Could you believe that your current religion is wrong?

[Tassman]

Not sure. I'm not a psychologist, but I suppose I would look for signs of healthy relationships, productive and reasonably meaningfull work, commitment to the good of the community, an ability to recognize and learn from mistakes, and a general desire for learning from others. I imagine that some of these things may be lacking in people who are delusional.

The gospels were produced by the church communities of their time, and for me the growth of the church, only to the extent that it embodies and strives to live up to the teachings of its founder, is the best evidence for the truth of his teachings and the truth of his faithful witness unto death and beyond. This would have been the reality for the first generation of believers, prior to the writing of the gospels and it is still the most meaningful, real-world 'evidence' for believers today. Of course, this 'evidence' is all too often woefully lacking in many churches, but it can be found and created anew in every generation and in any community that might discover and put the teachings of Jesus into practice. Look for inspiring people who are serving the poor and needy.

The gospels, and Paul, do not portray the resurrection as merely the reanimation of a corpse. The spiritual reality being alluded to is much more unusual and significant than that. A reanimated corpse could not explain the experiences described in the gospels and it cannot explain the continuing experience of the body of Christ in the love and service of others or in prayer and worship.

[shunyadragon]

Virtually none? So you admit there's some evidence for the resurrection? I agree.

I do not think his statement indicated there was some evidence for the resurrection. There actually is no evidence for the resurrection.

But the resurrection is not reanimation of a corpse. It is a window into a greater reality that cannot be proven, which if we could prove, it would not be worth believing. The only proof worth believing is our own faithful witness to the truth in real life.

This would not be any form of proof. It remains a 'faith' based belief that the resurrection was either physical or metaphysical.

[robrecht]

I am certainly not speaking of any kind of necessary proof, as should have been clear. The type of lived 'meaningful evidence' I am speaking of is much more subjective (not necessarily individual) and based on communal praxis. Nor would I ever deny that Islam and Buddhism also contain much truth, of course. This is more of a praxis based approach to truth as a lived reality. Obviously Islam and Buddhism 'work' and are meaningful for many people and could work for many more. To the extent that the realities that are believed are beyond the ability to be well described or articulated, I also believe that atheism is a helpful corrective to religious belief. It is the ultimate apophatic theology.

No, I really don't think so. A reanimated corpse does not appear behind locked doors, travel with friends unrecognized and then suddenly disappear upon recognition in the breaking of the bread, etc. These narratives are trying to describe something very different than a reanimated corpse, as is Paul.

[firstfloor]

. It is a window into a greater reality that cannot be proven, which if we could prove, it would not be worth believing. The only proof worth believing is our own faithful witness to the truth in real life.

[robrecht]

I do not think his statement indicated there was some evidence for the resurrection. There actually is no evidence for the resurrection.

This would not be any form of proof. It remains a 'faith' based belief that the resurrection was either physical or metaphysical.

No, he considers the gospel accounts to provide some, albeit poor, evidence. I am trying to get at the lived reality behind the gospels. Thus I consider the gospels to be primarily evidence of the beliefs of the authors and less directly of their communities, sometimes secondary evidence of opposing or alternative views, and tertiary evidence for the earlier life of Jesus. I think Tassman probably agrees with this approach to the gospels. It should be obvious that I was not speaking of any kind of proof of the resurrection.

[shunyadragon]

No, he considers the gospel accounts to provide some, albeit poor, evidence.

Actually, I would like to hear from Tassman on this one. I do not believe he considers this evidence. I as a Theist consider it marginal at best. I consider the gospel accounts primarily evolved post 70 AD with possible a simpler Q as an early gospel, and in their final form reflect a belief system that evolved from ~70 - ~300 AD. The accounts reflect more the evolved belief system and not necessarily the actual metaphysical events and claims of the life of Jesus.

I am trying to get at the lived reality behind the gospels. Thus I consider the gospels to be primarily evidence of the beliefs of the authors and less directly of their communities, sometimes secondary evidence of opposing or alternative views, and tertiary evidence for the earlier life of Jesus. I think Tassman probably agrees with this approach to the gospels. It should be obvious that I was not speaking of any kind of proof of the resurrection.

Than avoid the word proof. I believe we have at best some secondary (actual physical events of the life of Jesus), but mostly tertiary testimony for the metaphysical claims of the life and death of Jesus.

[robrecht]

No, that doesn't sound at all like me. I don't think faith is a substitute for knowledge, nor do I think it virtuous to pretend to know what is not or cannot be known. I do acknowledge that faith entails a kind of knowing but it is primarily being faithful in one's openness to a larger mystery that cannot be well known except indirectly and primarily in action and community.

[robrecht]

Actually, I would like to hear from Tassman on this one. I do not believe he considers this evidence. I as a Theist consider it marginal at best. I consider the gospel accounts primarily evolved post 70 AD with possible a simpler Q as an early gospel, and in their final form reflect a belief system that evolved from ~70 - ~300 AD. The accounts reflect more the evolved belief system and not necessarily the actual metaphysical events and claims of the life of Jesus.

Than avoid the word proof. I believe we have at best some secondary (actual physical events of the life of Jesus), but mostly tertiary testimony for the metaphysical claims of the life and death of Jesus.

Sorry, I thought it was obvious that I was not using the word 'proof' in the ordinary sense when I said I was speaking of 'a greater reality that cannot be proven, which if we could prove, it would not be worth believing, and the 'only proof worth believing is our own faithful witness to the truth in real life'

[psstein]

The dying and rising god paradigm has been smashed in academic study. See J.Z. Smith's work Drudgery Divine.

With regard to "dead men don't come back to life," well obviously. The point is that dead men don't naturalistically return to life. The Resurrection is a miracle.

[firstfloor]

The Resurrection is a miracle.

[Tassman]

The dying and rising god paradigm has been smashed in academic study. See J.Z. Smith's work Drudgery Divine.

With regard to "dead men don't come back to life," well obviously. The point is that dead men don't naturalistically return to life. The Resurrection is a miracle.

There is no logically coherent alternative to materialism and no credible reason to believe in miraculous violations of the natural world.

[Tassman]

I am certainly not speaking of any kind of necessary proof, as should have been clear. The type of lived 'meaningful evidence' I am speaking of is much more subjective (not necessarily individual) and based on communal praxis. Nor would I ever deny that Islam and Buddhism also contain much truth, of course. This is more of a praxis based approach to truth as a lived reality. Obviously Islam and Buddhism 'work' and are meaningful for many people and could work for many more. To the extent that the realities that are believed are beyond the ability to be well described or articulated, I also believe that atheism is a helpful corrective to religious belief. It is the ultimate apophatic theology.

No, I really don't think so. A reanimated corpse does not appear behind locked doors, travel with friends unrecognized and then suddenly disappear upon recognition in the breaking of the bread, etc. These narratives are trying to describe something very different than a reanimated corpse, as is Paul

Actually, I would like to hear from Tassman on this one. I do not believe he considers this evidence.

I meant "evidence" only as an attempted explanation of perceived events by the gospel writers, not as a satisfactory or factual explanation. But I expressed it carelessly I admit.

[robrecht]

That's the only kind of God there truly is. If God is truly God, he isn't any kind of god at all. There is no genus or category into which we can place him with our puny little human minds.

Sorry, but you're wrong on a few levels here. One, I'm not really arguing with you, but trying to agree with you on one level and point toward a greater reality. Two, I'm definitely not arguing as if the post-resurrection narratives are being presented as a reasonable explanation of the behavior of a reanimated corpse. The resurrection narratives are indeed mythological and thus precisely not historical narratives of a reanimated corpse. They are attempts to present Jesus both as he was somehow mysteriously present to the disciples after his death and also still mysteriously present in the church even to this day. Luke's account of the disciples not recognizing Jesus on the road to Emmaus is a good illustration of this literary technique. Jesus is recognized in the breaking of the bread, the celebration of the Eucharist, which is not the reanimation of a corpse, but a continuing memorial celebrated to this very day. This narrative is trying to point to a transcendent reality very much beyond what one might attempt to describe as a reanimated corpse. Any narrative that tries to portray God and humans as interacting within a story is mythological, ie, a story about God, but God is beyond being able to be described by men as a character in a story. And yet the gospel authors nonetheless try to tell the story of how we meet God in Jesus, from the time he walked the earth unto this very day in each other. Or, as Matthew would 'explain', any time you have done these things for the least of my brethern, you have done them for me. Or John's narrative of the miraculous catch of fish, it is not just a story of how Jesus fed the disciples breakfast one morning, but how Peter was to feed his sheep in the future. Matthew, Luke, and John all try to relate in narratives the presence of the resurrected Christ to his continued presence in the church of their day, something Mark did not even try to do, who just left us hanging, trying to contemplate a fearful mystery that he did not even try to put into words.

[Adrift]

That's the only kind of God there truly is. If God is truly God, he isn't any kind of god at all. There is no genus or category into which we can place him with our puny little human minds.

Sorry, but you're wrong on a few levels here. One, I'm not really arguing with you, but trying to agree with you on one level and point toward a greater reality. Two, I'm definitely not arguing as if the post-resurrection narratives are being presented as a reasonable explanation of the behavior of a reanimated corpse. The resurrection narratives are indeed mythological and thus precisely not historical narratives of a reanimated corpse. They are attempts to present Jesus both as he was somehow mysteriously present to the disciples after his death and also still mysteriously present in the church even to this day. Luke's account of the disciples not recognizing Jesus on the road to Emmaus is a good illustration of this literary technique. Jesus is recognized in the breaking of the bread, the celebration of the Eucharist, which is not the reanimation of a corpse, but a continuing memorial celebrated to this very day. This narrative is trying to point to a transcendent reality very much beyond what one might attempt to describe as a reanimated corpse. Any narrative that tries to portray God and humans as interacting within a story is mythological, ie, a story about God, but God is beyond being able to be described by men as a character in a story. And yet the gospel authors nonetheless try to tell the story of how we meet God in Jesus, from the time he walked the earth unto this very day in each other. Or, as Matthew would 'explain', any time you have done these things for the least of my brethern, you have done them for me. Or John's narrative of the miraculous catch of fish, it is not just a story of how Jesus fed the disciples breakfast one morning, but how Peter was to feed his sheep in the future. Matthew, Luke, and John all try to relate in narratives the presence of the resurrected Christ to his continued presence in the church of their day, something Mark did not even try to do, who just left us hanging, trying to contemplate a fearful mystery that he did not even try to put into words.

But, just to be clear, you do believe that Jesus was bodily raised from the dead, right? And that historically the disciples did witness (and in some cases touch) the risen Jesus literally, correct?

[firstfloor]

The dying and rising god paradigm has been smashed in academic study. See J.Z. Smith's work Drudgery Divine.

Christian apologists like to think so.