Criticism of the resurrection

The Resurrection - Part 2
This also serves as a reply to Jordan's response to my resurrection - Part 1 page
Quotes from Jordan's response to me are in red. Quotes from other sources are in italics.
Points directly about the resurrection
Emotional and Theological eyewitnesses
Women eyewitnesses
The martyrs would not have died for a hoax!
The rise of Christianity
How important is the Resurrection?
Back on topic!

Points not directly about the resurrection (but interesting, I hope)
Rules of engagement
Regarding Our Readers
Accusations of homophobia
The Sea of Faith
Typical atheist arguments
The Asymmetry of conversion
"The consensus of scholars"
"What is unclear?"
The problem of Christ's goodness

Points directly about the resurrection

Emotional and Theological eyewitnesses

The developing nature of Christian theology throughout the New Testament has been very well studied and demonstrated, as I mention and link to in my study resources. Projecting backwards to the earliest times (for which there is no written record) it is entirely sensible to assume that the Easter experience was something very emotional and profound for those early Christians, and yet also entirely natural. Singular visions and shared emotions, rather than a supernatural event. Even the bible itself tells us that profound non-physical visionary experiences were enough to convert people to a lifetime of Christian evangelism (i.e. St. Paul). According to Acts 7:56, Stephen also had a profound vision. So Christians can hardly claim that visions were not part of the early Christian experience.
Modern grief studies demonstrate that visual and auditory apparitions of deceased loved ones (especially after traumatic separation) are extremely common and vivid, even to the point of having conversations and feeling physical contact. I suggest the reader does some research at resources such as PubMed using search strings such as +grief +hallucination if they are dubious about this claim. There is good reason to assume that such profound but normal experiences were elaborated upon as resurrection theology progressed. Given the evolution in the resurrection accounts in the New Testament, from Paul's basic and relatively unadorned description of appearances ("ophthe") to the glorious miraculous happenings and multiple resurrections of the later gospels, it should be clear that this was not a static belief. If Matthew's account of the dead rising from their graves and appearing to many was true (Matthew 27:51-52), then such a remarkable event would have been reported by historians such as Josephus who avidly recounted the exploits of the supposed miracle workers of those times. Josephus' father was a priest in Jerusalem at the time of the crucifixion (The Life of Flavius Josephus, 2:7), and yet Josephus mentions nothing about a midday darkness that was followed by an earthquake and a mass resurrection from the dead. It really should be quite clear even from this one example that the resurrection accounts contain much made up or embellished material [ref].
In Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels Richard Carrier details many "eyewitnessed events" that should make one pause. For instance, he writes:
The biographer Plutarch, a contemporary of Josephus, engages in a lengthy digression to prove that a statue of Tyche did not really speak in the early Republic (Life of Coriolanus, 37.3). He claims it must have been an hallucination inspired by the deep religious faith of the onlookers, since there were, he says, too many reliable witnesses to dismiss the story as an invention (38.1-3).
Using Jordan's multiple witness logic (e.g. the 500 brethren), we should claim that the most parsimonious explanation is that the statue really did speak - alternative explanations of scanty claims for multiple eyewitnesses literally seeing a miracle being too convoluted if explained by psychology, comparative religion and some skeptical historical research. Not only is this on the same footing as the unsupported and debatable "500" passage (which may be a later interpolation), but such great proof is not mentioned again in the bible. Christianity would have benefitted enormously from some details of this miracle. What did Jesus say or do? Isn't this important? Why weren't these "500" interviewed and their experiences reported? If this serves as convincing evidence for Jordan then a little more convincing information could have converted thousands of others too. However, there is worse news regarding the "500" passage.
In "Leaving the Fold - Testimonies of former fundamentalists" (Edward T. Babinski ISBN 0879759070), Babinski notes:
Does the entire New Testament agree that Jesus' Physical body emerged from an "empty tomb?" No. The earliest written testimony to Jesus' resurrection is found in the letters of the apostle Paul which do not mention an "empty tomb." The most that Paul admits is that Jesus "appeared" to various brethren (1 Cor. 15). Furthermore, Paul considers his own testimony to Jesus' "appearence" as equal to that of the other apostles, in which case Jesus' "appearences" may refer to something as incorporeal as hearing a heavenly voice and seeing a bright light (which was all that "appeared" to Paul).
In fact, when Paul states that Jesus "appeared" to "over 500 brethren at once" (1 Cor. 15:6), that would have been to a far greater number of "brethren" than were said to have existed before Jesus' physical body supposedly rose into the clouds. (Only 120 "brethren," "all of one mind," existed at the time - Acts 1:9, 14-15, 22). So by the Bible's own admission, whoever or whatever may have "appeared" to "over 500 brethren" could not have been a physically resurrected Jesus, since his body left the Earth before that many "brethren" existed.
Ironically, the "500" passage is thus an argument against the physical resurrection of Jesus. Far more likely is that if there genuinely were 500 witnesses of something, then they were like those at many other emotional religious gatherings. People sharing a common emotion which they interpreted as an experience of the risen Christ, just as people still do at religious rallies today.
Other quotes from Richard Carrier include this discussion about the Greek god Asclepius (son of Apollo) and his healing work in the temples and sanctuaries dedicated to him:
...the "pagans" had Asclepius, their own healing saviour, centuries before, and after, the ministry of Christ. Surviving testimonies to his influence and healing power throughout the classical age are common enough to fill a two-volume book (Edelstein and Edelstein, Asclepius: A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonies, in two volumes, Ayer Company Publishers (Salem, NH), 1945. Reprinted in 1975 and 1988. Entries #423-450 contain the most vivid testimonials). Of greatest interest are the inscriptions set up for those healed at his temples. These give us almost first hand testimony, more reliable evidence than anything we have for the miracles of Jesus, of the blind, the lame, the mute, even the victims of kidney stones, paralytics, and one fellow with a spearhead stuck in his jaw (see the work cited above, p. 232.), all being cured by this pagan "savior." And this testimony goes on for centuries. Inscriptions span from the 4th century B.C. to the 3rd century A.D. and later, all over the Roman Empire. Clearly, the people of this time were quite ready to believe such tales. They were not remarkable at all.
After a litany of miracles and Pagan Christs, Carrier ends with:
From all of this one thing should be apparent: the age of Jesus was not an age of critical reflection and remarkable religious acumen. It was an era filled with con artists, gullible believers, martyrs without a cause, and reputed miracles of every variety. In light of this picture, the tales of the gospels do not seem remarkable at all. Even if they were false in every detail, there is no evidence that they would have been disbelieved or rejected as absurd by a people largely lacking in education or critical thinking skills. They had no newspapers, telephones, photographs, or public documents to consult to check a story. If they were not a witness, all they had was a man's word. And even if they were a witness, the tales above tell us that even then their skills of critical reflection were lacking. Certainly, this age did not lack keen and educated skeptics. Rather, the shouts of the credulous rabble overpowered their voice and seized the world from them, boldly leading them all into the darkness of a thousand years of chaos. Perhaps we should not repeat the same mistake.
I also mentioned on my Resurrection page that there were reports of multiple and widespread reappearances of Jesus at later times that were clearly hallucinations. These were an embarrassment to the Church and had to be suppressed. In addition I copied information about Shabbetai Zevi the man believed to be the Messiah by great numbers of Jews in the 17th Century. Not only were prophets wandering through the streets describing visions in which they had seen Shabbetai seated upon a throne, but following Zevi's conversion to Islam his loyal followers retained their belief that he was the Messiah and wove his apparent defection into a complex theology of mystical apostasy.
Some sixteen hundred years earlier, another group of Jews had been unable to abandon their hope in a scandalous Messiah, who had died the death of a common criminal in Jerusalem. What St Paul had called the scandal of the cross was every bit as shocking as the scandal of an apostate Messiah. In both cases, the disciples proclaimed the birth of a new form of Judaism which had replaced the old; they embraced a paradoxical creed. Christian belief that there was new life in the defeat of the Cross was similar to the Sabbatarians' conviction that apostasy was a sacred mystery. Both groups believed that the grain of wheat had to rot in the earth in order to bear fruit; they believed that the old Torah was dead and had been replaced by the new law of the Spirit. Both developed Trinitarian and Incarnational conceptions of God. [ref.]
Even in the hysteria that surrounded Princess Diana's funeral, people in the crowd were seeing visions of her as they stood outside Westminster Abbey. During a documentary of interviews with the public, one man said (I'm not making this up) "it reminds me of when Jesus died."
From "Beckwith on Historiography" by Richard Carrier:
Another contemporary expert on ancient history and religion, Robin Lane Fox, writes the following informative paragraph:
"Here, too, we touch on patterns of psychology which our own modern case histories may not do much to illuminate: in antiquity, unlike our own age, "appearances" were part of an accepted culture pattern which was passed down in myth and the experiences of the past, in art, ritual and the bewitching poetry of Homer...In the ancient world, as in our own, the evidence suggests that people were most likely to see something when under pressure or at risk, though there is also a visionary current in their moments of peace with the natural world. [Pagans and Christians 1987, p. 117-8.]"
He cites many examples, as well as other experts who write at even greater length on this subject [e.g. E.R. Dodds, Greeks and the Irrational 1951.]. He adds, referring to all kinds of visions and healings and other miracles, Pagan and Christian, "convinced disbelievers were very few, and it is worth comparing the belief in fairies which flourished in Northern Europe until only recently" [op. cit. p. 119-20.]. In fact, visions were so common that the Epicureans had to devise elaborate theories of hallucination in order to dismiss them, ultimately showing no doubt in their ubiquity (Lucretius The Nature of Things 4.724-48).
Jordan claims that a conservative Christian interpretation of the Resurrection accounts and Resurrection belief is the most parsimonious explanation possible and that other views are convoluted. Rather I find this conclusion is the least economical explanation, due to the similarity in the phenomena of other religious beliefs, the enormity of the god explanation (I'm not presupposing - I once believed it too - but research has made me more critical) and the enormous philosophical problems with the whole theory of the atonement. There are so many ways to show the resurrection is a flawed idea! This subject has also been discussed at length here.
It would be more parsimonious to assume that the resurrection was an impish act of one of the more modest Greek or Roman gods, bent on confusing humanity in one of their strange games. However, Jordan argues that only an infinitely big explanation is parsimonious, that it was an act of an infinite and eternal divine being, creator and sustainer of the universe, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent and perfect in justice etc. Although one should not presuppose the impossibility of Jordan's explanation, I think we should always be wary of explaining one thing we do not understand by recourse to something else we do not understand. I think more down to earth thoughts bare better scrutiny and are more parsimonious than a (Nicean creed) divine explanation.
It is my opinion that visions gave the first Christians belief in the resurrection. They were not defending what they "knew to be a lie" as their experiences led them to erroneously think that Jesus really was alive in some way. He had promised the kingdom and he would not fail them. These were credulous times and their behaviour less remarkable than the followers of Zevi, who could be seen to have apostatised and yet still his believers followed him. Nevertheless, the physical view of the resurrection appears to have been developed as it became more theologically necessary.
From Robert M. Price: Resurrection (1987)
In early Judaism, from about 200 B.C. to 100 A.D., we find both that the resurrection doctrine has become widely (though by no means universally) held, and that there are many different versions of it. Texts vary over just who will rise, whether only the righteous, some or all of them, both the righteous and the wicked, etc. Will this rising be spiritual, or physical with the return of the very body that died, or rather transformation into a glorious angelic form, or first the mortal body which subsequently puts on immortality? And contra the oft-heard generalization, some Jews must even have entertained the notion of possible resurrections before the eschatological judgment, since John the Baptist was widely believed to have risen from the dead as a supernatural being with new miraculous powers (Mark 6:14), a belief which perhaps accounts for the tenacious belief in John's Messiahship which lasted into at least the fourth century.
The earliest attested form of the belief in Jesus' resurrection occurs in 1 Corinthians 15, where Paul compares the general resurrection to that of Jesus and thus implies his conception of the latter. The risen Jesus "became a ... Spirit" (v. 45). His was a spiritual, not a natural body (v. 44) and did not have flesh, since such is entirely unsuited to immortality (v. 50). The often overlooked passage 1 Peter 3:18 may assume the same understanding since it contrasts Jesus' death "in the body" with his resurrection "in the spirit." The four gospels are later works, and their very different, materialistic idea of Jesus' resurrection may be later as well.

Women eyewitnesses
Apologists claim that women being reported as first witnesses to an empty tomb lends credibility to the resurrection stories. In addition to the comments in part 1, I add the following. Firstly it reflects very badly on any evidence for benevolent divine guidance of the pre-Christian era Jews that women had such a low status. Starting at Deuteronomy 4 a long list of "commandments of the Lord your God" is given. In Deuteronomy 22:20 etc. we are told that if a man marries a woman, and she isn't a virgin, she is to be stoned to death. (Note no stoning for non-virgin husbands). In the same chapter, we are told that if a man rapes a married woman, he is to be stoned. However, if he rapes an unmarried woman, he has to marry her and pay her father 50 pieces of silver. So, in the first of these last two cases he isn't stoned for violently violating a woman, it is because he dishonoured his fellow male (i.e. the punishment is a function of her marital status!) If a woman is not married and is raped, the man's punishment is that he has to then marry (and hence presumably provide for) the woman he raped. How she feels about spending the rest of her life with her rapist is not even considered! Remember that according to the bible these are God's commands. Even if this is not held to be inerrant, how God inspired so little respect for women reflects very poorly on the existence of a compassionate and loving divine being.
Secondly, Christians often describe how much better they treat women than the ancient Jews - although for some Christians this is doubtful, women are still seen as very subservient by some evangelicals and fundamentalists. However, if women really do have a better status, then what is the problem with women being used as witnesses - this is all part of the Christian package! Are Christians really arguing that to appeal to Jews, the early Christians should have pretended that Christianity was something it was not? Lure Jews in first and then once they are converted hit them with the shocking news that women are to enjoy a far better status?
But it gets worse. I understand that the gospels were written by Hellenistic Jews, who did not share the same low opinion of women. What is more the Hebrews did have important religious female figures like the heroines Ruth and Esther in the canonical books and Judith in the apocryphal. Even more to the point, the Hebrews even had their prophetesses, such as Deborah and Huldah in�Judges 4 and�2 Kings 21, and Miriam (Exodus 15:20). There were also the 'wise women' such as Abigail (1 Samuel 25:3-35), the wise woman of Tekoah (2 Samuel 14:1-20) and the wise woman of Abel (2 Samuel 20:16-22). Women played a very large part in Pharisaism and, unlike later times, during the NT period, as excavated inscriptions show, women were given the title of archisynagogissa ('head of the synagogue') and presbytera ('elder'). So clearly women can have important religious status and speak for God according to the ancient Jews. Ironically, Paul's illiberal ruling on the position of women is worse than other evidence about the position of women in the early church. Acts 2:18-19 says that 'maidservants' too will prophesy.
Basically though, how is one to write a story of the discovery of an empty tomb? How is it going to work? If it is to be found empty, the most obvious way is by assuming that the annointers would discover it, and which gender is most likely to do this?
But as with all the best apologetic evidence of miracles, rolling stones, guards, multiple resurrections, earthquakes, great periods of darkness etc, St. Paul who strived so hard to convert the masses to Christianity, failed to mention it. Did God intend Paul's letters to be left for posterity as part of the bible - was he not interested in converting future people to Christianity? Maybe the resurrection stories evolved.

The martyrs would not have died for a hoax!
Jordan claims that the disciples were martyred and argues that the resurrection is likely as they would not have submitted to martyrdom if they were hoaxing about resurrection appearances.
From Richard Carrier:
It is still rather unlikely, I am told, that the original believers were making what they believed up for personal gain, in light of the persecution they suffered, and I have a lot to say about this, requiring a substantial digression. It is neither necessary to assume they made it up, nor is it certain that if they did they would be unwilling to die for some greater good that they saw in their creed. And if any original eye-witness did face death and recanted we might not have heard about it: Matthew's remark at 28.17 that some eye-witnesses didn't believe may be seen as a rhetorical defence against evidence of recanters. But most importantly, as I will argue in detail, most believers, and all whom we know died for their belief, were not eye-witnesses. This proves without a doubt that people were willing to die for something that they believed merely on someone else's word. And if they were willing to do that, might they not be willing to die for equally feeble reasons? From kamikaze Japanese dive-bombers and torpedo-peddlers, Islamic suicide-bombers, to any of the dozens of suicide cults in history, or indeed the whole nation of Israel, twice fighting against an obviously unbeatable and demonstrably vindictive Rome, because of beliefs in prophecies of their victory, it is clear that people have a tendency to be willing to die for a seemingly good cause, even when the cause really isn't that good. <snip>
It is important not to forget that, in actual fact, we have no reliable record of any eye-witness dying for their belief. All martyrdom accounts are of converts, not witnesses, except for that of Peter. But the account of his death is first found in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, a tale which includes, among other things, a talking dog, a flying wizard, and the resurrection of a tuna fish. Moreover, the account is Gnostic and assumes, as in Peter's dying words in it, that the Resurrection was spiritual, not physical. But most importantly, he would not have escaped death if he had recanted, for he was killed by a magistrate, as the story relates, whom he had angered with his political meddling, and not because he was a Christian. So his death does not prove that he was willing to maintain his faith despite being threatened with death if he didn't recant, because he wasn't. He was condemned no matter what his profession of faith, so his devotion proves nothing here.
After the murder of Dr. Martin Luther King, there were many cases of previously apathetic people whose lives were inspired and transformed by this tragedy to give up their jobs and start demanding community service projects. I have little doubt that the first Christians were sincere in their beliefs and were convinced that their visions and emotions meant something profound and real about God and Jesus. What I find very unparsimonious however, is that they must have truly experienced a physically resurrected Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. I do not think that the behaviour of the followers of Shabbetai Zevi, the visionaries at Medjugorge, Fatima and countless modern Indian magic men, all of whom had/have enormous followings within an extremely short time (one day for the Medjugorge visionaries) and within the lifetime of the originators, should be dismissed and the Christian resurrection story accepted. In my final months as a Christian, my reading of the history of religions and the richness and variety of the psychology of religion eventually left me unable to see Christianity as supernatural without an enormous dose of special pleading. The claim that there was no time for a physical resurrection legend to develop is plainly false in the light of other religions and beliefs. If somebody sees the Virgin Mary in a puddle, or claims Hindu statues are drinking milk, then thousands flock to see and believe. Since Elvis visions happened so quickly, does this mean he is alive? Nobody has bothered to exhume his grave to disprove his resurrection. Maybe, like Elvis believers, the earliest Christians weren't taken as seriously as modern Christians suppose (or even believed what modern conservative Christians do). The earliest historical references to Christianity are too slight and derived, not what one would expect from historians commenting on a religion that was upsetting the local officials so much that they would have produced the body if only they could. Christians ironically cite the lack of tomb veneration as evidence for an empty tomb. If there was really a tomb, then tomb veneration is exactly what we should expect, just as the holy sepulchre in Jerusalem is venerated today. Add to this the history of veneration of holy relics and the lack of early tomb veneration is one other piece of good evidence against a tomb. (Others include the rarity of the practice of giving over bodies, the unhistorical description of the tomb stone, the non-mention of the tomb outside of the gospels).

The rise of Christianity

Jordan states: "Christianity previously flourished while Christians were fed to lions." The persecution of Christians during the first centuries were not the continuous pogrom that Christians often imply. Neither does persecution argue against a religion's growth without there being "something in it". In fact, the situation is quite the opposite.
From Encarta:
First, however, Christianity had to settle its relation to the political order. As a Jewish sect, the primitive Christian Church shared the status of Judaism in the Roman Empire, but before the death of Emperor Nero in AD 68 it had already been singled out as an enemy. The grounds for hostility to the Christians were not always the same, and often opposition and persecution were localised. The loyalty of Christians to "Jesus as Lord", however, was irreconcilable with the worship of the Roman emperor as "Lord", and those emperors, such as Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, who were the most deeply committed to unity and reform were also the ones who recognised the Christians as a threat to those goals and who therefore undertook to eliminate the threat. As in the history of other religions, especially Islam, opposition produced the exact contrary of its intended purpose, and, in the epigram of the North African church father Tertullian, the "blood of the martyrs" became the "seed of the Church". By the beginning of the 4th century, Christianity had grown so much in size and in strength that it had to be either eradicated or accepted. Emperor Diocletian tried to do the first and failed; Emperor Constantine did the second and created a Christian empire.
["Christianity," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Emphasis added]
Adapted from alt.bible.errancy:
...I too grow tired of the idea that the christian were constantly persecuted in the Roman Empire. Roman history is a favourite of mine, and I read church history as a historian...
Nero's (64) persecution was a localised outbreak, as was Domitian's (before 96). But I understand the first systematic empire wide persecution was by Marcus Aurelius (r 161-180). Ironical that it was the best of the Emperors as felt the need, but many Christians he dealt with were in fact maniacs, like the circumcellions...
There were big persecutions under Gallienus and Decius (mid third century) and again under Diocletian (284-305)...
Interestingly either Maximinus or Maximian, one of Constantine's college of tetrarchs persecuted Christians. He came down with a horrible plague. Both he and the Christians believed it was God's judgement, so he called his persecution off...
I think Trajan's letter to Pliny (AD 110 approx) was revealing: "Don't seek them out".
There was in fact no systematic policy on the part of the Emperors regarding the church, and as the Empire was breaking up in the 3rd century, some Emperors were too busy to pay attention to the church. Xenobia [sic.] in the East, the "Empire of the Gauls" in the West, and the Goths to the North were more important enemies.
The fact is that there were entire 50 year stretches where the church was left alone. The Romans' did not care what one believed as long as one did not make trouble or was perceived to be a trouble maker.
As for the numbers killed, I read that the most generous estimate was ten thousand (over 300 years) and the most conservative was a few hundred. Compared to the numbers burnt at the stake by Mary Tudor - 300 in 6 years. The maths speaks for itself....
And what a pity that Augustine changed his mind about coercing heretics after his scrap with the Donatists, and decided thereafter that torture was a good idea. The church was always more vindictive than the Romans.
From the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
Early persecutions were sporadic, caused by local conditions and depending on the attitude of the governor. The fundamental cause of persecution was that the Christians conscientiously rejected the gods whose favour was believed to have brought success to the empire. But distrust was increased by Christian detachment and reluctance to serve in the imperial service and in the army. At any time in the 2nd or 3rd centuries, Christians could find themselves the object of unpleasant attention. A pogrom could be precipitated by a bad harvest, a barbarian attack, or a public festival of the emperor cult. Yet, long periods of peace occurred. In 248-250, when Germanic tribes threatened the empire, popular hostility culminated in the persecution under the emperor Decius (reigned 249-251): by edict all citizens were required to offer sacrifice and to obtain from commissioners a certificate witnessing to the act. Many of these certificates have survived. The requirement created an issue of conscience, especially because certificates could be bought by bribes. Under renewed attack (257-259), the great bishop-theologian Cyprian of Carthage was martyred. The persecuting emperor Valerian, however, became a Persian prisoner of war, and his son Gallienus issued an edict of toleration restoring confiscated churches and cemeteries. The church prospered from 261 to 303, but the empire suffered external attack, internal sedition, and rampant inflation. In February 303 the worst of all persecutions erupted under the co-emperors Diocletian and Galerius. The persecutions ended and peace was reached with the Edict of Milan, a manifesto of toleration issued in 313 by the joint emperors Licinius and his Christian colleague Constantine.
Retorting to my statement that the growth of Christianity is largely due to it's ruthless and bloody history, Jordan writes:
I, with my rudimentary knowledge, lack a basis for believing that Christians converted Roman Emperor Constantine via "bloody history, political power through the ages and ruthlessness towards dissenters."
Although scholars differ, I am inclined to believe that Constantine was sincere, if expedient, in his beliefs. At first I think his vision that prompted his conversion to Christianity was not remarkably different from his previous vision of Sol, and he initially saw Jesus largely as his battle God. Later I think he became less of a murderer for Jesus and his pagan background made him sympathetic to non-Christians.
Following the example of his father and earlier 3rd-century emperors, Constantine in his early life was a solar henotheist, believing that the Sun god, Sol, was the visible manifestation of an invisible "Highest God" (summus deus), who was the principle behind the universe. This god was thought to be the companion of the Roman emperor. Constantine's adherence to this faith is evident from his claim of having had a vision of the Sun god in 310 while in a grove of Apollo in Gaul. In 312, on the eve of a battle against Maxentius, his rival in Italy, Constantine is reported to have dreamt that Christ appeared to him and told him to inscribe the first two letters of his name ("XP" in Greek) on the shields of his troops. The next day he is said to have seen a cross superimposed on the sun and the words "in this sign you will be the victor" (usually given in Latin, in hoc signo vinces). Constantine then defeated Maxentius at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, near Rome. The Senate hailed the victor as saviour of the Roman people. Thus, Constantine, who had been a pagan solar worshipper, now looked upon the Christian deity as a bringer of victory.
["Constantine the Great," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 98 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1997 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.]
Also see The Online Reference book for Medieval studies and encyclop�dia britannica
Finally, Jordan makes claims for the harmony of "true Christians" claiming:
"Rome Christianized long before "Christians, in Christ�s name," began unbiblical conquering and enslaving."
However, Christianity has included a rich litany of inter-Nicene argument, mutual condemnation, ex-communication and murder of "brothers" and condemnation of "non-believers" from the beginning to the present day. I have already discussed this here.

How important is the Resurection?

Jordan writes:
"1. Stick with the Resurrection. It is pivotal."
It is important to realise that belief in a physical resurrection is pivotal to conservative Christians, not liberal and many mainline Christians, or non-Christians. The resurrection as a physical supernatural phenomena is not pivotal to two thirds of the UK's diocesan bishops who said it is not necessary to accept the divinity of Christ to be a Christian. Neither is it pivotal to the one third of them who admitted to not believing in a physical resurrection themselves. Nor is it pivotal to the one third of American protestant clergy who doubt Jesus' physical resurrection, etc. (see below). The new Primate of the Anglican Church of Australia, Rev. Dr. Peter Carnley, Archbishop of Perth made a public statement just recently (April 2000) that he believed that the Islamic and Buddha faiths also lead to God. He also made the comment that too much emphasis was placed on the resurrection. Many do not have supernatural resurrection belief and yet still call themselves Christians. Even if no Christian believed in a physical resurrection, Christianity would not disappear, as demonstrated by Christians like these and other Christians such as professor of history at Trinity college Dublin, Sean Frayne. Indeed, many liberal Christians would claim that supernaturalism and literalism in religion is banal and, as I said in my story, trivialises what God must mean. Is the spirituality of such people inferior to the worshiping of a miracle worker?
Disbelief in a physical resurrection would mean one would be liberal, or mainstream, rather than conservative, but Christianity theology has been on the move since earliest times. Heretics were as abundant in the early church as they are now. Brutal clampdowns on questions for the majority of the period of Christendom did not prevent great schisms and mutual excommunications. Despite what we know today's fundamentalists may argue for creationism, but even they would be thought as heretics by past fundamentalists such as Luther who would have held their belief in the heliocentric theory a damnable heresy.
Nothing in Christianity is pivotal. The church really is broad and I can't think of anything that would wipe Christianty out. Rather individual people's thoughts change and their religious ideas evolve and adapt to new information. This is even true of fundamentalists, hard though that is to see until they are compared to fundamentalists of yesteryear.
Thinking back to my Christian past, I would have felt very uneasy to meet a Christian who claimed that proof-miracles were the reason he became a Christian. Personally it was what I thought Christianity meant that attracted me to it - I thought it was a loving and fulfilling religion, a way to get close to God etc. Like so many others, research and reflection changed my opinion.
(Aside:- there are too many Christian belief variants to please all Christians. Whatever I say, some will write to me to tell me "aha! You didn't believe in real Christianity..." Unfortunately other Christians who write to me disagree with their versions! Remember the variety of deconverters via my site!!)
If the resurrection is a proof miracle then it was a very poor one as plainly many are unconvinced, and some specifically deconvert due to their studies into it (like theologian Gerd Ludermann). As a Christian I thought that those as little children could enter the kingdom of God, a heavily debated proof-miracle would not be required. That was my point about "does one need to be very intelligent to be a Christian" - if this is what it takes to become a Christian then this is not available to all others. Oddly I agree with such extreme Christians as Dr. Garrett on one hand and Don Cupitt at the other end of the spectrum. Proof-miracle belief is basically not religious, it is a response to a perceived brute fact. Although I think that faith is intellectually dishonest, at least it is religious and understandable as attraction to something perceived as valuable.
Why did people like Bertrand Russell not write critical essays about the resurrection? (It did not occur to me either to discuss it until I got into correspondence with Jordan). To a non-Christian the cruelties and absurdities of Christianity are more important than Christian dogma. Russell for instance was impassioned by unbearable pity for the suffering of humanity and wrote extensively on ideas that have harmed mankind. For instance, hell-belief (and hence the atonement) is very cruel and has spawned no end of horrors from inquisitions to modern fundamentalist parents taking their children to see graphic "Christian films" about hell, complete with horrific eviscerations, beheadings, burnings etc. (Some such tales can be found in the ex-Christian archives). Christians can believe as many things as they want to but when it leads to behaviour like this
http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/3612/shame.html
http://holysmoke.org/haught/liberty.html
http://holysmoke.org/haught/army.html
http://holysmoke.org/haught/homicide.html
http://holysmoke.org/haught/pent-2.html
http://holysmoke.org/haught/murder.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/heretics_and_hericies.html
then it is time to worry about what is really important.

Back on topic!
This all started out as part of my investigation into the asymmetry of conversion. First, did Jordan provide compelling reasons for becoming a Christian? Second why did he become a Christian? The first is addressed in my discussion of the resurrection - judge for yourself. The second is also worth discussing.
Jordan writes:
"Initially, former U.S. Representative Pat Swindall sparked my curiosity. During my first lunch with him, he asked me, point-blank, to present in a single statement why I rejected Christianity. I explained that Christianity rested on the Resurrection. He agreed."
I can think of hundreds of reasons for rejecting Christianity! Peruse my feedback and story for some of my own reasons. Also see here and here for many more.
Jordan continues:
" I later encountered Lee Strobel�s The Case for Christ, which documents legal, historical, and archeological evidence that if the Resurrection were brought to trial, a court would rule in its favor."
In my opinion this kind of argument is even worse than Josh MacDowell. Anyone who gives such nonsense credence should read Richard Packham's Critique of John Warwick Montgomery's Arguments for the Legal Evidence for Christianity. Here is a lengthy quote of relevance to the resurrection.
First, "verbatim agreement would point to collusion": There are two objections to accepting this as a valid excuse for the contradictions. First, at many places, the gospels do agree, word-for-word. This is taken (justifiably) by most scholars to indicate that the later writer simply copied or adapted from the earlier writer. Thus, both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source. They apparently had another source (the so-called "Q") which they both copied. Second, no trial attorney would argue ipso facto that witnesses who tell a consistent story are in collusion. Collusion in witnesses can be uncovered by excluding each from hearing the testimony of the others, and then asking each for more and more detail. Montgomery says something similar when he discussed the difficulties of being a successful liar. If the colluding witnesses had not anticipated and agreed on the details now being asked about, each witness will invent something. His invention will make sense, sound plausible, so long as it stands alone. But when another witness is called upon to provide detail on the same topic, his invention will differ from the other witnesses, even though, by itself, it is plausible. And this is precisely what we see in the gospel narratives!
The "different points of view" argument sounds nice in the abstract, but collapses in absurdity when applied to specific details. Was Mark's "point of view" so different that it does not matter to him that Jesus was born of a virgin, or that Jesus' career fulfilled so many prophecies, as Matthew takes such pains to point out? Is Mark's point of view (supposedly Roman, supposedly Petrine) such that if we asked him why he does not mention the "upon this rock (Peter)" speech, he would say that he didn't think it would make sense to include it? How does John's "point of view" require Mary NOT to look into the tomb, but Luke's "point of view" makes sense only when she is reported as the first to enter it? If we could ask John, Luke and Mark why they did not report the emptying of the graves in Matthew 27:52-53, would those authors (whoever they actually were) reply, "Oh, we were writing from a different point of view, and we didn't think that event was to the point"?
Hundreds of other examples could be given to show the absurdity of the "different point of view" excuse. Furthermore, the "different points of view" argument cannot possibly account for the outright contradictions.
To contend, as Montgomery does, that "no gospel was intended to be complete in itself" is objectionable on several counts: 1) how does Montgomery claim to know this? On the contrary, if we did not have the other gospels, any one gospel would appear to tell a complete story. 2) It would be absurd to think that, if we had been able to ask Mark immediately after he published his gospel, "Mark, is this the whole story?" he would have answered, "Oh, no! You're going to have to wait until the other three finish theirs... mine is just a part of a work in progress. It'll be another forty years or so until the complete story can be known."
In fact, the omissions of important material from each of the gospels which one or more of the other evangelists felt important to include points to another reason from the rules of evidence to discredit their stories. Wigmore says, section 1042: "A failure to assert a fact, when it would have been natural to assert it, amounts in effect to an assertion of the non-existence of the fact. This is conceded as a general principle of evidence...[it is] 'prima facie' an inconsistency" Do we really have to remind the Evangelists that, as witnesses, they are obligated to tell "the truth, the whole truth..."? This, too, is a biblical principle: "If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he had seen or learned about, he will be held responsible." (Lev5:1, NIV translation)
Thus, John's omission of any mention of the ascension is, legally, the equivalent of his statement that, so far as he is concerned, no ascension took place. Mark's statement that one young man was inside the tomb is the legal equivalent of saying that it was not two (as Luke and John say) and that no angel was involved (as Matthew and John say). And so on. Material omissions are just as fatal to the conflicting "testimony" of the gospels as are the outright contradictions. In every instance where the Gospels contradict each other (and there are many; for a partial listing click here), at least one of the accounts must be wrong, mistaken, false. Or, equally possible, all of them.
What, then, is the explanation? It is really quite simple, and very ordinary. Each gospel author had assumed the task of telling about the events of Jesus' life, many years after the actual events. His sources were tales circulating among the faithful, snippets of teachings, aphorisms, parables, and the fundamental belief that Jesus was the Messiah as promised, that he had forecast the coming of the Kingdom of God, but that he had been executed by the authorities. Some of those who remained faithful were convinced that he had risen from the dead and would shortly return in glory. Now, the task is to fill in the details, to tell a convincing story. Is it any surprise that four imaginative and faithful writers would be able to come up with an impressive life story? Except that their details contradict each other, which shows that the gospels are fictionalized legends, and not based on personal knowledge.
1. Jesus dies and is buried
2. Empty tomb is discovered
3. Disciples realize that Jesus is not dead
the more likely order was:
1. Jesus dies and is buried
2. Disciples refuse to accept that fact (he had promised the establishment of the Kingdom of God)
3. Therefore, disciples believe Jesus must be alive
4. Therefore, the tomb must have been empty
But ultimately, if Christians insist that these rules be relaxed - on some justification or other - when evaluating Christianity's claims, then we must relax them when evaluating similar claims of every other miracle-based religion: Islam, Mormonism, Baha'i, Sikhism, Hinduism. Are Christians willing to do that? Mormonism, for example, has eye-witnesses galore, self-authenticating documents, miraculous events, and well-recorded cross-examination. Would Montgomery be willing to allow Mormons the same legal latitude in proving their religion?
Remember too "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." (Mark 14:56, 59). Biblically, disagreement amongst witnesses is held to indicate false witness.

Points not directly about the resurrection

Rules of Engagement

Jordan insists that non-theists who write to him follow certain guidelines. It is a good idea to keep people on track and unabusive and I try hard to keep decorum, although occasionally emotions rise in some email discussions. I am not entirely happy with Jordan's stipulations however, feeling that not only does Jordan not stick to them himself, but more importantly, I feel my research is hindered without a truly free rein.
1. Stick with the Resurrection. It is pivotal.
I think it is important to be allowed to discuss anything that one wishes to and in the way one believes is most appropriate. For most of Jordan's writings, both in his debate with Temy Beal and his response to me he discusses issues that are important to him and not about the resurrection. Indeed, his resurrection material is actually quite slight, especially in his debate with Temy Beal. In his "eight points" Jordan has to start at point 7 admitting that "omitted items addressed different issues." I will do the same, especially as there are issues raised that criticise what I have written. As for the resurrection being pivotal, incase you have jumped here, read this.

Regarding our readers

Jordan says:
I consider it crucial for our readers that we provide references and links as they arise in this exchange. Bear in mind, however, most persons do not have time to read the exhaustive material. It is important we make our points on our pages. Therefore, I include direct quotations of pertinent statements along with corresponding site links.
I respond to this in a similar way to the "rules of engagement." I wish to do serious research and I try to provide quality reading material that gets to the heart of the matter. I am concerned that if I attempt this with a few selected quotes I may trivialise the material that is out there. Also it is too easy to critically pick up on necessarily scanty material of a single article resulting in gainsaying debates. Even so, I already have included quite a few relevant quotes and summaries and have more on this page. The links in the body of my resurrection article (part 1) are fully intended to be read and to help this in the light of Jordan's plea I have tidied up some of the links. They go directly to the quotes and essays I would otherwise be putting on the page. The links at the end are for further reading. I am writing both for myself and others who wish to tackle this subject seriously. It takes about 3 months to read all this material, a long time I know, but if it really matters and one wants to know what has been discussed then proper research is necessary. One certainly needs to go beyond what little I have dished out. It's a fact of life I'm afraid.
Also, as I said in part 1, I do not see the point in repeating debates that have already been had. Jordan complains that he does not wish to reproduce the effort he put in with Temy Beal, even though he directly challenges me to answer questions. Any debate would be much curtailed and less confrontational if the resources we linked to were read. Jordan makes many points that are directly discussed in the resources I link to. These are far from merely critical sites that it appears I am being criticised for ("Steve provided numerous links promulgating non-belief.") There are debates, criticisms, quotes and discussions from scholars (of various stripes), general research resources, the Jesus course at a university theological department, links to the academic crosstalk discussions and links to conservative Christian resources, including even Craig's articles.

Accusations of homophobia
In his use of quotes from our personal emails, Jordan did not show the email I wrote apologising for anything he would consider "ad-hominem" and my offer to remove it. At the time he wrote straight back saying:

Whoa, horsey-
Steve, you and Temy Beal are NOT a problem at all. I consider your "ad hominum" applications pertinent and appropriate.
<snip>
If you or Temy ever do anything that offends me, I'll let you know individually. The two of you have an established rapport with me.

Jordan did not let me know individually if my comments on his supposed homophobia offended him. The first I knew that he wanted to defend himself over it was when his web response to me was uploaded. Maybe my comments did not offend him, although he does go to some pains to exonerate himself on his site.
I am sorry if I have painted Jordan in a worse light than he deserves and I would have commended him for his libertarian political attitudes if these were not the absolute minimum I would expect from a civilised person in the 21st century. I certainly recognise that there are degrees of homophobia and Jordan was not near the homophobic attitudes of the religious right in my mind. Unfortunately it was not at all obvious to me that the phrase "trapped in homosexuality" was not one of Jordan's, even in context. I would advise Jordan that if he cares what people think about him and he disagrees with, or finds distasteful, the statement that homosexuals are trapped in homosexuality, then he should make his disagreement with such phrases clear on his website as others may make the same misjudgment about his opinions. Jordan claims that the "sin of homosexuality" is between a matter between a homosexual and God. However, I guess that it is worth more than this to Jordan as he cares to make public pronouncements about the (spiritual) "crime" of homosexuality on his website. Leaving this as a private matter between an individual and God has clearly not been sufficient. There is a very serious point to me picking Jordan up for saying "homosexuality is a sin", something he did say was his own opinion.
Jordan makes the dubious claim that "the problem with Christianity is that it has never been tried." I was probably not very clear in my "homophobia" paragraph. The problem I was alluding to was that Christianity by its very nature frequently makes people take cruel attitudes to others, from assuming spiritual divisions between Christians and non-Christians, through denigrating the worth of different lifestyles, to ultimately seeing non-believers (and "false Christians") as hell-fodder.
Jordan is quite civil in email and appears better than many conservative Christians I have corresponded with. (He says he is a fundamentalist as far as the NT is concerned and has sent me a URL to study - claiming they tackle everything a skeptic or biblical critic might throw. This site (see here) promotes very fundamentalist beliefs including inerrancy, creationism and Noah's Ark. Whether these are totally his opinions too, I don't know, but if not then he either does not care what is on this website, or he hasn't read it carefully himself, maybe just hoping - like many Christians vainly do - that somebody surely has the answers. If Jordan really does believe in Noah's Ark, then the case is closed! The fact that many Christians do have such a belief is one very big nail in the credibility coffin for Christianity. Something is seriously wrong when such beliefs can be held).
Jordan has a politically libertarian attitude to homosexuals and may even have some gay friends for all I know (as I do). Unfortunately the statement "homosexuality is a sin," and his new statement calling homosexuality a "crime against God," is bigoted and unkind I'm afraid. I do not think many homosexuals would be impressed by such "Christian unconditional love" for their condition. It is extremely unlikely that Jordan would make such claims if he was not a conservative Christian (or a conservative Jew/Muslim). Few atheists see a sexuality as a spiritual crime (are spiritual crimes not the worst kind to a Christian?) Somebody's sexual orientation is no concern of Jordan's to pronounce on, or even his god's. Anybody, including a god, who makes it their concern to state homosexuality is a sin is condemning something which is of no business of theirs to worry about. Such outdated and small-minded thinking needs to be abolished. If somebody was to tell Jordan that monogamy is a sin and that indulging in the missionary position is a crime against God, then I doubt he would be impressed by their attitude. Of course there are non-Christians who are homophobic, but Christianity gives new and unique ways of saying cruel things to people (homosexuality is now a spiritual crime of some sort). I lay the blame for Jordan's homosexuality statements on the corrupting influence of conservative Christianity upon him. The point of me bringing all this up is that Christianity is being tried, and this is a typical result. As I said, on the ex-Christian mailing list all those who used to say unkind things like this had given up such thoughts once they left Christianity. Mercifully, with the encroachment of modern enlightened liberal thought, a good number of Christians (especially in Europe) are now completely at ease, even theologically, with homosexuality. Because there is no consensus on what a "true Christian" is, my comments on Christians can never be thought as taring all with the same brush.
I think it would be an instructive experience for people who make such comments to attempt to thoroughly explain to themselves exactly why homosexuality is a sin and a crime against God.
Jordan says in his debate with Temy: "We are to let Christ shine through us to non-believers so they will want Him too." If the effect of being a Christian is that we are to believe that those we love and understand are committing a crime against God for their sexuality, then this makes Christianity very undesirable and non-divine indeed. If Jordan convinces me that Jesus was resurrected then do I have to take on board beliefs about homosexuals too? Would being a Christian in no way increase my chances of denigrating other lifestyles? As I develop as a Christian and ask other Christians for advice will I find it is also necessary to believe Jews are going to hell, or Catholics, or non-believers? Will I find I learn apologetics that allow me to debate with atheists that infanticide is just when God orders or does it? Leviticus 26:22, Numbers 31:17-18, Ezekial 9:4-6, Judges 21:10-12, 1 Samuel 15:3,7-8? Will I have to swallow creationism? Will I feel I have a relationship with the Deity that others don't have? Would this make it difficult for me to truly connect with them? Would I have to go to church for feelings of "warm-fuzzies" or would that feeling still be available to me with everybody I meet, there being nothing special about Christians? I have so far received a bewildering array of assured and conflicting answers to these questions from Christians. Christians don't look like they are shining, they look like they are carrying a lot of very unattractive baggage.
If this is too ad hominem then bare a thought for writers of websites critical of Chritianity who have to be made of sterner stuff than Jordan. He is very sensitive about ad-hominem material (nothing wrong with that per se) whereas we are routinely told we are unspiritual, going to hell, prayed for that "God will make you miserable in your sin," sent death threats etc. (all these have happened to me). The Internet is a wild place and it seems some of the wildest people are Christians. Maybe they are not "true Christians" but since every Christian type is mutually excluded by another, then maybe there are no Christians at all and Christianity is a mess of fingers pointing in different directions. Christians are fond of admitting their sins but don't like to admit to the sins they do under the influence of Christianity (like insulting homosexuals).
Further reading:
Christian beliefs about human sexuality and gender
Sexual statements by Jesus
Youth Sexuality
Homosexuality - general overview in terms of Christian culture
What the bible says specifically

The Sea of Faith
I have already written about the Sea of Faith here. My main reason for enjoying the writings of the Sea of Faith is that they take religious emotions completely seriously whilst also treating religion as a purely human creation. For a new deconvert this is very liberating and rewarding reading material. However I am not altogether easy about their use of Christianity as a matrix for exploring these feelings and I think this is reflected in the turnover of their membership. Although intended by Don Cupitt as an exploration of religious thought, rather than a temporary resting place for those leaving Christianity, a third of the membership changes each year so it seems possible that a temporary resting place is how in practice many people take it. For most of us it eventually becomes time to move on to fresher pastures.
Jordan makes a big deal about his discovery that the Sea of Faith members are atheists. This is hardly news. They generally prefer to use the term "non-realist Christians" (although I believe there is a smattering of people from other faith backgrounds in their ranks), concerned that the term atheist is too loaded and does not do justice to their subtle position. What their position is can be read here, although they admit that no one position can describe them all. Even the Sea of Faith is a "broad church." I wrote to their secretary last year about why are they not more forthright in their adoption of the term atheism and pointed them to this criticism. Following her gentle response I was prompted by my embarrassment at criticising an organisation with such astute and learned minds as Don Cuppit and Karen Armstrong etc. to read their website more thoroughly. I have since then read it all and many external links. I am also a long time reader of Cupitt. I soon found that quite a few Sea of Faith members are happy to use the term atheist and even Don Cupitt was heading in that direction when describing his beliefs in a recent issue (number 10) of "The Philosopher's Magazine."
...of the word 'God,' I'm inclined to think now that we've probably got to drop the word because it's got so many misleading associations.... Kant kept God as an ideal about which we could speak in symbolic terms. But people won't like that. They say "Cupitt's an atheist" and dismiss my ideas.
I think Jordan should be very wary of dismissing Cupitt's ideas because he sees him as a mere atheist. Cupitt is a very subtle and deep thinker, far more intelligent and widely read than either Jordan or I, and it pays to read his books carefully.
Cupitt would probably have a lot to say about Jordan's "parsinomy" attitude to the resurrection. Cupitt says:
I was initially prompted by reaction against the views of Richard Swinburne who seems to treat God as an empirical hypothesis to account for various features of the world.
I think that Cupitt would not find such an attitude particularly "religious" - reducing God to another thing in the world, the forced result of an investigation.

The Asymmetry of Conversion
Commenting on the Sea of Faith, and appearing to confuse their sagacity with my asymmetry of conversion thesis, Jordan writes:
Are they theological sages? Well, apparently there is no God because some clergy fell away. Likewise, then, the fact that other atheists and I have fallen away demonstrates the falsity of atheism. Perhaps a criterion other than the tenacity of adherents (whether to Christianity or atheism) is needed.
Having read all their website and many of their books, I think they indeed are theological sages, contrary to Jordan's quip. The magnitude of the asymmetry of this "falling away" and its implications need to be understood. Firstly, from my researches there are far greater numbers (and proportions) of well-churched and professional Christians who left Christianity then anybody active in the freethought world, or others well-read in criticism of Christianity, who subsequently became Christians. If Jordan's evidence for the resurrection is as good as he believes then this is an unlikely scenario, such great evidence would have kept them as Christians. In fact, as I previously pointed out, it was precisely investigations into the resurrection which was one of the main reasons for the Theologian Gerd Ludermann leaving Christianity. Another important point is that if Christianity is true then we are not on our own. God would be helping Christians with doubts to see what was necessary as we prayed so fervently for whatever was required to prevent our doubts forcing us to the conclusion that Christianity was untenable.
Previously Jordan even told me that Satre may have been an example of an atheist who had become a Christian. This is quite false. Such credulity and willingness to seize on unchecked evidence for one's cause does not bode well. Celcus (1st Century C.E.) said "credulity without enquiring is a sure way to deceive oneself."
I have found very few people like Jordan. One other is Dr. Anthony Garrett. However, he admits that his time in the Australian Skeptics was purely for the purposes of combatting creationism, which he still does as a Christian, and although he read some material critical of theism, he had read nothing critical of Christianity. The quality of his arguments for Christianity are being put to the test here where the asymmetry of conversion is also discussed at some length.

Typical atheist arguments
As a counter to my surprised claim that although an ex-member of freethought societies Jordan used standard conservative Christian apologetics (i.e. why didn't he know them already), Jordan retorts with: "Steve offers traditional atheistic apologetics that have been challenged." I am in little doubt that pretty much every opinion has been challenged somewhere. However, if my arguments are "traditional atheistic apologetics" then such apologetics are the work of theologians, as that is where I learnt most of my material during my deconversion. That was in the 1980's when the Internet was a small academic phenomenon and resource to books critical of Christianity was quite difficult for me to find. Instead I watched TV documentaries, and read books by such "typical atheists" as Professor of Theology James Mackay, Theologian John Macquarrie and of course, Don Cupitt and Karen Armstrong. I also read much classic writing on the psychology of religion by (Christian) psychologists such as William James, Ninian Smart and Robert Thouless. James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" is very famous and he was a "pragmatic" Christian. Smart ("The Religious Experience of Mankind") was a professor of theology and lecturer in history and philosophy of religion. Thouless gave his book ("The Psychology of Religion") as a lecture series to ordination candidates at Cambridge.
A lent course book by my university Chaplain inadvertently made me suspicious about where the NT stories came from. He drew a detailed map of parallels between the OT and new, which even as a Christian made me wonder if there wasn't some copying going on, rather than prophecy or reportage. It was from Mackay that I first obtained an inkling of the theological development surrounding the resurrection stories, and in Cupitt I came across the phrase "the Easter experience came before the Easter event." I also had access to some Encyclopaedia articles by churchmen of varying degrees of liberality and conservatism. The other books I mention on my site I read a little later and the Internet resources I have only known about for the last three years. For the benefit of further research most of the material in my current essays I have selected from the web, as such resources are easier to follow than my out of print (and rather heavy) books.

"The consensus of scholars"
Jordan very directly asks me: "To start at the earliest element, we must examine New Testament scholarship. I have yet to witness any of Craig�s opponents correct him when he referred to this scholarship. I ask that Steve challenge or concede its authority."
I find this rather an odd challenge for two reasons. Firstly it is exactly what I have done on my previous resurrection page. Secondly, in his misleading denigration of "atheist scholars" Jordan ridicules the Sea of Faith as "fallen clergypersons," and says: "Personally, my evaluation of the facts lies outside whether one Catholic priest, the Pope, or one thousand Protestant ministers have fallen away. I invite any of them to address the points presented above." Either the numbers of skeptical scholars are important or not. It appears Jordan wants both. If he truly invites the Sea of Faith to address his points then he should ask them and read their books (many of these "fallen clergy persons" are able scholars!) Contact details are available at their website and the most relevant book is possibly (I haven't read all their books) "Resurrection - Myth or Reality?" - John Shelby Spong, ISBN 0060674296 (reviewed and summarised here). They should not be thought of as avoiding his challenge if Jordan does not let them know about it or if he does not read what they have already written in answer to his exact questions. A snippet is here.
If most Islamic scholars thought that the angel Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed, should this be thought of as evidence for Islam? However, if many hundreds of their most able scholars deconverted during their studies, arguing that the Koran was a mere cultural production, should that make us think? Maybe we should wonder if the evidence in favour of Islam is not as good as we may have previously thought.
Jordan says that what really matters is the quality of the arguments. Before making his mind up about the Jesus Seminar being wrong because they are believed to be a minority opinion by fundamentalists, I repeat my quote of what happened to a previous Christian apologist, of much greater learning than Jordan, when he decided to eventually actually read carefully what the Jesus Seminar had to say:
"I was planning to be a professional apologist and was taking three courses [in] my fall quarter relating to biblical studies. I thought the best way to defeat the Jesus Seminar and the source critics of the Pentateuch was to know their arguments as well as they did. Ironically, I was won over to the historical-critical method. Given my background in comparative religions and my training as an apologist who liked to ask difficult questions, my view of the Bible and the religious communities that produced it quickly changed. More and more, I saw the Bible as a mere cultural production...I wanted my apologetic to have a firm historical angle. In effect, everything for which I had been working for the past decade came to a drastic halt when the historical-critical method poked holes too large for me to ever repair in my conservative brand of Christianity."
I hope Jordan's research is commensurate with his pronouncements on the validity of different scholars. It should be bourn in mind that many ex-Christians are well studied, and include fine scholars in their ranks, such as Don Cuppit and Michael Goulder. Since many have subsequently left Christianity and others still in the fold do not hold with the idea of a physical resurrection, Jordan really must ask himself why what is so obvious to him is not obvious to them too.
Also remember the asymmetry of conversion.
Here, from part 1, is a repetition of the lack of conservative consensus: (to skip, click here).
...the quest for the historical Jesus from such famous figures as David Friedrich Strauss, Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, etc. to Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, and the Jesus Seminar. This has produced many ex-Christians like Gerd L�dermann and Michael Goulder and radical "non-realist" Christians such as those at the Sea of Faith. The theologians who take a very different approach to the one Jordan sees as the consensus are indeed legion....Lloyd Geering at How Did Jesus Become God - and Why writes: "There is general agreement, among all but conservative scholars, that the Easter faith began with visions in Galilee and not with the discovery of an empty tomb in Jerusalem." To quote the radical bishop John Shelby Spong "The defensiveness of the hierarchy [of the Church of England to the revelation that many bishops do not believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus] revealed a startling unwillingness to share common-place biblical scholarship with a questioning public. Most biblical scholars regard the emptiness of the tomb to be an early Christian legend but they don't actually believe there ever was an identifiable tomb in which Jesus was buried in the first place." Also, as Anthony Freeman says "How is it, for example, that not a single professor of divinity in Cambridge is currently an ordained member of the Church of England? And how is it that the English clergy have so effectively insulated their congregations from the fruits of critical scholarship over the past hundred years? Is the reason perhaps that 'no priest dare admit officially to things which every first year theological undergraduate needs to know'?" The Internet Infidels have a similar article here.
More evidence that current scholarship rarely filters through to the Christian laity is the following from religious tolerence.org. "The beliefs of mainline Christian clergy and academics tend to be between those of the liberals and conservatives. A survey of mostly mainline Protestant clergy shows that many doubt Jesus' physical resurrection. Percentage of doubters are:

American Lutherans: 13%
Presbyterians: 30%
American Baptist: 33%
Episcopalians: 35%
Methodists: 51%
There is a massive gap between the beliefs of the clergy and laity in mainline and liberal churches. A recent survey of randomly selected Christians revealed that 96% believe the resurrection to have been an historical event." It would be interesting to see the results of a similar poll in the UK.

It should be of no surprise though that many biblical scholars hold conservative views, since most are funded (especially in the USA) by conservative, and even fundamentalist, Christian denominations. Usually people who wish to study theology do so because they are believing Christians. Even so, I know of theological colleges where there is a steady stream of people who leave their Christian faith due to their studies. Not only have I read about this, and seen such people discussed on TV documentaries, but I have also discussed this with the principal of one of these colleges, and I got to know the vice-principal who left because she came to the conclusion that Christianity was not of God.
Following the bishop of Durham Dr. David Jenkins' doubts aired on national TV, a poll was taken of the UK's 31 diocesan bishops. Two-thirds of them were of the opinion that it was not necessary to accept the divinity of Christ to be a Christian and one third denied a belief in the physical resurrection. Scholarship often breeds radical Christians (like the Sea of Faith movement) or atheists. Also bare in mind that one third of the Sea of Faith are replenished each year as people move on - how many scholars does that include? For every Jesus Seminar scholar there is a often an academic department of like minded colleagues not on the Seminar.
I have sections on the brilliant English scholar, professor of biblical studies and subsequent ex-Christian Michael Donald Goulder and the ex-Christian theologian Gerd L�demann. There are other deconversion stories from scholars here and book resources here.

Don't confuse me with the facts...

Jordan says:
"My intent is not necessarily to convert readers to Christianity but to question whether he or she is practicing the old saying, "My mind�s made up, don�t confuse me with the facts."
I hope he has asked that question of his mentor, William Lane Craig. In "Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 1994" Craig writes: "Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa." Craig thinks that his religious experience is veridical. Somebody else's very different religions experience is apparently not. Jordan also states that he is a Christian first and a freethinker second.
I was initially impressed with Jordan's conversion as, like mine, it showed a willingness to pursue doubts about ones world view - to look at what the other side has to say. However this must not stop. In his debate with Temy Beal, Jordan says that his fundamental beliefs focus on Christ and from that perspective he thinks freely. But what if he has made a mistake and supernatural Christianity is not true? How ever could such a focus allow one to find that out? In my continued investigation into Christian apologetics I have occasionally (it is rare, mind you) been struck by something that made me wonder for a while if just maybe....? I think this shows true freethought. All I ask for is the non-presumptuous and critical reading of both sides from Christian apologists. If we are all reflective, then difference of belief would become much less of an aggressive issue. There is much we cannot be certain about. I do not think we should elevate that which we consider most parsimonious to the status of facts.

"What is unclear?"
Jordan queries my extra probing into what convinced him about the resurrection, saying:
"Steve read my article Birth and Death of an Atheist. What is unclear about the following points I presented regarding my reasoning?"
What I was referring to was Jordan's remark:
"Because I wanted to avoid overshadowing it by frivolous diversions, I refrained from covering the Resurrection in detail."
This is what I thought was forthcoming, the extra detail that I assumed was being alluded to. As I said, I was surprised that Jordan used the arguments that he did. I (maybe naively) assumed that he would have been well aware of them if he had been active in freethought circles. I urge people to continue reading on both sides if they are real "truth-seekers" in the Christianity yes/no debate.

The problem of Christ's goodness
Jordan makes the following claim:
"Understand, however, that Christ's "goodness" or "badness" is irrelevant to His divinity or non-divinity. That is the nuts-and-bolts of the matter. The good news is that those who follow Him, instead of bigoted and manipulative religious leaders, love others unconditionally."
This is enormously problematic and could evolve into a huge diversion. Basically the problem is the same as the problem of evil in being evidence against a divinity. I have already discussed this at a number of places, starting here. Claiming that homosexuals are committing a crime against God is not loving others unconditionally. However if any Christians do love others unconditionally, then they are better than their God. Mark 16:16 says "... he that believeth not shall be damned" and John 15:6 says "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth... and men gather them into the fire, and they are burned." Is this unconditional love? I think loving Christians should pray for a better God.
Jordan claimed "The crusades and inquisitions provide no testament against Christianity, for there is no biblical basis for such acts." However this last quote from John 15:6 was the one used by the inquisition as their justification for heretic burning. Also John Chapter 3 "He who does not believe is condemned already...the wrath of God abideth on him." was used by the Protestant reformer Malanchthon (approved and signed by Luther) to demand the death penalty for denial of any article of the Apostles' Creed. Christianity provides plenty of excuses and biblical passages for terrible behaviour and bad attitudes. Another Christian I correspond with is adamant (actually very adamant) that God's love is not unconditional.

Jordan has written a response to this page.
My reply is in Resurrection - Part 3

Back to "Leaving Christianity" Contents | Back to main Resurrection page | Email me