Green Room

Video: The historical case for the Resurrection

posted at 5:47 pm on April 2, 2013 by

It’s about a year and a half old and it’s also over 90 minutes, so you’d better prepare yourself for a very long scholarly presentation on why the historical record lends itself to conclude that Jesus returned from the dead as Christianity attests. It’s timely not only because of Easter, but tangentially because of the New York Times’ ignorance of it. Dr. William Lane Craig offered this presentation alone to a British audience during a sponsored tour.  Craig teaches at Talbot School of Theology in my birthplace, La Mirada, California, and has written a number of books on the topic.  He has also held a series of debates with a number of theologians and atheists, including the late Christopher Hitchens, but Richard Dawkins refused an invitation, accusing Craig of “self-promotion” … which for Dawkins is quite an accusation.

Hat tip to my friend Ted Balaker:

If you don’t want to go through a long presentation and a Q&A session, you can jump right into one of those debates, this one with Dr. James Crossley, over the historical record. It’s longer than the first video. Fortunately, this has a comprehensive summary of both arguments and all the rebuttals in outline form, written and published by Wintery Knight on Sunday:

Briefly, Craig’s argument is structured thus:

Contention 1 of 2:

Fact 1: The burial

  • The burial is multiply attested
    • The burial is based on the early source material that Mark used for his gospel
    • Scholars date this Markan source to within 10 years of the crucifixion
    • The burial is also in the early passage in 1 Cor 15:3-8
    • So you have 5 sources, some of which are very early
  • The burial is credited to a member of the Sanhedrin
    • the burial is probable because shows an enemy of the church doing right
    • this makes it unlikely to to be an invention

Fact 2: The empty tomb

  • The burial story supports the empty tomb
    • the site of Jesus’ grave was known
    • the disciples could not proclaim a resurrection if the body were still in it
    • the antagonists to the early Christians could have produced the body
  • The empty tomb is multiple attested
    • it’s mentioned explicitly in Mark
    • it’s in the separate sources used by Matthew and John
    • it’s in the early sermons documented in Acts
    • it’s implied by 1 Cor 15:3-8, because resurrection requires that the body is missing
  • The empty tomb was discovered by women
    • the testimony of women of women was not normally allowed in courts of law
    • if this story was being made up, they would have chosen male disciples
  • The empty tomb discover lacks legendary embellishment
    • there is no theological or apologetical reflection on the meaning of the tomb
  • The early Jewish response implies that the tomb was empty
    • the response was that the disciples stole the body
    • that requires that the tomb was found empty

Fact 3: The appearances to individuals and groups, some of the them hostile

  • The list of appearances is in 1 Cor 15:3-8
    • this material is extremely early, withing 1-3 years after the cross
    • James, the brother of Jesus, was not a believer when he got his appearance
    • Paul was hostile to the early church when he got his appearance
  • Specific appearances are multiply attested
    • Peter: attested by Luke and Paul
    • The twelve: attested by Luke, John and Paul
    • The women: attested by Matthew and John

Fact 4: The early belief in the resurrection emerged in a hostile environment

  • There was no background belief in a dying Messiah
  • There was no background belief in a single person resurrecting before the general resurrection of all of the righteous at the end of the age
  • The disciples were willing to die for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus
  • The resurrection is the best explanation for the transformation of the disciples from frightened to reckless of death

Contention 2 of 2:

  • The resurrection is the best explanation because it passes C.B. McCullough’s six tests for historical explanations
  • None of the naturalistic explanations accounts for the minimal facts as well as the resurrection

Be sure to read it all, even if you don’t want to watch it all.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Most scholars date Mark to the range of 70-80AD. 10 years from crucifixion is an extremely hopeful Christian viewpoint.

peski on April 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

I think that he doesn’t mean Mark, but the Q source.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Craig does not claim the kalam proves Christianity.

Mike Rathbone on April 2, 2013 at 9:45 PM

I didn’t say he did. I said he, self interestedly, shoehorns Christianity in as the likely explanation of the god that could be, probably because he happens to have been raised with it as “the truth”, or was influenced into believing it was “the truth”.

The Horus/Osiris thing again.

I didn’t say it was exactly the same. The similarities I speak of are subtler than that.

Osiris was the “Light of the World“, the One, the God who defeated death. He was born of a virgin mother, considered the first true King by the people and he rose from the grave and ascended to heaven.

Horus was “the good shepherd”, “the lamb” and is “…the way, the truth, and the life“ and he identified with a cross.

The “original” “Light of the world” was Mithra. He had 12 disciples and when his “work” was done here he gathered them all to a final dinner and then he ascended into heaven. His followers called each other “brothers” and their leaders “fathers”. They practiced baptism, and established a sacred meal ritual where flesh and blood was symbolically consumed by initiates.

Curiously, the Indians to the south of Persia had Mitra…

SauerKraut537 on April 2, 2013 at 10:08 PM

I didn’t say it was an arbiter of truth. But it is one important distinction which, even taken alone, makes Christianity different than “all those other religions.”

Indeed, you can accept the historicity of the gospels and still be an atheist.

gryphon202 on April 2, 2013 at 10:07 PM

Is your criteria for truth who’s been around the longest? If so, Hinduism and Buddhism predate Judaism/Christianity and are still around. Dravidianism is the oldest known “religion” in the history of human kind, which later becomes Hinduism. Even though it is a “religion”, it is more of a way of life which evolved into a religion. I think it’s kind of like Buddhism, being a godless life philosophy.

SauerKraut537 on April 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Is your criteria for truth who’s been around the longest? If so, Hinduism and Buddhism predate Judaism/Christianity and are still around. Dravidianism is the oldest known “religion” in the history of human kind, which later becomes Hinduism. Even though it is a “religion”, it is more of a way of life which evolved into a religion. I think it’s kind of like Buddhism, being a godless life philosophy.

SauerKraut537 on April 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM

You have “truth” confused with historicity, Kraut. There is more evidence for the historicity of the gospels than there is for Plato’s dialogues or Julius Caesar’s battle diaries. This does not mean that there is hard proof that Jesus Christ is the son of God or that God exists; it means there is strong evidence that a carpenter’s son taught in ancient Judea about 2000 years ago and changed the course of history from then on.

gryphon202 on April 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM

I didn’t say he did. I said he, self interestedly, shoehorns Christianity in as the likely explanation of the god that could be, probably because he happens to have been raised with it as “the truth”, or was influenced into believing it was “the truth”.

Craig was not raised in a Christian household. He converted in high school. However, even if he was raised a Christian, that does nothing to disprove his contentions. Classic genetic fallacy.

He doesn’t shoehorn Christianity. The kalaam lends support to an extremely powerful, transcendant being. The God of Christianity fits those criteria.

Christ wasn’t the first true king of Israel. Osiris wasn’t raised. He stayed in the underworld.

Horus was not referred to as “the Lamb” or “Good Shepherd”, please provide sources (ZEITGEIST/Acharya S doesn’t count).

I mean you are really stretching here. For your edification: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7GgWOi4SQM

Mike Rathbone on April 2, 2013 at 10:36 PM

I would challenge skeptics to actually read, at least Luke-Acts, and continue to assert that Christianity is like unto Horus mythology or the Bhagavad Gita. Luke, a Greek, wrote this book as a history in the Thucydidean tradition. He describes plausible and realistic personal events and conflicts. His description of Paul’s maritime voyages are a historian’s feast because of it’s geographical accuracy and detailed description of Roman maritime and legal practices, both of which are verified by, or superior to, contemporary extrabiblical Roman sources. His description, for example, of inflammation and snake bites lend credence to the tradition that Luke was a physician.

This is a work written in well-scripted Greek and yet it, too, gels with the other gospels which you describe as elaborate, subtle, and theologically complex fiction written, strangely, by terrified and scattered fishermen. Fishermen who had nothing to gain from the lie except a painful death, and who had never written a book in their life. It is nothing like the mythological or legendary literary styles of the Horus stories or the Bhagavad Gita. These literary styles do exist in Genesis, but not in the Gospels or Epistles.

It’s time, skeptics, to tell us what would need to happen for you to believe in the historicity of the gospels. If you dismiss a long list of convincing aspects of them while clinging to a theoretical conspiracy theory that has no precedent in history, then it is time to consider that it is you, not us, that have the unfalsifiable belief. After all, the Resurrection is quite falsifiable: show me the body of Jesus. And yet, none of the men whom you call conspirators, revealed the body’s supposed location despite torture and persecution.

xuyee on April 2, 2013 at 10:56 PM

Most scholars date Mark to the range of 70-80AD. 10 years from crucifixion is an extremely hopeful Christian viewpoint.

peski on April 2, 2013 at 6:44 PM

I think that he doesn’t mean Mark, but the Q source.

Gelsomina on April 2, 2013 at 10:08 PM

Not the Q source, but another source. The Q source is theorized to be the source of the common material in Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark, all under the assumption that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark.

[Aside: Though this is the (lazily) accepted theory at the moment, I don't think it survives a close reading of the synoptic gospels, with Matthew and Luke having been written prior to Mark.]

The dating of Mark to after 70 AD relies wholly on the belief that it had to be written after the destruction of the Second Temple, which isn’t necessarily so. Other scholars date Mark’s writing to between 42 and 49 AD, when Mark was in Rome with Peter, or between 49 AD and 63 AD, during Mark’s episcopate in Alexandria. The dates here are taken from the Acts of the Apostles, the chronology of which is almost universally agreed upon.

Papias (who had been a student of John the Apostle/Evangelist) wrote in the early second century that Mark had been written during Mark’s time in Rome. Thus the earliest non-biblical source gives a date between 42 and 49 AD.

steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:02 PM

(Give you 3-1 if you don’t head straight for infidels.com next).

Mike Rathbone on April 2, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Hey, thanks for the hint. That infidels.org is a great site!

DarkCurrent on April 3, 2013 at 7:43 AM

Then why is Dawkins afraid of him?

itsnotaboutme on April 2, 2013 at 6:30 PM

LOL! Dawkins isn’t afraid of him.

Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig

SauerKraut537 on April 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM

Dawkins is afraid of muslims though…

workingclass artist on April 3, 2013 at 7:59 AM

The “original” “Light of the world” was Mithra. He had 12 disciples and when his “work” was done here he gathered them all to a final dinner and then he ascended into heaven. His followers called each other “brothers” and their leaders “fathers”. They practiced baptism, and established a sacred meal ritual where flesh and blood was symbolically consumed by initiates.

Curiously, the Indians to the south of Persia had Mitra…

SauerKraut537 on April 2, 2013 at 10:08 PM

This is a crock.

Almost no documents of the Mithraic cult survive save a 4th c. carved oath, which has doubtful authenticity…The rest is speculative interpretation of sculpture.

workingclass artist on April 3, 2013 at 8:08 AM

The Q source is theorized to be the source of the common material in Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark, all under the assumption that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark.
steebo77 on April 2, 2013 at 11:02 PM

My problem with the “Q source” is the fact that none of the early Church fathers refers to it or even hints at its existance. If this source was so important and well known that each of the authors of the synoptic Gospels borrowed heavily we would expect it to figure prominantly in the writings of Clement, Justin Martyr, Origin, Tertullialn, Ignatius, Polycarp and Iraneaus. But there is nothing. Yet all of these Second Century Chuurch fathers quote the Gospels extensively.

tommyboy on April 3, 2013 at 8:09 AM

Which leads to kind of an interesting question, I think. Just a thought exercise. How many atheists would be willing to die for their belief in no god?

gryphon202 on April 2, 2013 at 6:42 PM

Why should someone be willing to die for something the don’t believe in?

Would you be willing to die for your lack of belief in leprechauns?

chumpThreads on April 3, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Atheists seek truth, just like anybody else.

peski on April 2, 2013 at 7:09 PM

If this is true, why do so many atheists side with the right for a woman to kill her unborn child, and LIE about it and say that the child isn’t alive (easily provable falsehood), or isn’t human (also easily provable falsehood)?

It is safer to say that atheists seek to AVOID the truth when it conflicts with their ideology, just like everyone else.

dominigan on April 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

If this is true, why do so many atheists side with the right for a woman to kill her unborn child, and LIE about it and say that the child isn’t alive (easily provable falsehood), or isn’t human (also easily provable falsehood)?

It is safer to say that atheists seek to AVOID the truth when it conflicts with their ideology, just like everyone else.

dominigan on April 3, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Pssst…the vast majority of those having abortions are not atheists…

Pssst…the vast majority of pro-choicers are not atheists either.

Pablo Honey on April 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM

I don’t need a “historical case” (or any other proof) made for me. I believe it. It’s called faith.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

I don’t need a “historical case” (or any other proof) made for me. I believe it. It’s called faith.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

You win.

Hat Trick on April 3, 2013 at 1:09 PM

I don’t need a “historical case” (or any other proof) made for me. I believe it. It’s called faith.

Bitter Clinger on April 3, 2013 at 12:45 PM

I call it ‘absurd credulity’, but yeah, ‘faith’ is shorter.

DarkCurrent on April 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Anyone forcing you to go to church?

DarkCurrent on April 3, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Zomcon JEM on April 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Anyone forcing you to go to church?

Zomcon JEM on April 3, 2013 at 1:57 PM

No.

Does your question have some logical relationship with the comment of mine you quoted?

DarkCurrent on April 3, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Pssst…the vast majority of those having abortions are not atheists…

Pssst…the vast majority of pro-choicers are not atheists either.

Pablo Honey on April 3, 2013 at 12:24 PM

Astounding. After millenia of philosophical and theological debate, you have stumbled upon the amazing discovery that humans sometimes adopt ideas different from the ones passed down by tradition; or, in retaining them, sometimes will take an action they find unappealing nonetheless.

It’s strange that you would choose to try and change the argument to what theists do, rather than address his statement about what atheists do. Given that some 80% of this country is Judeo-Christian – in word if not in deed – the “vast majority” of pretty much anything being conducted herein will be by “non-atheists”. So that’s kind of a non-starter.

The Schaef on April 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Sure. Why do you care what people choose to believe to the point of ridiculing it?

Zomcon JEM on April 3, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Seeing as how of course neither of us can prove anything one way or another on this particular point.

Zomcon JEM on April 3, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Jesus is dead.

He’s been dead for nearly 2,000 years.

He’s not coming back.

Because he’s dead.

Any questions?

chumpThreads on April 3, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Sure. Why do you care what people choose to believe to the point of ridiculing it?

Zomcon JEM on April 3, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Don’t really care, but still call it as I see it.

Are you offended?

DarkCurrent on April 3, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Except for the obvious:

Crucifixion was a public display, the intent was to leave the bodies there after death for that purpose, not bury them. The death occurred in record time. I’ve never read of a crucificition that lasted only a few hours. They normally lasted days. No one would have expected him to die so early and therefore no one would have been planning a grave. Why did the romans allow burial at all? Where were the two thieves buried? Did their bodies disappear as well? Shouldn’t they have? Where they still being crucified?

Who checks a grave the day after burial ? Why would they? In jewish lore, how many times has someone entered the grave of a newly dead person and for what reason.

Why did the body have to disappear if the soul is immutable. Why did he have tp physically appear to his disciples at alll? During the second coming, will all the bodies of the saved disappear from the ground? Isn’t that proof that no one has been saved yet?

Women had no legal standing. They can’t get into trouble for making things up.

There are no contradicting OR supporting records of any type. Just the gospels of those who stood to gain.

I don’t mean to beat up on someone else’s beliefs but when they ague into a echo chamber and say it proves their beliefs, it’s disturbing.

aniptofar on April 3, 2013 at 3:05 PM

I’ve never read of a crucificition that lasted only a few hours.

I’m not sure how many crucifixions you read about in a typical week. The length of time could stretch for days, but mostly because the Romans intended for them to survive as long as possible. Truth be told, the actual death by asphyxiation only takes a few minutes; the deciding factor is how long the person is able to support their own weight before suffocating.

Bear in mind that the Romans had no specific interest in keeping Jesus alive for torture; he was not guilty of any crimes under their law. The length of time would also depend on other factors, most notably in this case, the amount of scourging that took place beforehand. Various accounts of the crucifixion suggest that before he was hung, he was beaten to the point of being almost unrecognizable, which would result in significant blood loss and the onset of shock. It is also documented that he lacked the strength to carry his own cross, by himself, all the way to the edge of town, further implying a lack of physical endurance at the time of crucifixion.

Who checks a grave the day after burial?

Nobody “checks” a grave at all. If you read the relevant passages, you will see that the people visiting the tomb were doing so to tend to the body, not to see if it had gone missing. To repeat Dr. Craig’s point, nobody was expecting the body to simply be gone, and only the pharisees even presumed someone would try to steal the body.

Why did the body have to disappear if the soul is immutable.

Under that logic, Jesus would not have needed to inhabit a body in the first place. Having done so for the purposes of His ministry, and His body having died, a physical resurrection is the logical conclusion of that circle. Jesus appearing in a spirit form with the body still in the grave would be proof of nothing, and dismissed as hallucination. Many skeptics already dismiss the appearance of the physical body as hallucination.

During the second coming, will all the bodies of the saved disappear from the ground? Isn’t that proof that no one has been saved yet?

Let’s think about this for a second. If the bodies are to be resurrected at the time of the second coming, and the second coming has not happened yet, by what logic do you conclude anything based on the presence of the bodies before the second coming?

Also, the righteous judgement of man is not salvation unto itself; judgement comes to all men and finds all men lacking. Salvation is the act of receiving the merciful gift of propitiation, that the price to be extracted as justice for our wrongs is paid in full. In Catholic doctrine, it is an event not bound at all by time but something happening simultaneously in the past, present and future. But in neither case is the act of salvation something that happens only at the time of final judgement, assuming to begin with that time is a line and not a ball of wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey stuff.

You say you’re not beating up on people’s beliefs, and that’s all well and good, but you might be better served to understand them before drawing conclusions based on flawed data.

Women had no legal standing. They can’t get into trouble for making things up.

Were women the only people who witnessed the empty grave or the risen Christ? If not, why would this point refute anything of the accounts?

The Schaef on April 3, 2013 at 3:49 PM

I first heard WLC deliver this message about 5 years ago. I’m sure he has refined and altered it a bit over those years.

I just discovered John Lennox.

John Lennox is Professor of Mathematics in the University of Oxford, Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, and Pastoral Advisor at Green Templeton College, Oxford. He is also an adjunct Lecturer at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University and at the Oxford Centre for Christian Apologetics and is a Senior Fellow of the Trinity Forum. In addition, he teaches for the Oxford Strategic Leadership Programme at the Executive Education Centre, Said Business School, Oxford University.

He studied at the Royal School Armagh, Northern Ireland and was Exhibitioner and Senior Scholar at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University from which he took his MA and PhD. He worked for many years in the Mathematics Institute at the University of Wales in Cardiff which awarded him a DSc for his research. He also holds a DPhil from Oxford University and an MA in Bioethics from the University of Surrey. He was a Senior Alexander Von Humboldt Fellow at the Universities of Wuerzburg and Freiburg in Germany. In addition to over seventy published mathematical papers he is the co-author of two research level texts in algebra in the Oxford Mathematical Monographs series.

His debates with Dawkins and Hitchens are worth a tumble.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM

Two points: First, the claims in Craig’s case for the resurrection are demonstrable, provable, established historical facts according to the consensus of scholarship. Most of these scholars do not believe in the resurrection themselves, yet they conclude that the facts Craig gives are provable and well-established. You can’t deny them without having to deny all ancient history for consistency’s sake. The point being that it’s not just Craig making these claims, it’s the scholarly community as a whole. Craig only differs from them in claiming that the resurrection is the best explanation of these facts.

Second, I’ve seen a couple of references in the comments to the claim that there were predecessors to Jesus in world mythology. That view has been rejected by scholars for about 100 years, and was only ever held by a handful of German scholars at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th. One of the reasons this view collapsed is because the parallels were spurious: the “resurrections” were not resurrections, the “virgin births” were not virgin births, etc. They had to be described in Christian terminology in order to make the parallels appear less vague. Moreover, the motive of these scholars was to find a non-Jewish Jesus in order to accommodate their anti-Semitism. Contemporary scholarship recognizes that since Jesus was a Jew he should be understood within the context of Judaism.

JS on April 3, 2013 at 4:43 PM

His debates with Dawkins and Hitchens are worth a tumble.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 4:37 PM

But the atheist side has SK, the Yougratand Dooleythorpe Memorial Professor of Inane Studies at the University of Mom’s Basement.

Oh, and DarkCurrent, the guy who believes that the ChiChoms have the world’s best political system and that karma-samsara somehow makes more sense than Jesus having a bodily resurrection.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Spoiled Lizard is what you get when you go to pimple-popping basement dwellers’ websites.

davidk on April 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Cute, but that’s B Plus material for you.

This coming from the guy who can’t accept several of the founding fathers own words on what the intent of the establishment and free exercise clause are and throws lemons in your face every time you mention them. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM

Cute, sounds like B Plus material…

This coming from a guy who can’t accept several of the founders own words on what the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clause were and throws Lemons in your face if you bring it up.

SauerKraut537 on April 3, 2013 at 6:32 PM

It was just as irrelevant and stupid the first time it got posted.

tom daschle concerned on April 3, 2013 at 6:42 PM

This coming from the guy who can’t accept several of the founding fathers own words on what the intent of the establishment and free exercise clause are and throws lemons in your face every time you mention them. ;-)

SauerKraut537 on April 3, 2013 at 5:49 PM

A. By “several,” you mean “one,” right? The only evidence you’ve ever presented is the single line from Jefferson’s letter.

B. You’ve yet to answer a single one of my questions about pre-Lemon America. Gee, I wonder why.

C. You’ve yet to answer why there was no plain language inserted into any of the founding documents about separation of church and state if that was the actual intention of the Establishment clause.

In short, you’re not even really worth debating because you’re pathologically incapable of being honest or intellectually consistent (hey, just like DarkCurrent!). They say steel sharpens steel; SK is more akin to talc. Tearing apart his ridiculous, oft-repeated rhetorical farts that he considers incisive arguments doesn’t give me any help in debating someone with any actual knowledge, skill or talent. It’s just a minor diversion in response to an annoyance, like swatting at a bothersome fly.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Oh, and DarkCurrent, the guy who believes that the ChiChoms have the world’s best political system and that karma-samsara somehow makes more sense than Jesus having a bodily resurrection.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM

If you’re not a shameless liar you’ll find a quote of mine saying that I think the ‘ChiChoms’ have the world’s best political system.

But you are a shameless liar, aren’t you?

DarkCurrent on April 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 6:48 PM

A. No, by several I mean several. I provided a James Madison quote directly related to the topic as well, and if you think those two are the only ones arguing for separation of church and state I have a bridge to sell you.

B. I’ve told you that the reason nobody was arguing for the removal of these religious symbols is because everyone was “in” with the idea of putting them up in the first place.

C. It was plain and simple to understand. The idea of religious governments was an appalling one to them all, and they wished for these two entities to be kept as separate as possible. I provided a few quotes… Do you believe they changed their minds or something? That they eventually wanted the government and religion to collude? As I stated before, these founding documents were written, and rewritten, and rewritten until a final draft was voted in as the approved copy. I imagine a lot of the language that Jefferson and Madison and others wanted put in was stricken from the final copy. You ask me why they didn’t put more plain language into our founding document. Has the thought ever crossed your mind that maybe they tried to put that language in, and were outvoted by the more religious among them.

You are aware that Jefferson’s first draft of the DoI did not have the word god or creator in it, right? That it had no religious overtones at all.

“In short”, please tell me you’re smarter than you appear to be.

SauerKraut537 on April 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM

If you’re not a shameless liar you’ll find a quote of mine saying that I think the ‘ChiChoms’ have the world’s best political system.

But you are a shameless liar, aren’t you?

DarkCurrent on April 3, 2013 at 9:02 PM

Name a better system. If you say ours, you’re just lying, given your previous posts.

I won’t even go into the ridiculousness of a guy who thinks the Americans taught racism to the Japanese calling me a “shameless liar.” Lulz.

Has the thought ever crossed your mind that maybe they tried to put that language in, and were outvoted by the more religious among them.

Got any proof of that? Didn’t think so.

I provided a James Madison quote directly related to the topic as well, and if you think those two are the only ones arguing for separation of church and state I have a bridge to sell you.

The kind of separation you’re talking about? Yeah, they were the only ones, and I don’t even think Madison is on your side here. You construe him to be an ally because you’re biased.

C. It was plain and simple to understand. The idea of religious governments was an appalling one to them all, and they wished for these two entities to be kept as separate as possible.

No, they didn’t want a theocracy or a religious government. That says nothing about a government that hangs up religious paintings or says Christian prayers. None of those things evince a “religious government” of the type Madison and Jefferson were opposed to.

That they eventually wanted the government and religion to collude

In what fantasy world is putting the 10C on a courthouse wall equal to “collusion” between the church and the state?

I’ve told you that the reason nobody was arguing for the removal of these religious symbols is because everyone was “in” with the idea of putting them up in the first place.

So the people who actually wrote the Establishment clause didn’t understand it. Only liberal SCOTUS members from the 1970′s understood it. Got it.

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 10:27 PM

You are aware that Jefferson’s first draft of the DoI did not have the word god or creator in it, right? That it had no religious overtones at all.

SauerKraut537 on April 3, 2013 at 9:25 PM

Once again, you’re reduced to arguing about the FIRST DRAFTS of government documents.

What next? A couple scribbles Jefferson wrote on a cocktail napkin?

Good Solid B-Plus on April 3, 2013 at 10:28 PM

Name a better system. If you say ours, you’re just lying, given your previous posts.

That of the United States.

Now please link any previous post of mine where I say otherwise or you’re a pathetic hypocrite when you call others dishonest.

DarkCurrent on April 4, 2013 at 3:30 AM

Basically Christianity hinges on the Resurrection of the Christ. As Paul says in Corinthians “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.”
Also, Jesus himself is quoted in the Gospel of John. “Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.”
Whether you believe it or not is your own busness. I personally trust Jesus and His Word above all.

kemojr on April 4, 2013 at 9:49 AM

As I thought. A Good Solid Nothin.

DarkCurrent on April 5, 2013 at 5:18 PM

Comment pages: 1 2