to suffer for their
beliefs even after witnessing the resurrection. There attitude seems
very guarded until the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Whatever happened
there, it seems that the disciples (Peter at least) obtained an
understanding of the significance of the events that had just occurred.
Jesus died and was buried just outside of Jerusalem. Anyone hearing
the disciples proclaiming his resurrection could have examined the
evidence for themselves. But instead of the whole thing being laughed
off as a hoax, Acts records thousands of people becoming believers
(Acts 2:41;4:4;5:14).
The primary documents of Christianity can be dated to within a few
decades of the actual happenings described in them. The same cannot
be said for Buddism. Biographies of Budda appear centuries after
the period of which they speak and were composed after the Buddist
movement had broken into separate schools. Buddism's primary documents,
as we have them, date back no farther than the Christian era, nearly
500 years after its founder's death. [see "Buddist Thought in India" by
Edward Conze (pp. 31-33). Conze is a sympathetic Buddist scholar.
See also "The History of Buddist Thought" (2nd ed.) by Edward Thomas (p. 1).].
Let the heathen try to disprove that, my friends. Remember
that as you walk through this hideous, atheistic pit we call
net.religion. Remember that Buddhism STANDS OR FALLS solely on YOUR
BELIEF IN THE NIRVANA!
And to those who keep their heads in the sand, refusing to
recognize the consequences of Avidhya (primal sin) and their own
delusions of selfhood, you will be born again and again, EACH TIME FALLING
INTO A LOWER CYCLE OF REBIRTH!!! Let's see those Christians match
that, my friends. Why, there are documented cases from reliable
witnesses that tell of people having hot lead poured in their ears,
sexual abuse by vast and hideous demons, and things more grisly even
than that.
It doesn't matter if you believe this or not. You will be
judged by your own illusionary self and thrown into those fiery lakes,
so far from Nirvana, unless of course you can disprove this. But you
can't. Nyah nyah nyah. So choke on it.
Well, I don't think I disproved the existence of nirvana, but I think
there is a lot less reason to believe in it than the resurrection of
Christ.
Tim Maroney
P.S. My girlfriend has bet me five dollars that Paul Dubuq
will reply to this and say that I am a Buddhist.
I wouldn't think of that. I seems, though, that you have a slight
leaning toward Hinduism. (Just kidding.)
Paul Dubuc