Next to the existence of God, Christians hold the resurrection of Jesus as being its most sacred tenet. Paine professed belief in God, so that tenet was not in question. But he rejected just about everything else, concerning Christianity (as well as Islam, Judaism, and the other major religions of the world). Paine wrote:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turk church, or by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
"All institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
What was Paine's Problem With Easter?
Why is Easter celebrated? Easter is Christianity's holiest day, in that it honors the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
**For an overview of the history of Easter, check out "The History of Easter" (courtesty of History.com)
**Trivia Question: Who was the first President to host an Easter Egg hunt at the White House? Hint: He was not a founding era President.
Not surprisingly, Paine rejected the resurrection of Jesus. Thus, while two billion plus people the world over will be celebrating Easter, you can bet that Thomas Paine did not. For Thomas Paine, Easter was just another day.
Paine Rejected the Resurrection
Historians (including non-Christian ones) almost universally concede that Jesus existed and that he was crucified at the hand of Pontius Pilate sometime between 26 and 36 A.D. (probably in 30 or 33 A.D.).
Paine himself conceded the probability of Jesus' life and death. In The Age of Reason, he wrote: "That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution of that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability."
So, Paine generally accepts the historical outlines of Jesus' life and crucifixion. What came after Jesus' crucifixion is what is so hotly contested today, and it's also where Paine drew a line in the intellectual sand.
Paine's arguments against the resurrection boil down to the following two categories:
1) That the legends surrounding Jesus, including the resurrection, are based on "hearsay upon hearsay."
2) That the Christian church and many of its beliefs (including those about Jesus) "sprung out of the tail of...heathen mythology."
Did Christianity Stem from Mythology?
Paine begins his attempt at deconstructing Jesus by arguing that Christian beliefs in virgin birth, healing miracles, resurrection and ascension, etc. mirror those of "heathen mythology."
**For information on Christianity's ties with ancient mythology, read "Origins of Christianity" and "Is Christianity Based on Paganism?"
Let me first say that resemblance doesn't automatically prove dependent linkage. Moreover, the resurrection accounts in ancient mythology actually seem to POST-date Christianity.
**For more on how ancient religions appeared to have copied Christianity (rather than the other way around), watch the following video...
If the resurrection of Jesus didn't spring from mythology, then what did it spring from? Could it have actually happened?
Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?
In his first letter to the church at Corinth, the Apostle Paul wrote: "If Christ be not risen, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith is in vain" (I Corinthians 15:14). For Paul, the resurrection was crucial to Christianity. If the resurrection didn't take place, then the entire Christian religion was empty, worthless, and fraudulent.
So, did Jesus rise from the dead? Did the resurrection happen?
In order to consider evidence for Jesus' resurrection, the person investigating it must agree to the following propositions:
1) Truth exists and it is best understood as that which corresponds to known facts.
2) At least SOME events in history (including ancient history) are knowable.
3) It is likely that God exists, thus miracles are possible.
If anyone rejects one or more of the above propositions, then he or she will automatically reject the resurrection of Jesus. As a product of the Enlightenment, Paine was a modernist (not a postmodernist), so he generally accepted the idea of truth. Indeed, his efforts to disprove Christianity are along modernist (not postmodern) lines. And, as we've already seen, Paine accepted God's existence.
If you're in the postmodern camp, however, then unfortunately, space and time will not allow me to argue in favor of the above propositions, but you're encouraged to follow the links for more information.
With the above propositions in mind (God exists, truth exists, and facts, including facts of history are knowable), then we proceed to the facts that we know from Jesus' death, burial, and reported resurrection.
What do we Know about Jesus?
Paine spends a lot of time in The Age of Reason attacking the credibility of the Gospel accounts. In so doing, he hopes to cast doubt on all of Christianity. For my own part, while I accept the entire Bible as divinely inspired, I do not approach evangelism that way. I prefer Gary Habermas' "minimal facts" approach, in which he takes only those documents and points of evidence that a majority of scholars (including NON-Christian scholars) accept. Taking that same approach, I don't need to base my case for Jesus' resurrection on the Gospels. I will instead turn simply to ancient history, and look at the Bible simply as a collection of ancient documents.
The following facts are generally conceded by scholars from various backgrounds and perspectives, based on examining a wide range of ancient sources (including but NOT limited to, and giving NO special weight to the books of the Bible):
1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) He was buried in a contemporarily known location
3) Jesus' death caused the disciples to (at first) despair and lose hope
4) The tomb was discovered empty a few days later by some of Jesus' women followers
5) The disciples had experiences, in which they sincerely believed they had seen the risen Jesus
6) The disciples were transformed by these experiences
7) Some who, at first, didn't follow Jesus (like the apostle Paul and Jesus' own brothers, including James) became followers, as a result of these resurrection appearances
8) The message of the resurrection was the central doctrine of the early church
9) The message was first proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been buried (and where the message could have been debunked by the Romans or Jewish leaders simply exhuming Jesus and parading his corpse around for his followers to see that he was still dead)
10) As a result of the resurrection message (and the hope and inspiration it provided), the church grew and spread throughout the known world - even in the face of persecution
11) Sunday became the primary day of worship - a significant fact when one considers that Jewish Christians were never formally released from the Sabbath
There are others, but the above eleven are pretty well agreed to by most scholars (including non-Christian ones). These facts beg for some analysis and interpretation - some form of explanation.
The Likelihood of Jesus' Resurrection
All explanations (of the known facts) that deny the resurrection (such as the "swoon theory," which holds Jesus didn't die on the cross) have been largely debunked.
The best explanation for the known facts surrounding Jesus' death, burial, and purported resurrection is that Jesus, in fact, did rise from the dead.
**For more evidence on the resurrection of Jesus, read The Resurrection of the Son of God by Norman T. Wright and The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ by Gary Habermas.
**For a systematic, step-by-step analysis of the evidence for Jesus' resurrection, watch Gary Habermas teaching a class on Jesus' resurrection. Start with the video below, and then watch its subsequent parts -- all over at YouTube.
Let me be clear...as an American citizen and as a human being in general (who appreciates living in a civilized society), I support the fundamental right of every person to choose his or her faith (or lack thereof). I believe in religious freedom.
However, along with religious freedom should come the freedom to discuss the circumstances, tenets, and sources of inspiration for the religious systems available to us. And I sincerely believe that Christianity holds up quite well in such a discussion and examination.
Let me also freely acknowledge that the only way to scientifically prove Jesus' resurrection would be to directly observe it. This, we cannot do, so some level of faith is required. But the faith Christians are called to is NOT a "blind faith." Rather, it's a reasonable faith that is consistent with known facts.
I regret that Mr. Paine didn't see it that way.
15 comments:
Brian, thanks for giving us another taste of Thomas Paine and his book, Age of Reason, but you seem to have short-changed what he had to say. The text is available here.
Paine raises a very good point where he says that the resurrection account as presented by the gospel narratives are inconcistent one with another. Here's what he had to say:
The accounts that are given of the circumstances, that they tell us attended the crucifixion, are differently related in those four books.
The book ascribed to Matthew says 'there was darkness over all the land from the sixth hour unto the ninth hour--that the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom--that there was an earthquake--that the rocks rent--that the graves opened, that the bodies of many of the saints that slept arose and came out of their graves after the resurrection, and went into the holy city and appeared unto many.' Such is the account which this dashing writer of the book of Matthew gives, but in which he is not supported by the writers of the other books.
The writer of the book ascribed to Mark, in detailing the circumstances of the crucifixion, makes no mention of any earthquake, nor of the rocks rending, nor of the graves opening, nor of the dead men walking out. The writer of the book of Luke is silent also upon the same points. And as to the writer of the book of John, though he details all the circumstances of the crucifixion down to the burial of Christ, he says nothing about either the darkness--the veil of the temple--the earthquake--the rocks--the graves--nor the dead men.
If we follow Matthew, then there were many dead men walking around. It does raise some doubt when there's no other corroborating written account telling us about these other dead men who had risen from the grave.
Even if you have one hundred scholars who generally concede to eleven different points, it only takes one serious contradiction to undermine the resurrection story. Fortunately, when the Book of Mormon was published in 1830 through the efforts of a relatively unschooled author, many readers relied upon this modern day "revelation" to reaffirm their belief in the resurrection story.
Ray,
When discussing the resurrection as a matter of history and discussing in a public forum such as this, I do not take the position that "the Bible says it and that settles it."
I do believe in the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, but I freely recognize that most people do not. So, I don't approach the subject of Jesus' resurrection from that perspective.
So...with that in mind...
You write: "If we follow Matthew, then there were many dead men walking around. It does raise some doubt when there's no other corroborating written account telling us about these other dead men who had risen from the grave."
In response, I say - for the sake of argument - toss out that portion of Matthew. We don't need it to build a case for Jesus' resurrection. In fact, toss out Matthew entirely, if it makes you feel good. We don't need it.
"Even if you have one hundred scholars who generally concede to eleven different points, it only takes one serious contradiction to undermine the resurrection story."
With due respect, this represents deeply fallacious reasoning on your part - and on several levels.
Let me give you an example of how your reasoning breaks down...
If you harmonize the four Gospels together, Peter denies Jesus (it would appear) four times and not three -- and the conversations are not in the same order.
Does this mean Peter didn't deny Jesus?
Hardly! It would be ludicrous to say that, because the Gospel accounts record Peter's conversations differently, then therefore Peter had no such conversations at all.
In fact, we have four different ancient documents (granted, there were common sources informing them) testifying to Peter denying Jesus. On that, all four agree.
Another example...
The sign posted on the cross over Jesus' head differs in all four Gospel accounts.
So, does that mean that there was NO sign?????
By your logic, it would seem so. We have to toss the whole sign thing out, because the four Gospel writers record the wording differently. To do so, however, would be ridiculous.
All we can surmise from the different wording is that we're not sure EXACTLY what the sign said, but...
We have four ancient accounts telling us that the Romans DID put a sign on Jesus' cross and the gist of it was that they were mocking Jesus as the "King" of the Jews. We can be reasonably certain of that.
Think of all the books written about the Civil War. And I can tell you that there are major contradictions on various points between many of those books. I know, because I love studying the war and have read countless books on it. Well...if we take your logic...
I guess we have to conclude that the Civil War didn't happen, because...well..not all the books on the Civil War agree. They, in fact, contradict one another on certain points, so...guess what...the Civil War didn't happen.
Historians (including non-Christian ones) almost universally concede that Jesus existed and that he was crucified at the hand of Pontius Pilate sometime between 26 and 36 A.D. (probably in 30 or 33 A.D.).
I don't think that's quite right. Historians certainly concede there being no evidence against the life and death of Jesus, but can generally say little to nothing affirmatively about the historical Jesus, since there are (unsurprisingly for the period) no direct sources which attest to Jesus's life or death in a historical way.
The Bible itself is generally considered to be historiography, meaning that its primary objective is to convey religious truth, rather than to relate history. That the gospel writers privilege conveying their understanding of theology over providing historical source material, thus contradicting each other as well as inserting clearly fictional dialogue, should not impugn either the intentions or the religious credibility of the evangelists, since our historical standards are anachronistic when applied to the first and second centuries, but it does mean that the scriptures can only be seen as indirect evidence, rather than historical account.
The hope is not lost for finding historical evidence in the gospels, but it does require attempting to separate those things which are fiction intended to convey religious truth (such as any time Jesus quotes the Septuagint's mistranslations of the Hebrew scriptures) from those things that are probably just facts (such as Jesus's origin in the Galilee), and that turns out to be hard enough that very little emerges as sure, not even the manner of Jesus's death.
Since similar problems arise with all Christian sources, what is left are a few Roman historians and Josephus (a Jew in Roman employ) and their lists of Jewish (false-)messiah claimants. Even those that are uncorrupted, however, tend to be poor source material because they often show signs of simply summarizing briefly the Bible's basic story, such that they are better sources for a messiah like Simon, who didn't leave any followers (and who is independently attested to by his religious opponents).
Thus, I would have to say that if you are looking for historical backing, you'll have to severely truncate your list of 11 generally conceded facts. I'd note particularly that facts #2, #4,and #9 are not historically attested to, and would have been extra-ordinary enough that we cannot assume them.
Now, if you want plausible, even highly plausible, you can keep most of your facts uncontested, but somehow I don't think that would convince Mr. Paine.
With regard to Dr. Habermas, I think you should take what he says with some grain of salt. For instance, Habermas says that he asked a variety of (apparently atheist) scholars whether they thought the mystery religions where antecedent to, and the origin of, the Christian resurrection story, and they (correctly) tell him no. But that isn't the relevant question:
The mystery religions are neither the source of Christianity, nor is the reverse true. Rather the mystery religions are contemporary to Christianity, and represent a new movement within Hellenistic religion that is akin to Christianity in far more ways than the inclusion of a resurrection story, most notably in that they represent significant trends toward individualism, universalism, and personal soteriology within what had been pagan religions.
The argument is not that Christianity was influenced by the mystery religions, but that it is comparable to the mystery religions, which were, independently of both Christianity and each other, appropriating the same aspects of Greek religious thought and putting them toward similar ends, while serving the same religious impulses that were coming to the fore throughout the Mediterranean world.
Christianity didn't swipe its resurrection theology from anyone, but it was expounded within a cultural milieu in which divine resurrection had been previously endowed with theological meaning. The gospel writers are quite astute in employing that cultural background to help them explain the meaning of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection, and it seems a shame for Dr. Habermas to deny that such a background existed, for it throws out the baby with the bathwater and forecloses an avenue by which one might come to more fully appreciate the message of the gospel.
@JimM47,
Very often I find arguments here rely upon theological assumptions.
I've wondered how many of those assumptions are proper and how many erroneous.
You comments indicate you have some experience that can compliment the knowledge of others here.
I hope you continue comment frequently ... or even better, offer an occassional post!
Well, you asked for it, Brian.
Actually, Ben, I think this post was quite the exception around here. For my part, if something seems to be a theological assertion, it's not. When we were discussing the proofs of God, I used scare quotes on "proofs."
Jim, thanks a lot for the very thorough comments. I really appreciate your time in making them, and for your tone. I love these kinds of discussions.
I will respond more in depth soon.
Jim,
I'll have to respond on the mystery religions later. You're forcing me to go back and research that some more. The nerve of you. :-)
I'm comfortable addressing some of your other points now, though, namely with respect to the historical community's understanding of Jesus.
First, you are too dismissive of Dr. Habermas. He's one of the very few scholars who has taken the time to read, study, and analyze scholarly opinion concerning Christ. To get an idea as to that analysis, follow this link...
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm
Let's now turn to the facts we know about Jesus. You specifically called into question facts 2,4, and 9. Those would be...
***
2) He was buried in a contemporarily known location
4) The tomb was discovered empty a few days [after the crucifixion] by some of Jesus' women followers
9) The message was first proclaimed in Jerusalem, where Jesus had been buried (and where the message could have been debunked by the Romans or Jewish leaders simply exhuming Jesus and parading his corpse around for his followers to see that he was still dead)
***
You'd have a hard time explaining the birth and spread of Christianity without those facts. I'll grant that most skeptics don't WANT to concede them, because they know their implications. But they are grudgingly agreed to by more than a few skeptics.
Take a look at this video...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYdzUYyIKMM
Brain: "You'd have a hard time explaining the birth and spread of Christianity without those facts. I'll grant that most skeptics don't WANT to concede them, because they know their implications. But they are grudgingly agreed to by more than a few skeptics."
and yet the spread of Christianity does not require those claime to be true.
Even if the spead of Christianity was impossible unless people believed these things, belief of a claiim is not evidence of the claim.
Ben's got you there, Brian. Which is why I shy away from theological "truth claims" of this sort. You asked for this by doing a commercial for your faith in an open forum like this.
In fact, Mr. Soller, aside from his truth-claimish use of the word "fortunately," opened the door to a similar argument via Mormonism.
Epistemologically, both Jesus' resurrection and the existence of Joseph Smith's golden plates ride on eyewitness testimony. I suspect that while you argue the former, you're less inclined to concede the latter.
You might argue the details, but if a relative pauper like Joseph Smith was in possession of golden plates of any kind, I'd be inclined to accept they were given to him by the angel Moroni, even if I couldn't read them. I'd take his word they said Jesus rose from the dead. In the presence of one miracle, another is easy to accept.
Tom, no one's "got me" and I am not at all bothered by the tone of this discussion, nor with respect to those who disagree with me. I enjoy these types of discussions, and I think everyone in this thread has been great in temrs of tone and approach.
In response to a couple of the recent points raised...
Ben writes: "[B]elief of a claiim is not evidence of the claim."
It IS if the person who believes the claim was in a position to observe and verify said claim.
In I Corinthians 15, Paul writes that over 500 people saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion. That's evidence.
I'm not saying it's irrefutable evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless.
Tom writes: "Epistemologically, both Jesus' resurrection and the existence of Joseph Smith's golden plates ride on eyewitness testimony. I suspect that while you argue the former, you're less inclined to concede the latter."
With respect to Jesus' resurrection, you've got a fairly significant number of eyewitness claims (over 500, according to Paul). How many eyewitnesses were there to Joseph Smith's experience?
I'm not bashing Mormonism by asking that question. I'm simply pointing out a difference between the narratives.
One last point...
Tom writes: "Which is why I shy away from theological 'truth claims' of this sort. You asked for this by doing a commercial for your faith in an open forum like this."
There's nothing wrong with a person making truth claims. In fact, I loathe our postmodern culture's reluctance to debate truth propositions. In fact, I pretty much loathe postmodernism. :-)
Also, I tied in my "commercial" (as you call it) with Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason." This blog is about the religious dimension of America's founding, is it not? So, why can't I offer a critique of what Mr. Paine had to say about Christianity? What's so wrong with that?
Brian, my somewhat-delayed response to your response to my response:
You'd have a hard time explaining the birth and spread of Christianity without [physical evidence supporting the resurrection].I couldn't disagree with you more. I think the resurrection story, and its theological meaning within Christianity, are deeply revealing of perennial religious impulses within the human character, having arisen not as the result of witness of a historical event but as the result of the profound and compelling nature of the ideas expressed.
Just two examples of the idea that the origin of Christianity lies with the expression a perennial repeatable drives within human religiosity are: Shabbetai Tzvi and Menachem Mendel Schneerson.
The first, Shabbetai Tzvi, was a Jewish mystic who lived in Safed in the 17th century during the Jewish dark ages, and who was declared to be the Jewish Messiah. Like Jesus, Tzvi did something no Jewish Messiah could ever do: for Jesus it was being killed by Crucifixion, for Tzvi it was converting to Islam. But in both cases, it is subsequently explained how this act 1) is only apparent, 2) can be done by the Messiah, and 3) must be done by the Messiah, to such an extent that it defines who and what a Messiah is, even defining the state of the world and the nature of the fallen human condition. On a conceptual level, the parallels between Christianity and Shabbatianism are eery after a certain point, and this gives us a model for how Christianity might have emerged, with Shabbetai Tzvi-Nathan of Gaza-Lurianic Kaballah standing in for Jesus-Paul-the Intertestamental Apocalyptic Jewish Tradition, but does it in a time period recent enough for us to have much better historical data. (Nathan also acts sort of as John the Baptist, and I am not sure who acts as Philo of Alexandria, which is maybe why the thing eventually fails.)
The second, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, was the leader of the Chabad Lubavitchers, who are a subset of a subset of Hasidic Jews, and he died in 1994 and was publicly buried in New York. Or was he? Like the 12th Imam of Shiite Islam, he didn't leave behind a successor, which means he can't really be dead! The fact that Schneerson appears to have died when he couldn't have means that, in fact, he must be the Messiah... even G-d himself! Sound like any other belief system you've heard of?
I could go on, but my point is simple, most people don't witness important things first hand, and you don't have evidence for a great percentage of the vast body of things you correctly believe to be true. Irrefutable physical proof is not the thing that engenders belief in religious truths, and we have more than a few modern examples of religious beliefs emerging in spite of physical evidence.
Now, you may argue that these are not religions on anywhere near the scale of Christianity, that physical proof is the difference that causes Christianity to succeed and Shabbatianism to be practiced by only a small number of people, but Christianity had a much more fertile soil to grow in, and even so it remained a pretty small and inconsequential religion for more than a century, becoming a world religion only much later. By that time physical evidence would have been irrelevant.
The other thing I would say is that if proximity to physical proof were a driving factor, you would expect to see more Christian influence in Palestine, but you don't. Christianity has little influence on non-Hellenized Jews; instead, Acts is a veritable roster of the Hellenized Jewish diaspora, and the early church fathers even try to posthumously turn the great Helleno-Semitic syncretizer Philo of Alexandria into a Christian.
Rabbinic Judaism doesn't even seem to have much to say in reaction to Christianity, and that's noteworthy because, counterintuitively, modern Judaism is actually about a century younger than it's cousin Christianity, having taken its shape after the destruction of the Temple, and mainly in the Galilee and Babylon after the Roman exile from Judea that followed the Bar Kohkba Revolt. If Christianity were really on their radars, you'd expect the Rabbis to say something significant about Christianity earlier than the Middle Ages.
None of this is to say that I can (or even want to) prove there was no evidence for the resurrection, it is only to say that the emergence and rise of Christianity doesn't depend on such evidence. Though, frankly, I don't see that as a problem.
'The best explanation for the known facts surrounding Jesus' death, burial, and purported resurrection is that Jesus, in fact, did rise from the dead.'
That is perhaps the most broad ended and ridiculous statement i have read on this otherwise reasonable blog. Many, if not all religions spread very quickly based on a supposed miracle.By this same standard Mormonism or Islam are still spreading and now quicker than Christianity and as such have a better truth claim?
Illogical. Likewise the use of 500 witnesses- who where they? A single name? The nice round 500 number clearly indicates an essentially constructed idea.
Post a Comment