Skip to main content

I Witnessed a Resurrection (and still didn't believe it)

by WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~

It strikes me that Christians accept the foundational event of Christianity on extremely weak evidence. Supposedly, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as described in the Gospels, is taken as proof that he was a god and thus deserving of worship. The sum total of the evidence amounts to several descriptions written in those ancient Gospels in a superstitious, pre-scientific age.

It occurs to me that I would not believe the resurrection was what it appeared to be, even If I had seen it with my own eyes. In fact, I actually have seen a resurrection of sorts, and didn't believe it.

Once, this dude in a tux was on a stage with a very pretty young lady. He had her get into a long, narrow box and lie down in it; her head protruded from one end of the box and her feet from the other end. Then he proceeded to saw the box in two and pull the two halves apart. The young lady had to be dead, right? Well, then he pushed the two ends of the box together again, opened the box, and helped the young lady step out of the box. Ta-da! She was as good as new!

What simply amazes me is that they accept this absurd "explanation" on such scant evidence - some words in an ancient book; there really is no other evidence. Now, I witnessed this resurrection first hand, but I still didn't believe it was an actual resurrection. I'm pretty sure it was a trick and the young lady was never dead. Now, with this alleged resurrection involving Jesus, there are several possible explanations. It could have been a magic trick, similar to the one described above, or it could have involved a mirage, or a hallucination, or the authors simply embellished a story they had heard from others, or perhaps they simply made up the story from scratch. Now that's five possibilities (and there are more) which involve things we know for a fact happen frequently in this world. So why do Christians accept the least likely explanation of all, that Jesus was dead for several days and then just came back to life? That is the one explanation that we know for a fact to be biologically impossible.

It seems that Christians have accepted this least likely explanation because they've been told to believe it, and because they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it just might be true and if they don't believe it they'll be given a ticket to hell.

What simply amazes me is that they accept this absurd "explanation" on such scant evidence - some words in an ancient book; there really is no other evidence. They appear to give little thought to other possible explanations, like those that I have proposed.

Perhaps I never got taken in by this story because I was just lucky enough to have witnessed that "resurrection" that I described above. I mean, I saw one with my own eyes, and I still didn't believe it. So, I'm certainly not about to believe a written description from an ancient book. And this makes me pretty certain that if I had been there 2 thousand years ago and seen Jesus’ apparent resurrection with my own eyes, I still wouldn't believe it.

Perhaps this explains why so few Jews of the time became Christians; this resurrection just wasn't that convincing to those who were there at the time. Supposedly, thousands of Jews followed Jesus around, being fed with just a few fishes and loaves, and observing dozens of other miracles, and yet so few of them accepted Jesus as the Messiah that Paul decided to look to the Gentiles for converts. And I always thought it was suspicious that even Jesus’ closest followers didn’t recognize him after his alleged resurrection. What's up with that?

Isn't it obvious that we should never believe the scientifically impossible without truly extraordinary evidence? And accepting the impossible on faith makes even less sense. How can we possibly think we have a grasp on how the world really works, if we haven't insisted on having an accumulation of solid evidence?


Popular posts from this blog

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

I can fix ignorance; I can't fix stupid!

By Bob O ~ I 'm an atheist and a 52-year veteran of public education. I need not tell anyone the problems associated with having to "duck" the "Which church do you belong to?" with my students and their parents. Once told by a parent that they would rather have a queer for their sons' teacher than an atheist! Spent HOURS going to the restroom right when prayers were performed: before assemblies, sports banquets, "Christmas Programs", awards assemblies, etc... Told everyone that I had a bladder problem. And "yes" it was a copout to many of you, but the old adage (yes, it's religious) accept what you can't change, change that which you can and accept the strength to know the difference! No need arguing that which you will never change. Enough of that. What I'd like to impart is my simple family chemistry. My wife is a Baptist - raised in a Baptist Orphanage (whole stories there) and is a believer. She did not know my religi