One of the major differences between the Calvinist wing of the Reformation and the Lutheran wing of the Reformation was and still is the various approaches to the use of logic and reason when it comes to the faith. This also touches upon the differing views of the Church and Her Sacraments, the approaches to catholicity and the Bible, and other issues.
CATHOLICITY AND SACRAMENTS IN REFORMED THEOLOGY
Perhaps more than anything the Reformed approach to reason is seen in its approach to the historicity and catholicity of the thought of the Church. Instead of bowing the knee to the Church as nursing Mother, Calvin (and Zwingli) started with an individualistic approach to the Bible, rejecting 1,500 years of church history and the Church's thought and unanimous agreement on the Sacraments (and on other issues). For 1,500 years, the Church always confessed and believed that Holy Baptism washed away sin and gave the Holy Spirit. For 1,500 years, the Church always confessed and believed that Christ's True Body and True Blood were *physically* present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist. Ironically, in starting from scratch, the Calvinist approach does not even let the Scriptures speak for themselves. If one takes even a simple reading of all New Testament texts having to do with Baptism, it would be very difficult to come away thinking anything other than that Baptism saves, Baptism gives the Spirit, Baptism clothes us with Christ and unites us to Him, and that Baptism forgives sin.
Notice how Reason in an individualistic approach to the Scriptures ironically ends up clouding the Scriptures and not letting them speak for themselves.
CATHOLICITY AND SACRAMENTS IN LUTHERANISM
Whereas in Reformed theology there is a rejection of much of the historicity and catholicity of the thought of the Church, in Lutheranism one finds that there is a connectedness to the past and to the thought of the Church through the centuries. Luther was very reticent to get rid of anything that the Church had established that did not contradict the Gospel. He simply realized that Rome had added new doctrines and had dropped certain doctrines, and that Rome had turned the Gospel Sacraments into law. Instead, everything that the Lutheran movement believed and confessed can be found in the Fathers, the Creeds, and the Councils of the Church.
One can even compare the Reformed confessions with the Lutheran Confessions summarized in the Book of Concord. Whereas the Reformed confessions simply give Scripture proofs, the Lutheran Confessions give Scripture proofs as well as the Fathers, Creeds, and Councils of the undivided Church.
Lutheranism bows the knee to Holy Mother Church as our nursing Mother. Instead of starting with the tyranny and restlessness of individualistic Reason, Lutheranism asks, "What has the Church thought?"
There is something very refreshing about not having to reinvent the wheel or figure everything out for yourself. Christ promised that the Spirit would lead His Church into all truth. His Church is the Pillar and Foundation of all truth because She has the Gospel in Word and Sacrament.
REASON AS "SOMETHING WE DO FOR GOD"
It is the worship of the law that has the mentality of "what can I do for God?" Under Reformed theology, since there is no objective presence of Christ in the Sacraments--He is only present *if* one has faith--one is turned back to one's faith. The movement must be upwards--indeed, the Reformed confess that at the Supper, we "ascend to the heavenlies" to partake of Christ up there. Christ does not come down in the Reformed view of the Supper. Later folks took this and brought it to the conclusion of turning the sacraments into something we do for God, or covenant renewal. The focus is placed upon us, and what we are doing for God in worship. Perhaps we need to come up with intellectual arguments to convince ourselves and convince others? Ironically, even though Reformed theology affirms total depravity, it nonetheless still places much focus on intellectual argumentation. Is it possible that this is because of its interest in the hidden god? Or placing the hidden god on the same plane as the Revealed God in Christ?
THE GOSPEL IS FOREIGN TO REASON
Under Lutheranism, the Sacraments are pure Gospel. They are not mixed with Reason or trying to bring them or present them to God. They are all what God does for us. God comes down. We do not offer the Eucharist to Him. He comes down to us as pure grace and forgiveness and makes Himself vulnerable for us. It is not based upon how we feel. Even our service is called the "Divine Service" because it is *God*--and not us--doing the work of the liturgy. God comes down to us and gives us the Word preached from the minister in Persona Christi. "Christ came to you and preached peace to those of you who were afar off." Notice--Christ preaches *peace*! And He Himself is our Peace. The Divine Service is all about Good News! And God comes to us in the Sacraments, forgiving our sins in Holy Absolution and giving us His Body and Blood for the forgiveness of all of our sins in the Sacrament of the Altar.
Reason, however, bases itself upon feelings. "I don't "feel" forgiven. Maybe I need to do something. Maybe if I just offer myself up to God. Maybe my good works. Or maybe I can offer the Eucharist up to Him. Or penance. Or my worship. Maybe that will please God. Maybe....."
Enough.
God doesn't need your good works. Your neighbor does.
Your sins are forgiven.
Yes, the same sin you committed for the seventy times seventh time.
PEOPLE WILL NOT COME TO LUTHERANISM VIA REASON
I am convinced that people will not come to Lutheranism via the Whore of Reason. Reason is quite akin to the theology of glory and law and the hidden god. People love them some law. It makes them feel better about themselves. In fact, intellectual argumentation is of course connected to reason and glory. After all, it must inevitably look at faith as something we can muster up in ourselves or through intellectual arguments.
But Lutheranism confesses total depravity. The Reformed do as well, but from our perspective, and given the above, we believe they confess it in spite of their theology.
Lutheranism is for the weak and the doubting. It is for those who are weak in faith. It is contrary to reason. The law must do its killing work for people to come to Lutheranism. God kills first before He makes alive. As one brother said, no one likes to be weak or to see themselves as weak. The mask would must be ripped off, and people don't like that. Reason is a theology of glory and for the "strong." The Gospel is for the weak. For the doubting. For the wretched.
The weak know they need the pure Gospel of the Sacraments. Christ *for them* in Word and Sacrament.
Those who come to Lutheranism because of intellectual arguments will probably go to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy, where the sacraments are perverted into something we do for God, or simply aids in helping us climb our way to God.
Lutheranism sees the Sacraments for what they are: pure grace, pure Christ, pure forgiveness of sins and mercy for the weak.
The Sacraments are pure Gospel.
REASON IS TYRANNY BECAUSE REASON IS LAW, AND LAW SHOWS US OUR SIN
Reason can only cause us to speculate. "Am I of the elect?" "Do I have true faith?" "Have I conquered sin enough?" We can only go inward with Reason. Reason is foreign to faith, and the law is not of faith. Faith, indeed, even weak faith, clings to Christ's Promise in the Word and in the Sacraments.
The law can only show us our sin. It cannot save us. Creation and general revelation and law and reason and hidden god are all connected.
We need the Revealed God in Christ, present for us where He has promised to be as for us.
He is not for us in creation.
He is not for us in reason.
He is not for us in the law.
THE GOSPEL IS ANTITHETICAL TO REASON
He is for us in the Revealed God in Jesus Christ.
He is for us in the Word preached as Gospel.
He is for us in Holy Baptism, washing away our sins and placing His Name upon us and giving us His Spirit and clothing us with Christ. He is for us bringing us into union with Him at the Font.
He is for us at the Sacrament of the Altar, giving us His True Body and True Blood in our mouths, forgiving us our sins, uniting Himself with us, making Himself vulnerable for us.
***The Gospel of God's universal saving grace in Christ, delivered in Word and Sacrament, is where the weak and doubting and wretched will go.*** It is not for those who muster up intellectual arguments or strength.
Reason is tyranny.
The Gospel is for the weak. Sacraments are for the weak.
Intellectual arguments will never lead a person there.
The law must do its killing work.
God kills first before He makes alive.
Faith is a gift, given in the Sacraments. Antithetical to reason.
Reason says "you have to give justification for your reasons all the time."
The Gospel says, "Rest."
Reason says, "Why?" "How?"
The Gospel says, "It is so."
Reason is tyranny because it never arrives.
The Gospel refreshes and brings us to the real world and says "It is finished."
Rest your intellect. The Gospel is where strivings and intellectual futility cease.
"IT IS FINISHED."
"THIS IS MY BODY."
"I BAPTIZE YOU."
"YOUR SINS ARE FORGIVEN."
Yes.
*Yours*.
Martin Luther is credited with originally saying that "Reason is the whore of the Devil". Orthodox (confessional) Lutherans seem to still believe that. But have orthodox Lutherans ever thought about this: What if we approached everything in life viewing "reason" as evil, as something to be despised; as something despicable as, as...a whore?
ReplyDeleteImagine if doctors despised reason (therefore despising research) and still treated people with seizure disorders by attempting to perform an exorcism on them...as Jesus did! Imagine if scientists still perceived lightning, droughts, and storms as the expressions of a displeased God and not the natural results of particular atmospheric phenomena? Imagine if instead of vaccinating children based on reason, we simply prayed to God to heal them after they have become sick with a preventable, and potentially fatal, disease?
Imagine a world based on Lutheran faith...and not on reason!
What chaos! What suffering! Do we really want to return to the mentality and superstitions (faith) of the Dark Ages?
If you agree with me that such a faith-based world view would be a disaster in matters related to science, medicine, the weather, and many other areas of your life, then why do you reject reason when it comes to determining the reality of supernatural religious claims?
The Creator (whoever or whatever he/she/it is) gave us a brain. Let's use it! Let's use reason in every aspect of our lives. Let's NOT despise it as Luther asked us to.
Dear Readers:
ReplyDeleteSo let's use our brains and ask ourselves these questions:
1. Why would an eternal, perfect, all-powerful God need to create a universe and little reproductions of himself that he would call "man"? Was he bored?
2. And if that same God is all-knowing, he knew before he created the universe and created human beings, that man would disobey Him and eat his forbidden fruit, resulting that billions of men, women, and children would experience horrific suffering for thousands of years...but he went ahead and created it anyway.
Is that the behavior of a loving Heavenly Father or of a sadistic Monster?
Dear Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteLet's use our brains and ask ourselves these questions:
1. Without God, what basis do you have to make any sort of judgment on anything good or evil?
2. How do you define good and evil without an objective standard?
3. Why is suffering bad (or evil)?
Is this the worldview of a rational person or an irrational one who knocks out the entire foundation for proving or defining anything?
“Why is suffering bad (or evil)?”
DeleteThis is why Christians cannot condemn the evil behavior of their god in the Old Testament. They have been brainwashed to believe that He is the arbiter of what is good and evil. This is not objective morality. This is the subjective morality of a tyrant.
You're off the rails here Mr. Anonymous. If you understood Christian theology you would see there is no problem with any of this. a simple analogy will suffice. If you came to my house and broke in, even if you did not steal anything, you surely would be guilty of a crime. Agreed? Now, you would probably go on trial and spend some time behind bars. let's say a year or so. Now what if you went to the President's house and broke in there and did not steal anything. More than likely, you would be locked up the rest of your life, or at least for a very long period of time. The crimes are equal, but one was committed against a much greater man than I.
DeleteWhat I am getting at here is the Christian doctrine of original sin. Every sin against God is cosmic treason against the Almighty. How much more should we be punished for that? In other words, every sin against God is an infinite one, because God is infinitely righteous, just, and holy.
In the face of God (coram deo) we deserve nothing but death. Period. God would be completely righteous, just, and holy if He destroyed the whole Earth, universe, and everything in it.
The fact that He came and died for us and allows us to breath His air, be stewards of His earth, and have life is sheer grace and mercy. He is withholding His perfect and righteous judgment.
Your objection holds God to your own subjective standards of morality and fails to allow God to be God on His own terms. Or at least, you should allow Christian theology to define its own terms. Just as I do not get to define terms for Muslims or Buddhists, or Atheists - you do not get to put the Christian God on trial based on your own subjective assertions. You must make that call based on what Christianity say about itself. And you clearly are not doing such. Thus, what you have here is baseless assertion and no argument at all.
If you god exists, we should tremble before him on our knees in terror. But call him a loving, Heavenly Father?? I don't think so.
DeleteLoving fathers do not threaten their children with being burned alive if they refuse to love and obey their father. Only a sick psychopath would do such a thing to his children.
It is an evil superstition, friend. It is not the truth. Only a cult would tell its followers to love and obey a mass-murdering Monster.
Yes, its me, Gary, but I think you already knew that.
DeleteYou continue to misrepresent Christian teaching. I wonder if you ever were taught these things as a Christian.
DeleteLikewise, I'll ask again, like I did on another thread...how do you know these things? What is your basis for judgment here?
You are being asked how it is possible for you to assert that 2 + 2 = 5, but instead of answering the question, you demand that I prove that the number 2 actually exists! Stop the philosophical head games, Andrew, and look at the cold facts: your belief system is an ancient superstition. It is not based on hard evidence but on soft evidence---assumptions and hearsay.
ReplyDeleteI challenge you to prove otherwise.
That comment shows even more that you're either failing to understand the argument or purposely avoiding it. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's not too difficult. Math, science, logic, and so on...they do not *create* reality, they simply recognize how things are. They explain to us how things work and what is true. So, when mathematics says that 2+2 = 4, it is simply showing to us or explaining to us a truth that exists in the absolute sense, in all times, all places, for everybody universally.
ReplyDeleteMy assertion is simply this: What are the necessary conditions for mathematics, science, logic, etc...to be absolutely uniform as such? Why do these things function in a strictly uniform nature?
You have no answer to that. Nor have you even attempted to answer it. The "debate" we're having is already done, because nothing in your worldview can account for anything in the ultimate sense. In fact, you already said that you don't believe in absolutes. Well, you do, and I can show you that you do.
Let me guess...because my believe system is ancient that means it's wrong, right? Are you going to use the word "archaic" next? :P
Likewise, the assertion you are making about "cold facts" shows that you do believe in absolute truth after all. Or, if you don't believe in absolute truth, what is a fact? Is it true or not?
The simple fact of the matter is that any time you make any truth claim, you wazz all over your own worldview (and steal from mine) because in your worldview, truth does not exist, nor can it.
It's not philosophical headgames, it's "cold facts," and it shows your entire worldview to be ultimately irrational, nonsensical, and mythical. Nothing is sure, there is no truth, and facts can be interpreted numerous ways and nobody can say any given interpretation is valid, because there is no right interpretation because truth does not exist.
Account for truth in your worldview in a valid manner, then we can move on to evidence for the resurrection.
"My assertion is simply this: What are the necessary conditions for mathematics, science, logic, etc...to be absolutely uniform as such? Why do these things function in a strictly uniform nature? You have no answer to that. Nor have you even attempted to answer it. "
ReplyDeleteThis is not true, Andrew. Go back and look at my comments. My answer to your question was and still is: "I don't know!"
I realize you do not like this answer, but I HAVE answered your question. I contend that it is not necessary to know why mathematics is universally true for a first grader or anyone else to know that 2 + 2 can never equal 5. Using your logic and worldview, you would tell the first grader his worldview is invalid unless he can prove to you why mathematics is universally true.
That is not how the real world operates, Andrew.
I am asking you to stop the philosophical/metaphysical head games and have a real world discussion about your belief system and examine it in the same way you would explain why 2 + 2 = 4.
But you do have to be able to have a universe that can actually account for such things. That is, a universe in which they can actually exist in an absolute, unchanging manner.
Delete"Let me guess...because my believe system is ancient that means it's wrong, right?"
ReplyDeleteI never said this. There is nothing wrong with believing something ancient if that something has evidence to support still believing it.
I account for "truth" in my worldview by using reason and the scientific method. I know you do not trust these two entities as purveyors of truth but I and many millions of people do.
ReplyDeleteI am not stating that your supernatural world view is false, Andrew. I cannot prove your supernatural claims false. What I am saying is that your supernatural based belief system cannot be proven true using natural means. The only way to accept your supernatural worldview is to appeal to faith.
So the issue is not the "truthfulness" of your worldview or my worldview, but whether or not the supernatural historical claims of your worldview can be proven to have actually occurred using the same natural means of investigation that we would use to examine any other historical claim.
The scientific method does not account for truth. It only recognizes what is observable. You're making a category mistake here. Certainly the scientific method can observe things and tell you true things about them. But it cannot provide the necessary conditions for that truth to exist. It can only observe what is already true - completely apart from the scientific method.
Delete//"What I am saying is that your supernatural based belief system cannot be proven true using natural means."//
DeleteNatural means can only get you so far. It gets you right up to the point where *there is no other explanation* than God. Once again, all that matter in the universe...had to come from somewhere.
//"The only way to accept your supernatural worldview is to appeal to faith."//
DeleteNot in the sense that you define faith - which is not the way Christianity has ever defined it, by the way.
//"So the issue is not the "truthfulness" of your worldview or my worldview..."//
DeleteNo, the issue is how we can account for the uniform nature of truth, logic, mathematics, and so on. Necessary conditions, and all that.
//"but whether or not the supernatural historical claims of your worldview can be proven to have actually occurred using the same natural means of investigation that we would use to examine any other historical claim."//
DeleteSo, in other words, you want me to presuppose your worldview to prove mine? Doesn't work that way. And once again, we're back to presuppositions. Not only so, but even if I were to try this, I would end up proving nothing, since proving anything at all is impossible in a worldview that cannot provide the necessary conditions for absolutes. No absolutes, no truth. No absolutes, no proof of anything.
The definitions of Hard and Soft Evidence and how they relate to Christianity:
ReplyDeleteSoft evidence can refer to anything from simple word of mouth or argumentation, to authoritative opinion on a given subject. The highest form of soft evidence tends to be supporting opinions from an authority with certifiable credentials. While random guessing also qualifies as soft evidence, it is generally not worth pursuing given that even the highest form of soft evidence are still just that: soft.
Soft evidence does still have value, but only in the absence of hard evidence. If there is no supporting hard evidence, then the best available forms of soft evidence should be used in the meantime. A further problem with soft evidence is the appeal to authority.
While most of the time an authoritative opinion will be valid, it is not always the case. There is a danger of placing too much faith in an authoritative source, as it is important to remember that even though it is the highest form of soft evidence, it still does not outweigh hard evidence.
Hard evidence is the product of producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method
Gary: I assert that the supernatural claims of Christianity are based entirely on soft evidence.
Not to mention, every time you attempt to use reason, logic, or some appeal to science and mathematics, you're stealing from my worldview to try to prove yours - in which those things cannot exist.
Delete//"Hard evidence is the product of producing testable predictions, performing controlled experiments, relying on quantifiable data and mathematical models, a high degree of accuracy and objectivity, and generally applying a purer form of the scientific method."//
ReplyDeleteI assert that "hard evidence" (as you call it) cannot even exist in your worldview.
It doesn't look like our conversation is making much headway. I have a suggestion, Andrew. There is a really interesting blog on which Christians and skeptics debate their beliefs. I would encourage you to throw out some of your positions on absolutes to this crowd. I think you will find it very informative.
ReplyDeletehttps://findingtruth.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/comments-continued/
I wish you well.
Gary
I went to the site. You said there, //"The sooner the belief in the supernatural loses any social respectability, the better for all humanity."//
DeleteWow dude, you're a walking, talking pile of contradictions. So, it's better for all humanity, but you're not sure it's wrong in the first place, just probably incorrect. And stuff.
You're also, as I see it, very deceitful in your soft and kind argumentation here, and the true colors that come out a-blazing on the other site.
But then, of course, since there is no objective standard for anything in your worldview, none of this is wrong for you. You can use soft and gentle arguments with a Christian all the while believing it's just better that we all need to give up our belief system for the betterment of humanity.
But hey, why is the betterment of humanity important? Got an objective standard for that one Gar-Bear?
Not to mention, there isn't a single person on that board who seems to have a clue. All I saw were a bunch of shock-value tactics and rhetoric.
DeleteI mean, do ANY of those guys (yourself included) have any sort of credibility? What I mean is, are any of you educated in any sort of academic field? I mean, you all throw around the words science and reason a lot, but I would bet that you guys all learned all your science from TV and the internet, and maybe a Dawkins book or three.
By the way, do not quote me outside of this discussion on this blog. You do not have my permission to do so. If I deem it necessary (or more properly, if I have the time! I work a lot...) to visit that other blog, I will do so. Until then...
DeleteI would encourage you to jump into the conversation. Consider it an exercise in honing your skills at battling evil atheists and agnostics.
DeleteMany of us have professional degrees. I am a physician.
There are other Christians who participate in the conversation, but most are moderates or liberals. We could use a good conservative like yourself to broaden the discussion.
Gary - I have no desire to jump into a one against 20 bully forum. And frankly, I just don't have the time. I generally work 60 hours per week. Likewise, the Christians you have on there are easy targets. They're arguments aren't very good in the first place, and it's easy for a bunch of rabid anti-Christianity dogs to pick them apart.
DeleteNot to mention how pointless it would be. The other Christians on the site are using completely different lines of argumentation than I would, and it's just an instance where you guys would gang up and try to tell us that we're messed up and not on the same page, which would be true.
DeleteOops...I used a "they're" incorrectly...
Delete*their...
Andrew,
ReplyDeleteOne thing that might help in our discussion is this: I do not deny the existence of a Creator. I can see that there are good arguments for the existence of a Creator. I am not an atheist.
But if there is a Creator, how do you know that he is the Christian god? Wouldn't you agree that in order to know that the Creator is the Christian god we should have evidence for that belief other than personal, subjective, internal revelation? Some evangelicals will say that external evidence is not necessary for their belief as God reveals himself to them internally. You have said you don't believe that internal revelation is sufficient.
So the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus is absolutely necessary to believe that Jesus is the Creator, right? So in order to establish the historicity of the Resurrection, the cornerstone of that claim is that we have eyewitness testimony to that supernatural event. However, what proof is there that the Gospels are eyewitness testimony? If we have no evidence that any Christian in the first 150 years of Christianity believed that the four Gospels were written by the apostles and associates of apostles for whom they are named, isn't that very weak evidence?
I agree it is evidence, but it is very, very soft evidence. It is hearsay and speculation. Is that really enough evidence to declare the reanimation of a first century dead man as a real historical event??
Gary, yes, the historicity of the resurrection is necessary.
DeleteSo...who do we get to use as our "scholars" in this discussion? Your argument is pretty much one that was not used until, well shoot, 2000 years later more or less.
Where were all the "reasonable" people arguing in this manner in say, 200 A.D.???
I am not appealing to the opinion of authorities. I am appealing to the scientific method, the most reliable method humans have discovered so far to explain how the world around them operates.
DeleteJust because atheist or agnostic scholars X, Y, and Z doubt the Resurrection is irrelevant to me, unless, they have good evidence using reason and the scientific method to back up their position.
The fact that scientifically ignorant "authorities" have believed in a resurrection for 2,000 years is not strong evidence. That is a common logical fallacy: Appealing to authority opinion. "Authorities" have been wrong in the past about many, many natural phenomenon in our world.
Here is a comment by someone on the blog I referred you to which I would be curious as to your opinion of it:
ReplyDeleteGary,
I agree with you about miracle claims. Not because the claims are ridiculous, but because they are believed inconsistently. I say not ridiculous because if we accept the possibility of a creator deity then we can also accept that the deity may have the ability to alter it’s own creation at will (which Amanda just pointed out).
The problem I see is that if you believe in a miracle claim, and want to remain consistent, you must also believe in every other miraculous claim that has ever been made with the same or greater amount of evidence.
So, if you accept the resurrection of Jesus miracle based on non-eyewitness accounts and no physical evidence – you should automatically (staying logically consistent) accept every other miracle claim that is based on both eyewitness accounts and non-eyewitness accounts and with or without physical evidence. Also, since the gospels are anonymous and you cannot perform any witness profiling, you must accept the testimony of all miracle claims without much regard for the character of the witness. But that’s not how a typical Christian thinks. When they consider a claim they are only interested in how the claim will effect their doctrine and will choose to accept or reject the claim on this standard alone. This is what needs to be pointed out as contradictory thinking.
That is a really bad argument...but hey, it's what I've come to expect.
DeleteIt's bad because once again, it ***presupposes*** that the resurrection of Jesus has no (or weak and very little) evidence and lumps it in willy nilly with every other miracle claim.
Sorry, this sort of sloppiness, lack of scholarship, and outright revisionist history is not going to fly with me.
You have provided not one single piece of evidence for the Resurrection. You have only complained that the skeptics' claim of weak evidence for the Resurrection is false. If the evidence is so strong, please spell it out. I don't understand all the stalling and side-stepping.
DeleteI had never heard of this until today: How many Christians are aware that Jesus’ grave was unguarded AND unsecured the entire night after his crucifixion??? Isn’t that a huge hole in the Christian explanation for the empty tomb?? I would love to hear UnkleE explain this. Notice in this quote from Matthew chapter 27 below that the Pharisees do not ask Pilate for guards to guard the tomb until the next day after Jesus’ crucifixion, and, even though Joseph of Arimethea had rolled a great stone in front of the tomb’s door, he had not SEALED it shut!
ReplyDeleteAnyone could have stolen the body during those 12 hours!
The empty tomb “evidence” for the supernatural reanimation/resurrection of Jesus by Yahweh has a HUGE hole in it!
“When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. 58 He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. 59 So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 60 and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. 61 Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb.
The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate 63 and said, “Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, ‘He has been raised from the dead,’ and the last deception would be worse than the first.” 65 Pilate said to them, “You have a guard[a] of soldiers; go, make it as secure as you can.”[b] 66 So they went with the guard and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone.”
—Matthew 27
I suggest that Christians and skeptics agree to this statement: Supernatural events may be possible but of all probable explanations for an event, a supernatural cause is the least probable.
ReplyDeleteBy agreeing to this statement, we skeptics accept that a resurrection is within the realm of possibilities, and Christians accept that a resurrection is the least likely explanation for why Jesus’ disciples came to believe that he had come back from the dead.
Therefore, unless Christians can provide extraordinary (hard) evidence for their supernatural claim, we skeptics should not be asked to accept any soft evidence such as hearsay, assumptions, and even expert opinion as evidence for their claim, when there are several or many natural explanations that can also explain the claim.