I don't know if I am an agnoistic or a Christian

[tabitha]

"This is the crux of the matter. Can you provide me even one naturalistic explanation that takes all the evidence into account?"

I am going to answer by asking a question of my own, which I hope you guys can answer thoughtfully:

In the year 1981, in the small town of Medjugorje, a group of children supposedly witnessed the appearance of the Virgin Mary. Not only on one day, but many days after that. It has now 27 years later and atleast one of the original children (now an adult) is still reporting being visited by the Virgin Mary, but now only once a year. Do you believe these children were visited by the Virgin Mary?

I believe that a preponderance of evidence would probably prove that a natural event happened, though there is still room for doubt. For example, O.J. Simpson was found not guilty of murdering his wife and her friend. If you believe that O.J. was guilty you would have a problem with the verdict of his trial, and obviously lots of people do. If you believe he was innocent, then you agree that the preponderance of evidence indicates that he was indeed innocent. But whether this verdict is a reflection of the truth is an entirely different story. There were no eyewitnesses, and no confession of the murderer, etc., so the assumption of innocence or guilt was based on circumstantial evidence. It is a reasonable assumption to assume that only O.J. himself knows whether he is guilty or innocent, and also reasonable to assume that only the murder victims know the identity of their murderer.

The murder in question was a natural event, yet we are not absolutely sure, even with a preponderance of evidence, whether O.J. is truly guilty or innocent. There is always room for doubt, even when witnessing to a natural event such as this. In this case, only the subjects knows the truth. We were not there, so we do not know definitively.

That is just the nature of our reality. It is both subjective and objective. We cannot know the truth of everything we read about or hear about. We do not observe resurrections from the dead every day, the way we observce the sun rising and setting. In fact, while one is an everyday occurance that can be witnessed by everyone, the other is such an unreasonable, irrational event that one would have to question every aspect of it's veracity.

I personally do not rule out the supernatural, as a naturalist would. I understand the evidence in the gospels points to a supernatural event, and I agree that it does. But evidence outside the gospels only records the life and death of Jesus Christ, not a Resurrection. Obviously this was a subjective event, not quite akin to the rising and setting of the sun. Throughout the gospels, Jesus seems to value belief and faith above all else, and it was to a select group of individuals that Jesus appeared.

According to the New Testament, after the Resurrection of Jesus. something else happened that attest's to the truth of the Ressurection: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:16-18)

If you study the passage above you will see that this thing "the Spirit of truth" is not given to everyone. But to those who receive the Sprit of truth, only they can know HIm. As far as I can see, that is where it stands. I can't subjectively witness at this point in time that I have the Spirit of truth within me. Can you? I do pray that I will have it someday. I do believe that there is a spiritual reality, and that faith, hope, and love are spiritual realities.

So what do you believe about the children of Medjugorje?

[Jac3510]

Any number of things could have happened. These are children, so they have very active imaginations. Perhaps they simply saw things. Perhaps they made up the story. Perhaps one child really believed he/she saw Mary, and the rest sort of tagged along. Perhaps the entire story is a fake. How do I verify it? What sources do you have? Are they written down? What are the witnesses names? How do I know the entire account isn't an urban myth?

The account has no similarity to Jesus' resurrection. Note, again, that we have three historical FACTS:

1. Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate and buried about 30 AD.
2. His tomb was found empty three days later by His disciples.
3. His disciples truly believed they saw Him raised from the dead afterwards.

These things are absolutely historical facts. Unlike your story of Mary appearing to the children, Jesus' appearance, for example, cannot be explained as a hallucination or a made up tale or a legendary development.

So--analogies aside, I want you to suggest to me a plausible naturalistic scenario to explain what happened on Resurrection Sunday. I think you'll find that no such explanation is possible. Indeed, the only possible explanation is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and in that case, then Christianity must be true.

[tabitha]

"So--analogies aside, I want you to suggest to me a plausible naturalistic scenario to explain what happened on Resurrection Sunday. I think you'll find that no such explanation is possible. Indeed, the only possible explanation is that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and in that case, then Christianity must be true."

Jac, I tend to agree with you, only because I want to believe it too. As for naturalist explanation, I would SEPARATE the absence of the body evidence from the Risen Lord evidence. One is easier to explain than the other by natural means. Also, where is the body? Who witnessed the actual Resurrection event? We have a dead body and an empty tomb. That in itself doesn't prove much, and I am sure you know all the "naturalist" explanations for what happened to the dead body. If we had witnesses actually reporting the dead body resurrecting that would be an eyewitness acount. What we have is evidence of a dead body, and an empty tomb, and a Risen Lord, but not sequentially.

Did any one witness follow step A (dead body) to step Z (Risen Lord) with no break in real time sequence? Obviously not. Yet still I feel Something Happened. I am willing to be persuaded, not because of the passion narrative but because of Jesus Christ Himself.

My Medjugorje analogy was only to give a frame of reference to the nature of subjective reality. Whether those children actually were visitied by the Virgin Mary I do not know, and because my salvation does not depend on it, it is a lesser matter.

[B. W.]

Hi Tabitha,

I would recommend a good book that answers your questions more fully:

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist

God Bless!
-
-
-

[Jac3510]

Tabitha,

I appreciate that you want to believe, but I don't think you are quite getting what I am saying. It is a historical fact that Jesus was killed. It is a historical fact that He was buried. It is a historical fact that the body was missing from the tomb three days later. It is a historical fact that the disciples believed they saw Him raised from the dead.

There is NO naturalistic explanation that can work with all of these. For example, you can't say that Jesus survived the crucifixion (the swoon theory), because that violates (1) and (4). You can't say that the disciples stolet he body, because that violates (4). You can't say that the disciples hallucinated, because that violates the way hallucinations work. You can't say that these stories are legendary developments, because these are historical facts (that is, they've passed the tests proving they are not legends).

What happened to the body? Where did it go? The tomb's location was public knowledge. It is a historical fact that the disciples proclaimed that Jesus was raised from the dead. All the Pharisees had to do was produce the body. But they didn't. They couldn't, because there was an empty tomb. And where would the disciples have gotten that idea, anyway? They could have went to the tomb themselves, which they did. And if they saw a body, then they could not have said He was risen. But there was no body. They didn't take it. The Jews didn't take it. And even if you figure out someone who could have taken it without ANYONE'S knowledge, what explains the disciples' seeing Him resurrected? You can't appeal to intentional deception (i.e., they lied) for several reasons, nor can you say they deceived themselves for, again, several reasons.

The best explanation of this--the only possible one--is that the reason the disciples believed they saw Jesus raised from the dead and could not find His body in the tomb is that Jesus actually DID rise from the dead. Unless someone can provide an alternate scenario that deals with all of the listed evidence, then the ONLY logical conclusion is that Jesus did in fact rise. It isn't a matter of wanting to believe it. It's a matter of intellectual honesty. Whether or not you want to believe something, you have to go where the evidence points, and this evidence is incontrovertible.

It's a historical fact. Jesus rose from the dead.

[zoegirl]

Nice Jac, I like your presentation there.

[rodyshusband]

I sort of look at the resurrection in more simplistic terms, with 2 questions that need to be answered:
1.) Did Jesus die?
2.) Was He later seen alive?
Jesus' death is absolute, as noted by historians outside the scripture, as well as medical research done by Alexander Metherell, M.D., Ph.D. A medical paper was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, "On the Physical death of Jesus Christ", in March 1986. Sciences and history both confirm, again, what has been recorded in the scriptures.

Jesus was seen alive, not just once or twice by a few disciples: 500 people at one time (1 Corinthians 15) and Paul challenges readers to verify; Mary Magdelene (John 20:10-18); other women (Matthew 28: 8-10); Cleopas and another disciple on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-30); 11 disciples and others (Luke 24:33-49); 10 apostles and others (John 20:19-23); Thomas and other apostles (John 20:16-26); seven apostles (John 21:1-14); the disciples (Matthew 28:16-20); the apostles at the Mount of Olives (Luke 24:50-52; Acts 1:4-9).

His resurrection from the dead and ascension led to the rise of Christianity.

Again, I must recommend the studies and writings of Gary Habermas, an authority on the resurrection.
In addition to the book already recommended above ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek), I might recommend "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel,(which I resourced for this reply) a complete but very easy read.
Thanks!

[tabitha]

I have not read the suggested readings of Gary Habermas, but I do know he debated John D. Crossan about the Resurrection. I haven't read "I Don't Have Faith Enough To Be An Atheist" but I like the title. I have read "A Case for Christ" and also "Evidence That Demands A Verdict." They were great books.

What troubles me that most about The New Testament, (aside from the fact that it is rather incongruent to the Old Testament}, is the Gospel of Mark. If you remember, I said before I really had no problem with the historical Jesus, that He lived and died. It is reasonable to assume He did both. I am willing to be persuaded that the death and the missing body are facts, even though there is no witness to the sequence of events. Obviously the powers that be who killed Jesus would want him to be in fact dead. I don't see him surviving Crucifixion as is explained in some theories. I also tend to believe that the body might not have been in the tomb, (if in fact it was buried in a tomb), but the Gospel of Mark stops before the Resurrection and there are no witnesses to the event in this, the earliest Gospel. As you progress reading from Gospel to Gospel, the basic circumstances remain the same but the characters change. I believe Jesus is a gardener, then a Man in White, then an Angel in the Gospel of John. One could actually make a case that the Risen Lord Appearances were embellished later on, based on the omission in the earliest gospel and the change of characters in the latter gospels. It's something I have considered.

Now, here's the thing, In the book "Resurrection, Myth or Reality "(Spong), the author makes two important points. He takes into account the psychological effect the death of Jesus had on his followers, especially Peter who betrayed Him. He also believes that the disciples of Jesus never really "got" what He was all about. They seemed to have trouble understanding His mission all along, being very literal fellows. So all the disciples fled, even Peter, and now Jesus is dead. It is reasonable to assume that the disciples had a profound love for Jesus, and would have felt tremendous guilt at not having stayed with Him through His ordeal, especially Peter. Anyways, Spong' s theory is that "The Easter Moment" was not the bodily Resurrection of Jesus, but the moment when the disciples finally "got the message," understood the true nature of Jesus Christ as being a revelation of God's love on earth, etc. Peter "gets" it first so he is credited with receiving the first real appearrance of the Risen Lord. Not so much an hallucination but a spriritual transformation. I am editing quite a bit out, but that is the basic theory; also that the Apostle Paul never beileved in a bodily resurrection at all.

Anyways, it is an interesting theory that takes into consideration what COULD have happened if in fact the supernatural Ressurection DIDN'T happen. I actually gave the theory some consideration. Once again, what troubles me is the Gospel of Mark. I would love to get some reassurance about that. You guys have been great, BTW, by responding to my evey idea and doubt with advice and recommendations. I know I still have some more reading to do.

[zoegirl]

First. there is trmendous connectio betwen the old and new testaments.

Secondly, I find this theory ridiculous and requiring more faith that the truth. It requires a collusion of immense degree. Mass hallucinations are psychologically not going to happen. and if they were faking it...hard to believe they got away with it

And MArk does contain a portion of the resurrection account

Mark 16
The Resurrection
1When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. 2Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"
4But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.' "

8Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid.

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))
9When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.

15He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

19After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

But notice that Mark's earliest accounts do contain the accounting of the resurrection, just not the elaboration.
They entered the tomb, found it empty


It sounds right now that you are agnostic at this point. I will be praying for you

[tabitha]

"Secondly, I find this theory ridiculous and requiring more faith that the truth. It requires a collusion of immense degree. Mass hallucinations are psychologically not going to happen. and if they were faking it...hard to believe they got away with it."

Actually, Zoe, he is not talking about hallucination, or a mass hallucination, he is talking about a spiritual revelation, like being "born again." To experience that doesn't require collusion or any hallucination.
It is an interesting theory, that is all, and one that cannot be proven, of course. As far as being agnositic, I don't know. It is great that you are a believer and defender of the faith. I am looking at all the angles but I lean towards the Resurrection because of Jesus Christ Himself, obviously, but also I really can't account for the total radical transformation of the disciples and the subsequent development of Christianity itself. I definetely am influenced by other people's strong Christian faith. I don't know how much you know about other religion's, but I have ruled them all out. I find something very special about Christianity or I wouldn't be trying to understand it and believe in it totally. Jesus Christ is actually the only human figure in history who claimed to be God or a part of God, and He does require that you believe in Him. He also claims to be the Truth. He doesn't seem to allow for any agnostism. I don't think I will be one of those people to be "born again". It seems to be coming much slower than that.

[zoegirl]

That's wonderful that you have done the research. I was looking back at the original post and just reflected on your original question. Hope I didn't come off too harsh. Just seems like you havenb't come to that decision yet to believe.

I think this also has to be something, too, where you feel the need for Jesus. You have already experienced the attraction of Him. But what has been amazing to me and I'm sure others woujld agree, is that I felt the need for Jesus. The guilt of my sins, the realization that I needed a SAvior, that I couldn't come to God and have a relationhsip by myself, and then to realize that here is a God that sent His own Son to die for me, for you! And that He conquered death! He rose again and the tomb was indeed empty. And He did that for sinners to redeem them and free them! "My chains fell off..."

Now that....is amazing grace, grace to save and grace to renew. Amen.

And don't worry, I never really had a "born again" moment per se. Partly I think due to my upbringing (presbyterians don't really have those "come down to the front to answer the call and say amen in church! moments very often ) but the quiet joy is there....and it grows!!). Mine wasn't a "Saul to Paul" moment.

You know, another favorite author of mine (tops would be Lewis, Piper, Spurgeon) would be Max Lucado...almost poetry, his writings are that beautiful. I would recommend them. They aren't of the "theories" books, but they doa tremendous job revealing truths in the New Testament.

[rodyshusband]

Tabitha, the question about Mark is addressed by Dr. Habermas. In response to the question regarding the gospel of Mark giving no mention of the appearances of the risen Christ:

"Even if Mark does end there (empty tomb),which not everyone believes, you still have him proclaiming that the tomb is empty and a young man proclaiming 'He is risen!' and telling the women that there will be appearances. So you have, first, a proclamation that the Resurrection has occurred, and second, a prediction that the appearances will follow."
"You can close your favorite novel and say, 'I can't believe the author's not telling me the next episode', but you can't close the book and say, 'The writer doesn't believe in the next episode'. Mark definitely does. He obviously believes the Resurrection had taken place. He ends with the women being told that Jesus will appear in Galilee and then others later confirm that He did."
--The Case for Christ, page 236

[tabitha]

I like what Habermas has to say about the Gospel of Mark, no question. I researched him a little bit and I find him quite intelligient and reasonable. What I would love is for the Gospel of Mark to report the Resurrection appearances, so there could me no question in all four Gospels. But actually, the whole gospels would have to be a conspiracy from beginning to end, if you think about it. Jesus is predicting what will happen to him in the Gospel of Mark, so the prediction at the end of the Gospel (chap 16.} is actually logical to me. So either the whole thing is shot full of lies and conspiracy or it's pretty much the truth as the witnesses see it. I am willing to gamble that it is.
I still cannot witness to the Spirit of Truth yet (Holy Spirit), unfortunately, I l like Zoe's description of her need for Jesus. I can also say that it is present within me also. I hope that will be enough
I am sure you all think I am definetly agnostic. Actually, I was referred to an Atheist website (referred by my brother), and I was not allowed to post. The website owner informed me that he thought I was an evengelical Christian, based on my questions and statements that I originally tried to post. I though that was really funny, considering I expressed the same doubts that I am posting during this topic discussion. I was told that if I want to discuss the belief in Jesus Christ in a positive way, I should go to another website. It is hard to find a middle ground on the Internet sites, as each side seems to be ferociously zealous. I am happy that you regular posters atleast gave me a change. I am happy to report I was not ridiculed or my ideas rejected just because I am expressing doubts.
I actually have run out of ideas to discuss, but I hope anyone reading the discussion in this topic will post whatever ideas or comments they have. I have enjoyed reading and listening to all your comments. Tabitha

[zoegirl]

Tabithat, that is great that you are reading and asking questions. I think you will find that this board is very friendly towards sincerity.

I will keep praying for you that you will find CHrist and know HIm as your p[ersonal savior.

[rodyshusband]

You are always welcomed here, tabitha, to ask any question.
There are those (skeptics AND Christians alike) who enjoy arguing and playing the "gotcha" game.
If one follows the Christian worldview honestly, we believers should be prepared to answer questions, if they are genuine and sincere, in patience and love. Answering questions, based on what we have learned to be true ourselves, does not guarantee "winning the argument" or "converting" anyone to our worldview
You are asking honest questions and have concerns that many of us have experienced.

I am sorry you had a less-than-cordial experience with an atheistic website.
I look forward to talking with you again.