What is the evidence that Jesus rose from the grave? Aside from the New Testament,(Post Paul's genuine letters) there is no independent supportive documentation, nor is there any circumstantial evidence. There is not even one contemporaneous historian who mentions the resurrection. The claim hangs exclusively on the New Testament. It was gentile creators and defenders of incipient Christianity who promoted the stories of the resurrection. Their testimony must therefore be examined more carefully.

Between 55 to 65 CE Paul wrote a series of letters. All composed before the Gospels were written. In I Corinthians 15.3-8 (NB.1 Corinthians being one of Paul’s genuine letters) he says “... I Paul passed on to you...that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers ... then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me.” This is the first recorded reference to the resurrection. Paul used the phrase “he was raised” As Bishop Spong has written. “...To Paul, Jesus was not restored to life in his original body ... Rather, Jesus was raised from death into the presence of God in a spiritual body. Paul believed (1 Corinthians 15.50) “...Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”. Paul is unaware of the empty tomb, of the bodily resurrection, of the visitation by one or more women, and other details of the resurrection story written later in the gospels. It is also doubtful that other Christians knew the story at that time. The account was created after Paul’s death. It is implausible that Jesus appeared to a crowd of more than 500. A dead man talking to a group would be such a miraculous event that word of it would spread very widely. The incident would have been recorded by other Christian authors and also by non-Christian historians of the time. No trace of the group of 500 exists.

Sells,
I think that what you are saying is that the Bible (or at least the New Testament) should not be taken literally, nor should it be used as a history book, or as a science book.

If that is what you are saying, then I would have to accept that.

However ID is being carried out by man right now, and it has been occurring for some time. Man has been caring it out by developing genetically modified produce, developing man made viruses etc. (and the latest technology seems to involve building living organisms, molecule by molecule http://www.theage.com.au/news/World/Scientists-creating-life-from-scratch/2005/08/26/1124563004159.html)

With even more advanced technology such as quantum computing, nanotechnology, nuclear fusion etc, man will have almost unlimited power, and will be further capable of producing many different things, and that will include producing many different life forms.

In effect, man will become God, but whether man will use all this technology for good and not evil, is of course another matter.

So personally, I think people should get into the practice of simulating the future, to make sure we are prepared for the future, and have enough morality to handle the new technology. And that could start in Biology classes, and aspects of ID should be incorporated into those classes, together with some of the moral issues of ID

Part 3

I like Peter’s emphasise on engaging on “the hard slog of finding God in our received scriptural traditions” and his desire that we tell our children “the stories of old, about Noah, etc”

Deuc says “Sells is not your ordinary Xian, he doesn't believe in the resurrection or other miracles.”, while Timpkins writes, “Sells, I think that what you are saying is that the Bible (or at least the New Testament) should not be taken literally, nor should it be used as a history book, or as a science book.”

If this were true, and perhaps Sells needs to make his position clearer, then I think it rather undercuts his Scriptural argument for if we can say anything for sure about what the Bible has to say, it is that Jesus Christ is presented as a real person, whose ministry included doing actual miracles of healing, was crucified and then on the third day was raised by God bodily from the dead, and after 40 days ascended to his Father in Heaven so that we are perfectly justified in asserting that he left no bones behind in Palestine.

Now if Peter actually denies this and is looking instead solely for a spiritual meaning only (which of course exists and is paramount), then I can understand his opposition to a serious engagement with Genesis 1&2, Psalms 19, etc to the effect that God was actually involved intimately in the creation of all things as the Creator, or the "intelligent designer", if you will.

But maybe Deuc and Timpkins have got it wrong and led me astray.

I also think Peter does not understand the term, “natural theology” and commend to him J Budziszewski’s “What We Can’t Not Know”, which amongst other things ties natural theology closely in with Scripture. Calvin spoke of special revelation as the spectacles through which we study the general revelation in nature. That understanding would seem to resolve Peter’s (false) dilemmas in my view

Pericles
"Now Grey, just saying "rubbish" and "nonsense" isn't going to cut any ice here."
Indeed. And that is why I didn't JUST say them...but instead followed up with a clear example of why the comments I was addressing was rubbish or nonsense.

I have to wonder why you make such an obviously errornous comment.

"What you have done here - and you know it - is to introduce some terms that have no clear definition, and to proceed to use them in a manner that supports your argument. Once again, using your premise as a self-defining proof. Same old same old."

Not at all. If you bothered to actually read any of Dembski's or Behe's work and their responses to critics I am sure you would actually understand ID a lot better than your comments indicate.

The inference from SC and IC is an inference from the known to the unknown, not begging the question as you claim.

"The key furphy here is what, exactly, constitutes a "system""

Actually, Behe is using the term in the context of biochemistry, where the actual component parts are a lot easier to identify. Of course, if you ever bothered to read Behe's work and responses you would know this.

Zytheran, exactly!

David.
There exists a broad spectrum of approaches to the bible. The fundamentalists would have it that every event reported actually happened as described. This attitude to scripture is rather modern and owes its rationality to an empiricist approach to history. On the other hand we have Rudolph Bultmann who coined the phrase “demytholgise”. He accepted that the miraculous could have no place in the physical world and looked, as you say, for the spiritual meaning under the story. He pursued this program to the extent that even the historical existence of Jesus was doubted causing a major theological problem. If the Word was not flesh what was it? The problem with this approach is that it attempts to arrive at a kerygma which is the truth of the gospel and does away with the relationship between us and God. The kerygma becomes a truth in our hands and therefore at our disposal. Again this approach owes a lot to modernity in which we gasp after the knowledge that will make us lords of the earth. This program produced liberal Protestantism in which the gospel died the death of a thousand qualifications. On the other hand, Barth insisted that the text be taken seriously and the preacher treat the stories as thought they did actually happen. As I have stated this is rather post modern, the narrative has its own warrant.

There are two difficulties with the fundamentalist reading of the bible and what they do with that reading. Firstly we end up with a confused understanding of the nature of the physical world in which god can break the usual laws at will making a mockery of natural science. It also produces unsolvable conundrums such as the whereabouts of the bones of Jesus. It also ignores the subtleties of the text and gives us a cut and dried understanding. The second is the subject of my last post, they then take the miracles as evidence of the existence of a supernatural god who can do supernatural things: a theology from below.

Grey, you asked for three examples. I could give you ten off the top of my head, but I only have 350 words, and they’re complicated, because they’re science. If you’re interested in the evidence, I mean if you genuinely would like to learn, I’ll refer you to www.talkorigins.org as I have done for others. There you will find ample evidence for evolutionary theory. (Also, try http://www.ncseweb.org/ for defending the teaching of evolution in public schools).

Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been debunked. I don’t expect to convince you of this (I’m getting used to the idea of ID proponents only seeing what they want to see), but it’s true. As I’ve said before, for every one scientist who doesn’t accept evolution, there’s a thousand who do. Scientists who don’t accept evolution are not representative of the scientific community and never have been. Do a quick survey of 100 random scientists, and you’ll see what I mean.

Evolution is a theory based on observable fact, just like any other scientific theory. That’s why it’s regarded as science, and that’s why it’s taught in science classrooms.

Creationists and the like have been trying to poke holes in evolution for over a century, never with any significant success. Whenever a creationist idea is debunked (which is regularly), another crackpot idea like ‘irreducible complexity’ appears. I don’t expect this will change for another century, no matter how much evidence for evolution accumulates. Such is the determination of people to believe only what they want to believe.

Creationists and ID proponents capitalise on the combination of:
a) complexity of evolutionary theory, and
b) lack of scientific understanding held by the average person.

A lot more people hear the creationist theory than they do the scientific debunking of said theory. As long as the water remains muddied like this, creationists, ID proponents, etc are able to stay in the game. But in reality, they are yet to provide a single legitimate challenge.

PS: I just found a great article:
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2005/5/mooney.asp

For evidence I still recommend talk origins, but it’s a great read nonetheless.