Read on Twitter
THE RESURRECTION: WHY I’M NOT CONVINCED
(A long thread - brace yourselves)
I agree that it is the central event of Christianity, and it’s also the one on which it would either rise or fall. The problem is that we simply cannot know for sure whether or not it took place.
(A long thread - brace yourselves)
I agree that it is the central event of Christianity, and it’s also the one on which it would either rise or fall. The problem is that we simply cannot know for sure whether or not it took place.
I’m certainly no expert in this area, but a few years ago I read through Mike Licona’s 700-page ‘The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach.’
At the time I was a Christian desperately wanting to be persuaded that it was true.
At the time I was a Christian desperately wanting to be persuaded that it was true.
I left it with a slightly shallow feeling of, ‘Ok, that’s reassuring, I guess.’
And that summarises how I understand the nature of the evidence in favour: it’s just enough for a Christian to feel confident that believing someone from the dead is a reasonable position, but
And that summarises how I understand the nature of the evidence in favour: it’s just enough for a Christian to feel confident that believing someone from the dead is a reasonable position, but
it’s not enough to persuade someone who is skeptical or indifferent.
Then again, what else would you expect of something that took place 2,000 years ago?
Then again, what else would you expect of something that took place 2,000 years ago?
I sometimes hear Christians say that if they discovered proof that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead, they would stop believing. That makes sense - and the reverse would be true for me - but it also seems a little disingenuous.
Given the nature of the event in question, I’m not sure it’s possible to prove that it never happened, nor to prove that it did (through historical means at least) The best you could do is offer the best explanation for the minimal facts available.
Therefore, claiming that you would cease believing it the resurrection were disproven gives the appearance of open-mindedness, yet is revealed to be a fairly shallow statement given the purely theoretical risk that could never come to pass in practice.
And so that’s where this matter seems to be oddly weighted: it’s the single part of Christianity on which everything rests, and yet it’s also the least verifiable; it’s the most likely to be interpreted based on the observer’s prior commitments.
(That’s why you don’t find a whole load of people changing their positions based on historical evidence for the resurrection. I’m aware that stories such as that recorded in Lee Strobel’s ‘The Case for Christ’ might seem to fly in the face of what I just said, but
the rarity of such stories, and the fact that they are held in such high regard as a result seem to make them them exceptions which prove the rule).
And that’s essentially why I remain unconvinced. I have a number of problems with the Christian worldview.
And that’s essentially why I remain unconvinced. I have a number of problems with the Christian worldview.
I’m aware of the argument that if Jesus was raised from the dead, then that should give me good reasons to rethink my worldview, but it also works the other way around: if I have good reasons to doubt Christianity, it therefore gives me good reasons to doubt the resurrection.
And the fact is, a resurrection of divine origin is not a historical claim, it’s a theological one. This doesn’t mean that it is therefore null and void, but it means we have to take it within the theological framework from which it cannot be separated.
If I’m told a story by someone I have prior cause to doubt, that automatically gives me good reasons to disbelieve their claim. Of course, if I’m faced with undeniable evidence of its truth, then I would be forced to rethink my position, and perhaps regain tentative trust.
But until then, I’m simply left with an unverifiable story from a problematic source.
And that’s what we have with the Christian claim for the resurrection.
I understand that there is some historical support: early-developed creeds, the criterion of embarrassment,
And that’s what we have with the Christian claim for the resurrection.
I understand that there is some historical support: early-developed creeds, the criterion of embarrassment,
the extensive spread of the faith, the conversion of Paul etc. I’m also aware of various responses to these.
But this is all embedded within a framework which includes untrustworthy scriptures, a God with dubious character (to say the least), logically incoherent doctrines,
But this is all embedded within a framework which includes untrustworthy scriptures, a God with dubious character (to say the least), logically incoherent doctrines,
inconsistency between text and experience, and a whole host of other problems. This throws any historical claim it makes into doubt.
This does not mean I am wedded to some form of naturalism by which I believe that ANY natural explanation makes more sense than the resurrection.
This does not mean I am wedded to some form of naturalism by which I believe that ANY natural explanation makes more sense than the resurrection.
I am aware of and agree with the difficulties that accompany such a position - namely that if Jesus actually did rise from the dead, it would be impossible for the naturalist to accept or determine this by their standard.
I accept that it is a possibility.
I accept that it is a possibility.
All I am saying is that it appears the nature and paucity of evidence is in my mind overcast by the great weight of problems with the belief system in which the claim is embedded.
The end.
The end.
