The God Question

How to Think Critically About the Resurrection

📅 Today is Day 19 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

🧩 The Central Question

Christians often declare: “The resurrection is the best explanation for the evidence!” But what happens when we actually apply critical thinking?

Today, we’re not asking what to believe—we’re asking how to think. Specifically, how to evaluate the resurrection claim with the same logic we’d apply to anything else.

🧭 Apply The God Question’s Core Philosophy

  1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?
  2. Are alternative explanations considered?
  3. Is there independent corroboration?
  4. Is the claim falsifiable?
  5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

Let’s examine how the resurrection fares under these five filters of reason.

1. 🔍 Does the Claim Rely on Evidence or Belief?

The resurrection is based entirely on ancient, anonymous texts. We have no eyewitness testimony—not in the modern sense. The Gospels were written decades later, by unknown authors, in communities already devoted to Jesus.

In most areas of life, we demand strong, first-hand evidence. Imagine trying to prove a dead man came back to life using only third-hand blog posts written 40 years later by his followers.

Yet in religion, belief is often treated as its own evidence.

Critical Thinking Tip: Belief may motivate—but it doesn’t validate.

2. 🔁 Are Alternative Explanations Considered?

A critical thinker doesn’t jump to conclusions—they ask:

  • Could the tomb story be a legend?
  • Could the appearances be dreams, visions, or grief-induced hallucinations?
  • Could the resurrection motif have grown over time to elevate Jesus’ status?

Christian apologists rarely explore these possibilities in good faith. Instead, they leap from “the tomb was empty” (which isn’t even verifiable) to “therefore, God raised Jesus.”

That’s a non sequitur—a conclusion that doesn’t follow from the premise.

Critical Thinking Tip: Consider all the possibilities. Then weigh them, not by what you want to be true, but by what best fits the evidence.

3. 🔗 Is There Independent Corroboration?

Critical thinking requires corroboration from multiple, independent sources.

For the resurrection, we have:

  • No physical evidence
  • No external confirmation from Roman records or first-century historians
  • No contemporary mentions of a public execution followed by a mass resurrection event

All “supporting sources” are internal: the New Testament writers themselves. And they don’t even agree on the details.

Critical Thinking Tip: When all the “evidence” comes from insiders, ask what outsiders had to say—and why they didn’t say it.

4. ❌ Is the Claim Falsifiable?

Can the resurrection be proven false?

  • If the tomb is empty: “He is risen!”
  • If the tomb is occupied: “You’ve got the wrong tomb.”
  • If people report visions: “Proof of resurrection!”
  • If no one reports visions: “They were afraid to speak!”

A belief that explains every outcome explains nothing.

Critical Thinking Tip: If a claim can’t be tested or disproven—even in theory—it doesn’t belong in the realm of knowledge. It belongs in the realm of imagination.

5. ❓ Does the Explanation Raise More Questions Than It Answers?

Saying “God raised Jesus” immediately invites deeper problems:

  • Why wait three days?
  • Why appear only to a select few?
  • Why allow confusion, contradictions, and decades of oral storytelling before documentation?
  • Why choose a time and place (1st-century Palestine) where no one could verify any of this?

These aren’t minor narrative quirks. They are logical red flags.

Critical Thinking Tip: A good explanation simplifies. A poor one multiplies mystery.

🧠 Final Thought: Start with the Method, Not the Conclusion

Critical thinking isn’t about debunking. It’s about pausing. Asking. Testing. Refusing to confuse desire for truth with truth itself.

The resurrection might be comforting. It might be inspiring. But that doesn’t make it true.

Only one thing earns that label: evidence, examined with rigor.

🧭 The God Question’s Invitation

The resurrection is Christianity’s central claim. But no belief—however sacred—is above scrutiny.

If a belief is true, it can withstand your questions. If it isn’t, it shouldn’t survive your trust.

Let’s keep asking.

📺 For Further Exploration

Video: Secrets of the Psychics – NOVA Documentary

Overview: This classic NOVA documentary features renowned skeptic James Randi as he investigates claims of paranormal abilities and miracles. Through demonstrations and critical analysis, Randi exposes the techniques used by self-proclaimed psychics and faith healers, emphasizing the importance of skepticism and scientific inquiry.​

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Did Christianity Copy Pagan Resurrection Myths?

📅 Today is Day 18 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

🧩 The Claim We’re Examining

Critics have long argued that Christianity borrowed its resurrection narrative from earlier pagan religions—claiming that gods like Osiris, Mithras, Adonis, Dionysus, and others were said to have died and returned to life.

If Jesus isn’t the first resurrected god… what does that mean for Christianity’s foundational claim?

To explore this, let’s apply The God Question’s Core Philosophy:

  1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?
  2. Are alternative explanations considered?
  3. Is there independent corroboration?
  4. Is the claim falsifiable?
  5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

1. 🔍 Evidence or Belief?

Christian apologists often assert that the resurrection of Jesus is unique, unprecedented, and historically verified. But this stance requires ignoring or minimizing the abundant mythic material from earlier cultures:

  • Osiris (Egypt): Killed and dismembered, later reassembled and revived by Isis.
  • Dionysus (Greece): Torn apart and reborn.
  • Mithras (Persia/Rome): Celebrated with communal meals and promises of eternal life.
  • Tammuz (Mesopotamia): Descended into the underworld, mourned and revived cyclically.

These aren’t obscure parallels—they were widespread and well-known throughout the ancient Mediterranean world before and during the rise of early Christianity.

✳️ Christianity is not the first religion to claim that a divine figure died and returned.

Verdict: The apologist’s claim relies on belief, not critical engagement with the comparative historical record.

2. 🔁 Are Alternatives Considered?

Christianity’s defenders often frame pagan parallels as coincidental or “Satanic counterfeits.” But they rarely engage with the most reasonable alternative:

That resurrection myths were symbolic, archetypal, and fertility-linked motifs shared across ancient cultures—and that early Christian theology absorbed and adapted these themes.

This explanation is not only plausible, it’s predictable. Syncretism—blending religious ideas—is what religions do when they move across cultures and compete for followers.

Verdict: Mainstream apologetics do not seriously consider syncretism as an explanation. The God Question does.

3. 🔗 Is There Independent Corroboration?

There is no independent historical corroboration of Jesus’ resurrection outside Christian writings. The Gospels themselves disagree on the details of who visited the tomb, when, and what happened there.

Meanwhile, evidence of ancient resurrection cults is abundant and well-documented through texts, rituals, and archaeological artifacts. These include:

  • Initiation rites into mystery religions (like those of Mithras and Eleusis)
  • Artistic depictions of deities returning from the underworld
  • Written prayers and poems about divine resurrections

Verdict: Pagan parallels are corroborated by multiple sources. The Christian resurrection is not.

4. ❌ Is the Claim Falsifiable?

Christian belief in Jesus’ resurrection is not falsifiable:

  • Empty tomb? Could be legend.
  • Witness reports? Decades-later hearsay.
  • Spiritual experiences? Common across religious traditions.

If you remove the supernatural assumption, the claim becomes indistinguishable from other mythical resurrection narratives—which Christians dismiss without evidence.

By contrast, the mythic parallel hypothesis is falsifiable: it can be supported or refuted by comparing texts, rituals, and historical timelines.

Verdict: The traditional resurrection claim fails falsifiability. The syncretism hypothesis survives it.

5. ❓ Does It Raise More Questions Than It Answers?

Trying to isolate Jesus’ resurrection from all other myths raises more problems than it solves:

  • Why would God stage His single, universal act of salvation in a cultural and religious context already full of dying-and-rising gods?
  • Why is the resurrection language in Paul’s letters (1 Corinthians 15, for example) so vague and symbolic—far more in line with mystery cults than forensic biography?
  • Why did belief in resurrection lead to ritual practices (e.g., baptism, communion, reenactments) just like in the surrounding pagan world?

Verdict: The syncretic explanation explains the pattern. The supernatural one just doubles down on mystery.

🧠 Final Thought: Not So Original After All

If Christianity had arisen in a cultural vacuum, the resurrection claim might feel more extraordinary. But it emerged in a world where gods died and rose all the time—symbolizing seasonal renewal, harvest cycles, and cosmic hope.

Christianity didn’t invent resurrection. It inherited it, reinterpreted it, and proclaimed it as fact.

But repeating a myth louder doesn’t make it true.

🧭 The God Question’s Invitation

We’re not here to mock tradition—but to ask the questions tradition was too afraid to answer.

Was the resurrection history? Or was it myth, retold with new urgency?

Let’s keep asking.

📺 For Further Exploration

Video: How Christianity Copied Pagan Myths

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Jesus in the Tomb Three Days?

📅 Today is Day 17 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

Math Problems in the Passion Story

Category: Biblical Literalism, Chronology Issues Method Applied:The God Question’s Core Philosophy

“For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” — Matthew 12:40 (NIV)

The Gospels claim that Jesus was crucified, died, was buried, and then rose on the third day—fulfilling both prophecy and Jesus’ own predictions. But a closer look at the timeline reveals a serious problem:

There are not three days and three nights between Friday afternoon and Sunday morning.

Let’s apply The God Question’s Core Philosophy to this contradiction—examining not just what we’re told, but how it holds up to scrutiny.

🧠 1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?

The “three days and three nights” claim is based entirely on Gospel narratives, which differ in detail but generally agree that:

  • Jesus was crucified and died on Friday (“Preparation Day”)
  • His body was placed in a tomb before sundown (start of Sabbath)
  • Women discovered the empty tomb “early on the first day of the week,” Sunday morning

This is a faith-based timeline, not an evidence-based reconstruction. There is no independent, external source confirming when Jesus was buried or when he supposedly rose.

📅 From Friday evening to Sunday morning, at best, we get:

  • Friday night
  • Saturday (day and night)
  • Early Sunday morning

That’s two nights and one full day, not three days and three nights.

🔍 2. Are alternative explanations considered?

Christian apologists have proposed numerous rationalizations to reconcile the math:

  • Inclusive reckoning: Any part of a day counts as a full day.
  • Jewish idiom: “Three days and nights” doesn’t require 72 hours.
  • Wednesday crucifixion theory: Some suggest Jesus died earlier in the week.
  • Double Sabbath theory: Suggests both a High Sabbath and the weekly Sabbath occurred, lengthening the burial time.

But each of these explanations creates new problems:

  • They lack textual support in the Gospels themselves.
  • They contradict early Christian tradition, which consistently affirms a Friday crucifixion.
  • They raise new inconsistencies with surrounding events—like the Passover meal, Roman procedures, or the women visiting the tomb.

Conclusion: These are retroactive patches, not genuine explanations. They protect belief but fail as objective alternatives.

🧪 3. Is there independent corroboration?

No.

There is no historical or secular record confirming:

  • The exact day of Jesus’ death
  • The length of his time in the tomb
  • The specific date of resurrection

Even within the Bible, the Gospels disagree on key timeline details:

GospelCrucifixion DayResurrection Timing
MarkFriday (Preparation for Sabbath)Sunday, early morning
MatthewSame“At dawn” on Sunday
LukeSame“Early dawn” on Sunday
JohnContradicts others—Jesus dies before Passover mealSunday, still dark

John places the crucifixion before the Passover meal; the Synoptics place it after. These timelines cannot both be true.

Conclusion: There is no independent corroboration and the internal sources conflict.

🧪 4. Is the claim falsifiable?

Yes—and it fails the test.

If Jesus himself predicted he would be “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:40), then a two-night burial falsifies that claim on its own terms.

Christian defenders often retreat into metaphor here, saying “three days and nights” isn’t literal. But Jesus explicitly compares his burial to Jonah’s time in the fish—which was literal in the story.

If the timeline doesn’t add up literally, then a literal reading fails.

Conclusion: The claim is falsifiable—and it fails the criteria it sets for itself.

🧩 5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

Absolutely.

  • Why would Jesus make a verifiable time-based prophecy that doesn’t align with the timeline?
  • Why would all four Gospels handle the same historical event with inconsistent details?
  • Why does John contradict the Synoptics on the date of death?
  • Why do modern believers dismiss the literal meaning of “three days and three nights” when it’s used to prove Jesus’ divine foresight?

In trying to defend a “literal Bible,” Christians are often forced to abandon literalism whenever it creates contradictions. This inconsistency raises deep questions about what “truth” even means in the biblical context.

🧠 Final Thought: When the Math Doesn’t Add Up

The claim that Jesus was “in the tomb for three days and three nights” is not a minor slip—it’s a failed prophecy, a chronological contradiction, and a litmus test for biblical literalism.

Literalists who defend it end up relying on non-literal interpretations. And once you allow metaphor, idiom, and approximation into the equation—the entire resurrection account becomes even murkier.

So we ask:

If the timeline used to prove Jesus’ divine authority doesn’t hold up, what else might not?

🧭 The God Question’s Invitation

This is not about attacking faith—it’s about following the evidence wherever it leads. If the resurrection story contains internal contradictions, that should concern anyone who values truth over tradition.

Faith begins where evidence ends. But so do fables. Only critical thinking can tell the difference.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

How Oral Tradition and Time Shaped the Jesus Story

📅 Today is Day 16 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

“These things were not written down immediately. They were spoken, remembered, reshaped—then recorded.” — A modern biblical historian

How did stories about Jesus become the Gospels we know today?

According to Christian tradition, the four Gospels were written by direct witnesses (or their close companions), faithfully recording the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. But a growing body of historical, anthropological, and cognitive research suggests something far more complex—and far less reliable.

Today we examine how oral tradition and the passage of time shaped the Jesus story—and how this process challenges the reliability of the resurrection narrative.

Let’s apply The God Question’s Core Philosophy to this foundational issue.

🧠 1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?

The traditional claim is that the Gospels were based on eyewitness testimony, preserved accurately through oral transmission until they were written down decades later.

But the claim relies on belief—not hard evidence. Scholars generally agree:

  • Paul’s letters (written ~20–30 years after Jesus’ death) are the earliest Christian documents—and they contain no detailed biography of Jesus.
  • The first Gospel (Mark) likely appeared around 70 CE, nearly 40 years after Jesus’ death.
  • Matthew and Luke came a decade or more after Mark, copying much of his content.
  • John, the most theologically embellished Gospel, was written last—likely around 90–100 CE.

No Gospel identifies its author in the original text. Attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was added later by church tradition. We have no original manuscripts—only copies of copies.

Conclusion: The claim that the Gospels preserve reliable eyewitness testimony is built on faith, not verified evidence.

🔍 2. Are alternative explanations considered?

Christian apologists often argue that oral cultures had better memory, or that the Holy Spirit preserved the content without distortion. But this view ignores decades of interdisciplinary research in:

  • Memory Studies: Human memory is not a recording device—it is reconstructive, prone to distortion, contamination, and even confabulation.
  • Social Psychology: Stories change rapidly when passed through communities with emotional investment or theological agendas.
  • Oral Tradition Research: Cultures that rely on oral tradition adapt and reshape stories constantly, often unconsciously.

Alternative explanations—like memory distortion, legend growth, or mythologization—are rarely entertained in churches, but they’re central to secular and academic understandings of how the Jesus story evolved.

Conclusion: Alternative explanations are overlooked or dismissed in favor of supernatural preservation.

🧪 3. Is there independent corroboration?

There is no independent record of the sayings, miracles, or resurrection of Jesus outside of the New Testament and early Christian writings. All available sources—Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny—either:

  • Don’t mention Jesus’ life at all, or
  • Repeat what Christians were already saying decades later

Even Paul, our earliest source, shows little concern for Jesus’ earthly life, quoting almost nothing from his teachings and never referencing Mary, Bethlehem, parables, or specific miracles.

This suggests that the detailed narratives of the Gospels came later—likely as products of theological development rather than historical memory.

Conclusion: The development of the Jesus story lacks external corroboration, especially regarding specific events like the resurrection.

⚖️ 4. Is the claim falsifiable?

The idea that the Gospel accounts were preserved accurately through oral tradition is not falsifiable. There’s no way to go back and check what was actually said, what was misremembered, or what was invented.

Apologists often invoke the Holy Spirit as a guarantor of accuracy. But that makes the claim immune to disproof—and therefore non-historical by definition.

If the preservation of the story depends on a miraculous process, it falls outside the bounds of verifiable knowledge.

Conclusion: This claim cannot be tested, making it religious dogma—not historical data.

🧩 5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

Yes—many.

  • Why did it take 40–70 years for anyone to write a Gospel?
  • Why do the Gospels disagree on major events (e.g., what Jesus said on the cross, who found the tomb, when and where he appeared)?
  • Why do the stories evolve in theological sophistication from Mark to John?
  • If oral tradition was so precise, why do early manuscripts contain so many variations?

Trying to defend the idea of flawless oral transmission requires theological gymnastics—and leads to even more questions about divine communication, human error, and scriptural authority.

Conclusion: The oral tradition defense creates more confusion than clarity.

🧠 Final Thought: From Memory to Myth

The idea that the Gospels are historical biographies written by eyewitnesses is a powerful belief—but it doesn’t withstand critical scrutiny.

The more we learn about how stories evolve—especially in emotionally charged religious communities—the clearer it becomes: The Jesus story, including the resurrection, was likely shaped over time by memory distortion, social pressures, theological needs, and the human hunger for meaning.

The Gospels aren’t courtroom testimonies. They are theological narratives, forged in faith, polished in preaching, and canonized in crisis.

🧭 The God Question’s Invitation

You don’t have to fear questions about how the Bible came to be. You just have to be willing to follow the evidence—even when it challenges what you were taught to hold sacred.

Truth doesn’t need perfect memory. But belief often depends on pretending we have one.

Let’s keep digging.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

The Role of Fear, Hope, and Cognitive Bias in Resurrection Belief

📅 Today is Day 15 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

✝️ Easter and the Mind: How Our Brains Shape Belief in the Resurrection

The resurrection of Jesus is often framed as a historical or theological claim. But what if we stepped back and asked a different question—one grounded in psychology, not scripture?

Why do people believe in resurrections? Especially in the face of contradictory accounts, lack of external evidence, and the sheer implausibility of someone rising from the dead?

Today, we explore how fear, hope, and cognitive bias powerfully shape what we believe—and why the resurrection belief, while emotionally compelling, may not be the product of truth, but of deeply human psychological needs.

🧠 The Psychology of Belief in Life After Death

Human beings are uniquely aware of their mortality. That awareness creates a powerful tension between the inevitability of death and the desire for meaning beyond it.

The resurrection of Jesus isn’t just about Jesus—it’s a promise that we, too, might live again. That grief will be reversed. That injustice will be undone. That death won’t win.

From a psychological standpoint, this is immensely appealing.

Cognitive psychologist Jesse Bering writes:

“We are natural-born believers in life after death. Even young children intuitively believe that people continue to exist in some way after their bodies die.”

In that light, belief in resurrection isn’t just theological—it’s predictable.

⚖️ Fear, Hope, and Bias: A Closer Look

Let’s break down the three primary psychological drivers behind belief in the resurrection:

1. Fear of Death

Humans fear the loss of identity, meaning, and loved ones. Belief in resurrection offers comfort, control, and continuity beyond the grave. It neutralizes death.

2. Hope for Justice

The world is full of suffering. Resurrection belief offers cosmic fairness: the righteous will be vindicated, and evil will be undone. It satisfies our desire for a moral universe.

3. Cognitive Biases

Psychological tendencies such as confirmation bias, agency detection, and pattern recognition predispose us to see intention, causality, and meaning—even where none exist.

We want there to be a resurrection, so we’re more likely to interpret weak or ambiguous evidence as proof.

🔍 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

  1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief? – Belief in the resurrection is overwhelmingly driven by emotional need, not empirical evidence. Most people believe because they were taught to, or because it offers comfort—not because of critical analysis.
  2. Are alternative explanations considered? – Psychological explanations (like grief hallucinations or myth evolution) are rarely addressed in church sermons. Yet they provide plausible, evidence-based frameworks for resurrection belief.
  3. Is there independent corroboration? – There is no verified, independent account of Jesus’ resurrection outside faith-based sources. What we have are theological documents shaped by evolving narratives and deep existential hopes.
  4. Is the claim falsifiable? – No. The resurrection is positioned as a one-time, supernatural event that cannot be repeated, examined, or tested—placing it outside the realm of falsifiability.
  5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers? – Yes. If resurrection is real, why don’t we see credible modern examples? Why are the Gospel accounts so inconsistent? And why does belief so clearly mirror human psychological desires?

🎯 Conclusion: The Resurrection as Wish Fulfillment?

A growing body of psychological research suggests that resurrection belief may function less as a historical fact and more as a cultural coping mechanism. It answers our deepest fears with our greatest hopes. It provides a sense of control in a chaotic universe.

That doesn’t make it true—only understandable.

At The God Question, we’re not here to mock belief. We’re here to examine it with honesty. And sometimes, that means recognizing that the most comforting answers aren’t necessarily the most truthful.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: The Belief Instinct – Cognitive Religious Studies (Jesse Bering)

Thanks to Bering’s insight and wit, THE BELIEF INSTINCT will reward readers with an enlightened understanding of the universal human tendency to believe — and the tools to break free.

Jesse Bering is an internationally recognized evolutionary psychologist, Director of the Institute of Cognition and Culture at the Queen’s University, Belfast, and one of the principal investigators of the Explaining Religion Project. He writes the popular weekly column “Bering in Mind,” a featured blog for the Scientific American website. He lives in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Why the Earliest Christians Didn’t Preach a Physical Resurrection

📅 Today is Day 14 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

📌 Introduction

Modern Christianity hinges on a specific, physical claim: that Jesus Christ literally rose from the dead—his body revived, left the tomb, and ascended into heaven. But did the earliest followers of Jesus really believe and teach this?

Today, we’ll explore a provocative question that cuts to the heart of Easter: Was the resurrection of Jesus originally understood as physical—or something more spiritual, symbolic, or visionary?

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief? The physical resurrection narrative relies heavily on later Gospel writings, not on early, verifiable evidence. Paul—the earliest New Testament writer—never describes an empty tomb or a physically resurrected Jesus in flesh and blood. Instead, his letters speak of visions, spiritual appearances, and glorified bodies.

2. Are alternative explanations considered? Few Christian traditions openly examine how early belief evolved. Yet some scholars argue the resurrection began as an experiential conviction (visions, dreams, internal revelations) later reimagined as physical stories to respond to skepticism and reinforce orthodoxy.

3. Is there independent corroboration? There is no non-Christian source confirming a bodily resurrection. And the earliest Christian writings—Paul’s letters, circa 50 CE—lack the physical details found in the Gospels written decades later. The “physical” Jesus shows up as the tradition matures, not in the beginning.

4. Is the claim falsifiable? No. The resurrection is a faith-based belief, immune to external testing. Attempts to explain the resurrection as a physical event ignore how core doctrines shifted over time to meet theological or pastoral needs.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers? Yes. Why does Paul describe a “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44) and list only appearances without empty tomb stories? Why are the physical details—wounds, meals, touch—absent from early creeds and only present in later Gospels?

📖 Early Christian Confusion: Paul vs. the Gospels

Paul’s Resurrection Jesus:

  • Appears in visions (Gal 1:12, 1 Cor 15:8).
  • Not described as physical or touchable.
  • Emphasizes a transformation from “perishable” to “imperishable” (1 Cor 15:42–53).
  • Says “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” (1 Cor 15:50).

Gospel Jesus (Decades Later):

  • Eats fish (Luke 24:42–43).
  • Invites physical touch (John 20:27).
  • Has scars and wounds.

This transition suggests doctrinal development—not eyewitness consistency.

💡 A Resurrection of Meaning, Not Matter?

Progressive theologians argue that the resurrection began not as a resuscitated corpse but as a spiritual affirmation:

Jesus lives—within us, among us, through the Spirit.

In this view, resurrection meant vindication, not animation. It was a symbol of divine approval, not a miracle of medical reversal. The early church didn’t need a physical body to believe in hope, love, and renewal.

Over time, however, rival sects, increasing persecution, and theological division pushed the physical resurrection forward as a litmus test of orthodoxy. To reject it became heresy—not simply a different opinion.

❓ A Question for Today’s Believers

If the first Christians didn’t require a literal, flesh-and-blood Jesus to believe he conquered death… Why should we?

Isn’t spiritual resurrection—influence, transformation, legacy—more coherent, meaningful, and morally inspiring than a tale of revived tissue?

🎯 Conclusion

The earliest Christian writings are not concerned with grave robbing or biological reversal. They are focused on hope beyond despair, life beyond violence, and presence beyond death—all powerful concepts that don’t require a physical Jesus walking out of a tomb.

Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy, we are led to this conclusion: The physical resurrection was not the original claim. It was the theological evolution of a spiritual experience. And that evolution says more about human need than divine action.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: With What Kind of Body Did Jesus Rise… If He Rose? Spiritual vs Flesh

Description: This video delves into the nature of Jesus’ resurrection, exploring whether early Christian belief emphasized a spiritual or physical resurrection. It examines scriptural interpretations and theological perspectives that shed light on this pivotal aspect of Christian doctrine.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

How Belief in the Resurrection Gained Political Power

📅 Today is Day 13 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

The resurrection of Jesus began as a fringe belief within a marginalized sect of Judaism. But within just a few centuries, it would become the foundational claim of the Roman Empire’s official religion. That dramatic shift—from persecuted minority to imperial theology—deserves closer scrutiny.

How did a resurrection story gain so much political power? And what does that say about the claim itself?

🏛 From Martyrdom to Empire

In the first few decades after Jesus’ death, belief in his resurrection spread primarily among disenfranchised Jews and Gentiles. The early Christians were politically powerless, often persecuted by both Jewish and Roman authorities.

But things began to change dramatically in the 4th century CE:

  • 313 CE – The Edict of Milan: Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, ending official persecution.
  • 325 CE – Council of Nicaea: Constantine called the first ecumenical council to unify Christian belief—centering on Jesus’ divinity and resurrection.
  • 380 CE – The Edict of Thessalonica: Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

By then, the resurrection of Jesus was no longer just a belief. It was imperial doctrine, enforced by law and embedded in political identity.

🔁 Belief as a Tool of Power

Why would the Roman state embrace and elevate the resurrection story?

Because it provided:

  • Legitimacy: A risen, divine savior validated the Empire’s divine favor and destiny.
  • Unity: A standardized faith helped unify a vast, diverse empire.
  • Control: The Church could define heresy and suppress dissent.

As church historian Eusebius documented, Constantine claimed divine dreams and visions that confirmed his power was ordained by the resurrected Christ. The cross became not a symbol of martyrdom, but a military standard. Jesus was repurposed—from radical teacher to imperial figurehead.

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?

  • The belief in the resurrection gained strength not through empirical confirmation, but through political endorsement. Its truth value was not tested—it was legislated.

2. Are alternative explanations considered?

  • The rapid growth of Christianity is often cited as evidence of the resurrection’s truth. But alternative explanations—such as political opportunism, social utility, and psychological appeal—are rarely considered in traditional settings.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

  • There is no independent evidence that the resurrection story caused Christianity’s rise. What we do have is ample evidence that Rome institutionalized it for its own purposes.

4. Is the claim falsifiable?

  • Once attached to empire, the resurrection became an unquestionable truth. Doubt was punishable. Heresy was treason. This made the claim immune to criticism.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

  • If the resurrection was a genuine historical miracle, why did it require imperial power to gain dominance?
  • Why did belief in it mirror the structure of empire more than the teachings of Jesus?
  • Does the resurrection persist because it’s true—or because it became useful?

✍️ Conclusion

The rise of resurrection belief to political dominance says more about power than proof. Once aligned with Rome, Christianity became less about truth and more about control.

The God Question’s Core Philosophy challenges us to see this transformation clearly: Not all beliefs rise because they are true—some rise because they serve empire.

If a miracle requires a government to enforce it, can we still call it divine?

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: “How did Rome become Christian?”

Description: This video explores the transformation of Christianity from a persecuted sect to the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. It examines the social, political, and theological factors that contributed to this significant shift, including the role of Emperor Constantine and the integration of Christian doctrine into imperial policy.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Resurrection in Other Religions: A Common Myth?

📅 Today is Day 12 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

Each Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus as a singular event—unprecedented in history and unique in meaning. The claim is clear: Jesus rose from the dead, proving he was divine and offering salvation to all who believe.

But is the idea of resurrection truly unique?

Today, we turn to comparative religion and mythology to ask: Is the Christian resurrection narrative one-of-a-kind, or does it echo a broader pattern in ancient religions and cultural myths?

🧭 Resurrection Before Christianity?

Long before the New Testament was written, civilizations across the Mediterranean and Near East told stories of gods and heroes who died and returned to life. These tales often symbolized agricultural cycles, cosmic battles, or moral victories. Some of the most frequently cited examples include:

  • Osiris (Egyptian Mythology): Murdered and dismembered by his brother Set, Osiris is reassembled and resurrected by his wife Isis, becoming lord of the underworld.
  • Dionysus (Greek Mythology): A god of wine and fertility, Dionysus was dismembered and reborn. His cult emphasized rebirth and transformation.
  • Tammuz (Sumerian Mythology): A shepherd-god whose death and return are tied to seasonal changes and fertility rituals.
  • Mithras (Roman Cult): Though not a direct resurrection story, Mithraic worship included themes of cosmic struggle, salvation, and life after death. The cult predates or parallels early Christianity.

While the details differ, the themes of death, descent, and return to life are ancient and widespread.

📖 So What Sets Jesus Apart?

Christian apologists argue that Jesus’ resurrection is unique because:

  • It’s claimed as a historical event, not myth or metaphor.
  • It is central to salvation, not symbolic of nature or harvest.
  • Jesus predicted his death and resurrection in advance.
  • The empty tomb and post-resurrection appearances are offered as evidence.

But do these distinctions hold up under scrutiny?

🔍 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?

  • The uniqueness of Jesus’ resurrection rests more on theological interpretation than verifiable evidence.
  • The parallels to earlier resurrection myths are often dismissed by believers without engaging the historical and literary data.

2. Are alternative explanations considered?

  • The presence of earlier dying-and-rising gods suggests a pattern in religious imagination and storytelling.
  • It’s reasonable to ask whether Jesus’ resurrection story evolved within a cultural context already familiar with similar myths.

3. Is there independent corroboration?

  • Christian resurrection claims rely almost exclusively on insider testimony (New Testament writers).
  • There is no neutral, non-Christian documentation confirming a bodily resurrection.

4. Is the claim falsifiable?

  • Like other mythic resurrection stories, Jesus’ resurrection is immune to verification or disproof.
  • It rests entirely on faith and interpretation, not public, testable evidence.

5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?

  • If God wanted to prove the resurrection as uniquely true, why mirror patterns found in pagan mythology?
  • If myth is a natural human expression of hope and transformation, could the Christian resurrection be another example—rather than an exception?

✍️ Conclusion

The resurrection of Jesus may feel uniquely sacred to Christians, but it exists within a larger, older pattern of myth and meaning. Cultures have long told stories of death and rebirth—perhaps because such stories reflect our deepest fears and hopes.

What sets Jesus apart, then, is not the structure of the story—but the claim of literal truth attached to it. And that’s where scrutiny matters most.

In a world filled with similar tales, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If resurrection is a common mythic theme, we must ask: What makes the Christian version any more real?

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: How Dying and Rising Gods Were Syncretized With Judaism w/ Richard Carrier

Dying and Rising Gods were a popular trend in the first century and the years leading up to it. The Jews then syncretized their faith with the dying and rising God mytheme and created Jesus.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

Would a Loving God Use a Bloody Execution to Offer Salvation?

📅 Today is Day 11 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

Christianity claims to be the story of a loving God who so cared for humanity that He offered His only son as a sacrificial substitute for our sins. This claim lies at the heart of the Easter message—and for many, it’s the cornerstone of faith, comfort, and salvation.

And yet, it invites one of the most morally troubling and intellectually pressing questions we can ask:

Why would a loving, all-powerful God require a bloody execution to forgive the people He created?

If we apply The God Question’s Core Philosophy—a framework that emphasizes intellectual honesty, logical consistency, and moral clarity over blind faith or inherited doctrine—this question becomes not just important but urgent. It forces us to examine the underlying theology, its ethical implications, and whether the traditional Christian narrative of atonement aligns with the character of a God truly worth believing in.

❖ The Problem of Substitutionary Atonement

The dominant Christian explanation for Jesus’ death is called penal substitution: the belief that Jesus was punished in our place, satisfying God’s justice so that we might be spared. This model casts God as both judge and executioner—a deity who cannot simply forgive but must see blood spilled to balance the cosmic scales of justice.

This theological framework may feel familiar and even sacred to many—but it raises profound moral and logical concerns:

  • Is it just to punish the innocent for the guilty?
    In any human legal system, punishing an innocent person instead of the guilty would be considered a miscarriage of justice—not the pinnacle of love.
  • Why would divine love be contingent on violence?
    Why would God’s forgiveness hinge on suffering? Why isn’t divine mercy enough?
  • Why can’t an all-loving, all-powerful being forgive without demanding death?
    Human parents can forgive their children without sacrificing another sibling. Are we to believe that our moral instincts about love and justice are more advanced than God’s?

The penal substitution model mirrors the logic of ancient tribal religion more than enlightened moral thinking. It casts God in the image of pagan kings and blood-hungry deities—demanding appeasement, reparation, and death.

❖ What Love Looks Like

The New Testament insists that “God is love.” But is love best demonstrated through the orchestrated execution of a beloved son?

Applying The God Question’s Core Philosophy, we must challenge the assumption that divine love and divine violence are compatible.

  • Would we admire a parent who demands the death of an innocent child to forgive a guilty one?
  • Would we call that love—or emotional abuse?
  • If God had to “satisfy justice,” who created that justice system?
  • If God is the author of the moral law, why create a system in which blood is the only currency of forgiveness?

If Jesus had to die to meet the demands of some cosmic ledger, it implies either:

  1. God did not create the law (meaning there’s a higher authority above God), or
  2. God created the law and refuses to bend it, even when love and compassion demand it.

Either conclusion is problematic for the traditional view of God as supreme in love, morality, and power.

❖ What If the Cross Wasn’t About Payment?

A growing number of theologians, philosophers, and progressive Christians offer a radically different interpretation of the cross. They suggest that Jesus was not a sacrifice God needed, but a victim of humanity’s addiction to scapegoating and violence.

In this view:

  • The crucifixion exposes human cruelty, not divine necessity.
  • Jesus is not the fulfillment of God’s wrath, but the target of our wrath.
  • The cross is not about transaction, but transformation.

Seen this way, God does not demand the cross—we do. Jesus submits, not to appease God, but to break the cycle of violence and reveal the emptiness of religious bloodlust.

His resurrection, then, is not a divine seal of approval on execution—but a divine reversal of injustice. A cosmic protest against the idea that death, violence, and empire get the last word.

This vision paints a picture of a God who is morally intelligible, whose love is not conditioned on pain, and whose justice restores rather than destroys.

❖ A God Worth Believing In

At its core, this post asks a deeper question:

Is the traditional Easter story one we can still affirm as reasonable, moral, and true?

Because if God is truly good:

  • Why would He build a salvation plan around violence?
  • Why would forgiveness require suffering?
  • Why would love look like death?

And if God is truly powerful:

  • Why limit salvation to those who accept a specific historical interpretation of a blood ritual?
  • Why make divine love dependent on doctrinal agreement about a Roman execution?

Using The God Question’s Core Philosophy, we must not settle for sentiment or tradition. We must hold our conception of God to the highest moral standards—higher than we would demand of ourselves. If a human parent, judge, or leader acted the way God is described in penal substitution theory, we would be appalled. We must have the courage to ask: Should we hold our God to a lower moral bar than our neighbors?

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

  1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?
    • Substitutionary atonement is a theological assertion without independent evidence. It demands belief in a metaphysical debt and divine wrath that must be satisfied by blood.
  2. Are alternative explanations considered?
    • Historically, yes. Early Christians embraced many views of atonement, including Christus Victor (Jesus triumphs over evil) and moral influence (Jesus inspires repentance). Penal substitution became dominant only after the Protestant Reformation. But most modern churches present it as the only valid view.
  3. Is there independent corroboration?
    • No moral philosophy affirms that punishing the innocent is just. No legal system embraces substitutionary justice. The claim lives entirely within religious tradition.
  4. Is the claim falsifiable?
    • Not really. The idea that Jesus’ death satisfied God’s justice is treated as sacred mystery, shielded from moral scrutiny or rational challenge.
  5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?
    • Absolutely. If God is love, why violence? If God is just, why punish the innocent? If God is powerful, why not simply forgive?

❖ Conclusion

If the Easter story is meant to reveal the love of God, we must ask whether the model of a bloody execution—required by divine decree—truly does that.

A God who demands blood is not morally superior to a God who simply forgives. In fact, the latter seems more worthy of reverence, trust, and belief.

Perhaps the real scandal of Easter is not that Jesus died—but that we thought God needed Him to.

📺 For Further Exploration

YouTube: “Rethinking Penal Substitutionary Atonement”

Description:

This video offers a critical examination of the traditional penal substitutionary atonement theory, exploring alternative perspectives that emphasize a more compassionate and non-violent understanding of God’s nature. It challenges viewers to reconsider the implications of believing in a deity who requires violent sacrifice for forgiveness.​

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.

What Day Did Jesus Die? The Good Friday Controversy

📅 Today is Day 10 of The 20-Day Easter Special

Each day leading up to Easter, we’re critically examining a core resurrection claim—one at a time—through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s Core Philosophy.

✍️ Introduction

Many Christians assume Jesus died on a Friday—after all, it’s called Good Friday, isn’t it? But once we step into the world of Gospel comparisons and ancient Jewish calendars, that assumption begins to unravel. The Gospels don’t agree on the day Jesus died—and the reason may have more to do with theology than history.

Today, we’ll examine that contradiction and explore why it matters.

📖 The Contradiction: Mark vs. John

  • Mark’s Gospel (the earliest) tells us Jesus ate the Passover meal with his disciples on Thursday night and was crucified the next morning, Friday—the day of Passover.
  • John’s Gospel (the latest) says Jesus was crucified before Passover began—because Jesus is portrayed as the sacrificial Passover Lamb.

🕰 In short:

  • In Mark, Jesus dies on Passover.
  • In John, Jesus dies before Passover.

These are not just different emphases—they are different days.

📚 How Days Worked in Ancient Judaism

To understand the contradiction, we must understand that a Jewish day ran from sunset to sunset (not midnight to midnight like ours). That’s why Jesus could have a Thursday evening meal and still die “the next day” while technically being in the same Jewish day.

So far, so good—except the timing of Passover doesn’t match across the Gospels.

📜 Why This Discrepancy Matters

The earliest Gospel (Mark) likely preserves the historical timeline: Jesus ate a Passover meal Thursday night and was crucified Friday morning.

But in John, theology takes the wheel:

  • Jesus doesn’t eat the Passover meal.
  • Jesus dies just as the Passover lambs are being slaughtered.
  • This makes Jesus the Lamb of God, fulfilling theological symbolism rather than historical accuracy.

Scholars like Bart Ehrman argue that John changed the date of Jesus’ death intentionally to fit a theological narrative—to portray Jesus as the divine Passover Lamb.

🧠 The God Question’s Core Philosophy Applied

  1. Does the claim rely on evidence or belief?
    • The tradition of a Friday crucifixion is based on belief, not a unified historical record. The Gospels offer contradictory timelines, and no external evidence confirms the exact day.
  2. Are alternative explanations considered?
    • Gospel authors had different agendas. John prioritized theology over chronology. Mark stayed closer to the timeline but added symbolic meaning through Passover imagery.
  3. Is there independent corroboration?
    • None. The Babylonian Talmud mentions a possible crucifixion date but was written centuries later, making it historically unreliable.
  4. Is the claim falsifiable?
    • Not really. The crucifixion date is treated as sacred tradition, and few within the faith community critically examine the contradiction.
  5. Does the explanation raise more questions than it answers?
    • Yes. If the death of Jesus was the most important moment in human history, why can’t even the Gospels agree on when it happened? What else might have been shaped—or reshaped—by theological motives?

📌 Conclusion

So—what day did Jesus die?

If we apply historical analysis, the most likely answer is Friday, the day of Passover, as preserved in Mark, the earliest Gospel. But that’s not what John wanted to convey. His Jesus wasn’t just a teacher executed by Rome—he was the Passover Lamb, sacrificed for humanity’s sins.

This raises a bigger question: When faith rewrites facts, how can we trust what remains?

At The God Question, we believe truth matters more than tradition. And that starts by asking the hard questions—even about the day the world says changed everything.

📺 For Further Exploration 🔗

YouTube: “Was Jesus Crucified on Wednesday, Thursday or Friday?”

Description:
This video explores the debate surrounding the day of Jesus’ crucifixion, examining arguments for Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. It delves into biblical texts and historical context to assess the evidence for each proposed day.

📅 Note: After we wrap up our 20-Day Easter Special on April 20, we’ll return to our regular schedule of posting three times a week:

  • Tuesdays & Fridays – our structured explorations through all 11 blog categories
  • Sundays – our Sunday Special Feature, where we critically respond to real-world religious claims in real time

We hope you’ll stay with us as we continue asking bold questions and applying reason to faith.