Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #31

Post by Goose »

Realworldjack wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:25 amThe question is, who owns the burden? It's not us!
I think I'm largely in agreement with what you have written. Although I might dispute that we do not own a burden. Obviously we own a burden to show our positions warrant belief if we wish to convince someone that they ought to believe as we do. Even if we our objective is not to convince but rather defend our belief from the implication that we hold it without good reasons we own some kind of burden to show we have good reasons to hold our belief. We might call this latter approach apologetics. In either case I think we own some kind of burden to supply as you said evidence, reasons, etc. But as you also said, so does the other side of the argument.
"And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral." - Goose, Christian

"Is it the case with child torture? Prove it." - Bust Nak, atheist.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 096#846096

User avatar
Goose
Guru
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2013 6:49 pm
Location: The Great White North
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #32

Post by Goose »

unknown soldier wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 1:26 pm
Goose wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:10 amYou asserted they might be myths. It’s not shifting the burden to ask that you provide some evidence to support the assertion.
If you want evidence that the Christian martyr stories might be myths, then you need go no further than to recognize what you know as well as I: it is human nature to twist the truth to conform to what one desperately wants to believe.
This kind of horrible logic cuts both ways.

If you want evidence that the Christian martyr stories might be historically accurate, then you need go no further than to recognize what you know as well as I: it is human nature to tell the truth and report events honestly.


Considering that Christians to this day create myths like they do with their miracle stories, then it is very obvious that they were making up stories all along. It is then a definite possibility that their stories of martyrdom are fabrications.
Once again this kind of bad logic cuts both ways.

Considering that Christians to this day tell the truth as their Lord commanded, then it is very obvious that they were not making up stories all along. It is then a definite possibility that their stories of martyrdom are history.


If you dispute what I'm saying here, then your burden is to demonstrate that it is impossible for the martyr stories to be made up.
I’ve already conceded it’s not impossible. So go ahead and concede for me it’s not impossible that they are all historically accurate.

You are just throwing possibilities around. Possibilities are not evidence.

As for not meeting the burden, I think I have met the historical burden. They evidence I’ve given would pass any reasonable historical method.
Do historians believe what's written in the Book of Mormon? If not, then why believe what's in Acts?
I already explained we ought to be believe (or not believe) Acts for the same reasons we believe (or don't believe) Plutarch, Suetonius, etc. Besides, what anyone believes about the book of Mormon, or Acts for that matter, is irrelevant to the point being made here which is that I’ve met an historical burden by virtue of the sources being early and contemporary.

If all that’s true then you should have no trouble demonstrating that they did create the martyr accounts out of thin air.
As long as it's possible that the martyr stories are myths, then we don't know that any of them really happened. Without that knowledge, the apologetic that I outlined in the OP fails to substantiate the resurrection.
That’s some more atrocious historical reasoning. Let’s apply your reasoning to the rest of history and see what happens.

As long as it's possible that [all the] stories [from ancient history] are myths, then we don't know that any of them really happened.

And yet you also hold the contradictory position that there is no evidence at all for martyr claims.
Actually, I thought I made it clear posting more than once that we need evidence for a specific kind of martyrdom--death chosen over recanting belief in the resurrection. You have not met that burden.
That doesn’t get you out of the contradictory position of holding that there is evidence for martyr claims and no evidence at all for martyr claims. And, yes, you’ve made it clear you need the kind of evidence with abduction and an ultimatum to either recant or die. But can’t seem to coherently explain why it fails to be a case of martyrdom without it.

We’ve got that in Peter.
It depends on whom you ask. According to Candida Moss, Peter was not executed for his belief in the resurrection but for what he preached about fornication. If Moss is right, then Peter's execution is not evidence for the apologetic that the disciples died for the resurrection.
Well Peter’s death is evidence of dying for belief in the resurrection so Moss is wrong. I gave the supporting argument which you ignored entirely.

If I suggest an alternative explanation for martyr stories, then you need to demonstrate that your explanation is more likely to be true than mine.
Talk about shifting the burden of proof.
I take this as a concession that you cannot show that your explanation for martyrdom stories is any more likely than mine.
Why on earth would you think that? I don’t need to show your explanations are less likely since you’ve provided no reason to think they are more likely. At this point they are nothing more than assertions of possibilities. All you’ve done is thrown around some possible explanations and then tried to shift the burden onto me to prove your possible explanation is less likely without providing any support for your own explanation being more likely.

Provide a link to their work where they list your six criteria.
I'd recommend you read William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith where he lays out his version of the apologetic that I outlined in the OP.
I have a copy of the 2008 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith. I couldn’t find where Craig gives your six point criteria or anything even closely resembling your strawman in the OP. Perhaps I missed it so can you provide the page number(s) since you seem to be implying you’ve the read book?

You might also try Google. Did you ever hear of it? YouTube is also very helpful.
I don’t play go fetch. If it’s simply a matter of googling it why don’t you just google it and post the link?

And if you honestly are not aware that apologists make the argument I presented in the OP, then you know a lot less about apologetics than I do.
Well so far, you haven’t been able to provide a single case of an apologist making your strawman argument in the OP. And even if you managed to find someone who did, again, I’m under no obligation to defend it because it’s not an argument I’ve made nor would make.

I dispute that I need a disciple that fits every one of your criteria to make my argument.
The criteria I listed in the OP are simply the common-sense implications of the martyrdom apologetic.
They may be the implications of the kind of martyrdom you envisage. You haven’t explained why it must be that way for it be a case of martyrdom.

I’m saying we don’t need a disciple that meets all of your criteria to make an argument for sincere belief in the resurrection derived from willingness to endure persecution and the threat of death. You are the one saying they have to have actually died after being abducted.
How are we supposed to know if a person is willing to endure execution if they never faced execution?
We already know from the evidence I provided they were willing to face death.

You haven’t explained why they need to be abducted or otherwise taken into custody for it to be a case of martyrdom. It’s like you’ve set up this specific scenario in your head where the only way it can be a case martyrdom is if they are abducted.
LOL Well, Goose, I suppose the disciples could have been taken out by snipers, but if they were sniped, then they would never have been given the chance to deny the crucifixion.
Laughing out loud doesn’t make your argument more coherent or compelling.

If the disciples had good reason to believe they could be killed for preaching a message which entailed the resurrection, chose to preach it anyway, were subsequently killed because they preached it, then that’s martyrdom for belief in the resurrection. When they chose to preach the message anyway despite the real threat of death for doing so, they implied a sincere belief. See how that works without any abduction or grand execution scene playing out?

Even in modern culture we don’t expect there to be some grand scene of abduction and ultimatum to either recant or die in order to be considered a martyr. Consider the case of Jacques Hamel. A priest killed by Muslim terrorists in 2016 while he gave mass. There was no abduction or opportunity to recant.

Why is it important to understand Richard Carrier’s declarations? Carrier is on the fringe of scholarship looking in if he declares Acts to be “completely unhistorical.”
Carrier is a competent historian. Since I cannot verify the history of the church myself, then I must rely on his expertise.
You are of course welcome to rely on the expertise of a fringe Jesus-myth scholar such as Carrier. But that doesn’t answer why it’s important to understand his declarations. Or how appealing to him proves anything about the reliability of Acts.

But since you’ve appealed to the critical scholar Bart Ehrman let’s see what he has to say on the book of Acts...

“The book of Acts is concerned with the historical development of the Christian church. Moreover, the narrative is set within a chronological framework that begins with the origin of the movement. In these respects the Acts of the Apostles is closely related to other histories produced in antiquity...The book of Acts is most like this final kind of history, one that traces the key events of a people from the point of their origin down to near the present time, to show how their character as a people was established. Scholars sometimes call this genre general history. One well-known example, produced at approximately the same time as Acts, was written by the Jewish historian Josephus [the Antiquities of the Jews].” – Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: An Historical Introduction To The Early Christian Writings, 1997, pg 115.


Although Ehrman does hold that Acts is not completely accurate and may have some fictional elements he rejects the view that it is an entirely fictionalized novel (pg 117).
I must admit I'm not a big fan of Ehrman, but he is recognized as a scholar.
Oh I see. Not a big fan of Ehrman when he undermines you. But more than happy to appeal to him when you like what he says. Case in point...
Anyway, according to Wikipedia, Bart Ehrman has identified Acts as a forgery.
But Erhman doesn’t mean forgery in the sense I think you think he means.

Ehrman gives his definition of a forgery on page 24 of Forged: Writing in the Name of God.

“My definition of a forgery, then, is a writing that claims to be written by someone (a known figure) who did not in fact write it”


Ehrman doesn’t mean forgery in the sense that Acts is an outright fabrication or entirely untrustworthy. Clearly he doesn’t think that as Ehrman appeals to the historical reliability of Acts to make other arguments. Ehrman means forgery in the sense of inauthentic authorship. Which is strange since Acts is formally anonymous.

At any rate, you’ve been trying to sweep Acts under the rug as entirely unhistorical with appeals to scholars such as Carrier who is so far on the left he’s virtually alone and Ehrman who, although I think he thinks of himself somewhere in the middle, is somewhere between the middle and the left. That’s hardly evidence that Acts is entirely unhistorical.

And why is it very weak evidence? Clement was at least a contemporary of Peter and other apostles. Historically speaking that’s quite good evidence. Do you realize how little history from the ancient world has come down to us from contemporary sources?
I simply don't trust Christians to be sound sources of information. I've been lied to by them too many times. If you want people to believe you, then you need to earn their trust.
Your personal distrust of Christian sources is hardly evidence that Acts and Clement are weak historical evidence.

Clement doesn’t need to. It’s implied by being a martyr which in turn implies dying because of one’s religious beliefs.
We need evidence for a disciple martyred for the specific belief of the resurrection. Peter could have been executed for some other reason.
I gave the evidence and the supporting argument. You literally ignored it, again, and then demand evidence. I see a trend here.

Okay at least now you are conceding there is evidence from the first Christians that some of the disciples were martyred.
If you consider a claim to be evidence, then we do have evidence for martyrdom.
Exactly. That’s pretty much all we have for ancient history. Fragmented documentary sources from ancient writers making claims about what happened. That and a very patchy archaeological record which sometimes confirms the written historical record.

If we judge evidence that way, then we have evidence for Bigfoot, ETs, and dinosaurs swimming in a Scottish lake.
But those are modern ongoing claims and thus subject to a different standard of evidence. I can go, for example, to Loch Ness and investigate the claim for the existence of Nessie. I could use sophisticated modern equipment such as sonar and underwater photography. I could sweep the lake for reptile DNA, interview eyewitnesses, and so on. I can’t do any of that with martyrdom accounts from ancient history.

In closing, I should say that I just ordered a copy of Moss's The Myth of Persecution and plan to share what I learn in this forum. You should get ready finding ways to deny what she wrote because you're not going to like it.
Since you seem to be very interested in this topic (so much so that you are buying books on it) may I suggest, in the interest of getting the perspective of the other side of the argument, also buying Sean McDowell’s The Fate of the Apostles. I haven’t read it myself but apparently McDowell spent three years researching the topic for his Doctorial thesis and the book is the product of his research.
"And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral." - Goose, Christian

"Is it the case with child torture? Prove it." - Bust Nak, atheist.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 096#846096

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1844
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #33

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to brunumb in post #29]
Nope. The reports are claims or allegations. What we need are facts and evidence to demonstrate that the reports are true. You have it around the wrong way.
Nope! I'm afraid not my friend. Because you see, I am not insisting the claims would be true. Rather, I am simply claiming to believe the claims, based upon the facts, and evidence we have. Therefore, I do not own the burden to demonstrate anything at all, other than there would be facts, evidence, and reasons in support. On the other hand, in your previous post, you stated,
The alleged reports are nothing more than claims.
For one to insist the "reports are nothing more than claims" would be to insist there would be nothing to the claims. Is this what you intend to say? I highly doubt it, because it is a fact that the reports have not in any way been demonstrated to be "nothing more than claims". Maybe what you mean to say is, "the reports cannot be demonstrated to be anything more than claims"? If so, then you would be correct. However, simply because the reports have not been demonstrated to be anything more than claims, does not in any way demonstrate that the "reports would be nothing more than claims". If you insist the "reports are nothing more than claims", then it is you who owns the burden to demonstrate your claim.

However, the fact of the matter is, there is far more to it than simply the claims. Because you see, we have one author who sits down to write not just one, but two long, and detailed letters to one individual, and this author happens to explain to this individual, why he is writing these letters to him, and also explains to this individual how he obtained his information. The reason given for writing these letters is said to be, in order for this individual, "to know the exact truth". The author then goes on to explain to this individual that he had, "investigated everything carefully from the beginning". Well, in order for this author to have "investigated everything from the beginning" would have to entail the author would have been alive at the time of the events, in order to preform such an investigation.

Well, guess what? We have very strong evidence to support the conclusion that this author would have been a traveling companion of Paul. In fact, the evidence is undeniable! There are those who are opposed who understand this evidence I speak of is undeniable, which is exactly why they understand they must, and have to attempt to come up with some other explanation in order to attempt to explain this evidence in another way. Otherwise, there would be no need for these other explanations.

At any rate, if the evidence is as it certainly seems, that this author would have traveled with Paul, this would mean this author would have been alive at the time of the events, the author would have known Paul, and the rest of the apostles, and would have heard the claims they were making from their very lips.

The whole point involved here would be, there is a reason this author sat down to write out these two long and detailed letters to this one individual, along with the fact that there would be a reason we have other authors making the very same claim of the resurrection, and the reason either has to do with the fact they were reporting the truth or, they were reporting falsely.

So then, either you know, and can demonstrate these authors would have been reporting falsely, and you would own the burden or, you are no different than myself, and can only share what you believe to be the truth, hopefully based upon the facts, and evidence we have.

But, one thing is a fact, that none of us can deny, and that would be the fact that there is no doubt that something very extraordinary occurred some 2000 years ago. That is, either these men were reporting the truth, and there was indeed a resurrection or, these ordinary men went on to create the biggest hoax in the history of the world, which has consumed the lives of millions, upon millions down through the years, which would include even you.

I mean think about this? We have many on this very site, whose lives were consumed with believing these reports, and now that they have rejected what they once embraced, these reports still continue to consume their lives, as they spend day, after day, on a web site, attempting to refute these reports, and all to no avail. My friend, I don't care who you are, that is incredible, and goes on to demonstrate that there is far more the these reports, than simply claims!

To end here, I will simply repeat what I have said many times. There are those on both sides of the equation who seem to be under the impression that these things are all so simple. We have Christians who seem to be under the impression that it is as simple as, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it", but it is not that simple at all. However, I can assure you, and have demonstrated that it is not as simple as claiming, "the reports are simply claims", because as we can see, there is far more to it than that. So then, we certainly have those who are under the impression that it is all so simple, and are satisfied with simple answers, and then there are those who understand it is not that simple at all.
Last edited by Realworldjack on Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1844
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #34

Post by Realworldjack »

Goose wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:47 am
Realworldjack wrote: Tue Oct 13, 2020 11:25 amThe question is, who owns the burden? It's not us!
I think I'm largely in agreement with what you have written. Although I might dispute that we do not own a burden. Obviously we own a burden to show our positions warrant belief if we wish to convince someone that they ought to believe as we do. Even if we our objective is not to convince but rather defend our belief from the implication that we hold it without good reasons we own some kind of burden to show we have good reasons to hold our belief. We might call this latter approach apologetics. In either case I think we own some kind of burden to supply as you said evidence, reasons, etc. But as you also said, so does the other side of the argument.
We are in complete agreement! As I have said in the past, "I cannot demonstrate a resurrection occurred. I can however demonstrate, there are facts, evidence, and reasons to believe this to be the case".

unknown soldier
Scholar
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2020 7:32 pm
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #35

Post by unknown soldier »

Goose wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:05 am
If you want evidence that the Christian martyr stories might be myths, then you need go no further than to recognize what you know as well as I: it is human nature to twist the truth to conform to what one desperately wants to believe.
This kind of horrible logic cuts both ways.

If you want evidence that the Christian martyr stories might be historically accurate, then you need go no further than to recognize what you know as well as I: it is human nature to tell the truth and report events honestly.
Yes, those are the two possibilities regarding martyr stories: they may or may not be historical. I say we consider fairly both possibilities.
Considering that Christians to this day create myths like they do with their miracle stories, then it is very obvious that they were making up stories all along. It is then a definite possibility that their stories of martyrdom are fabrications.
Once again this kind of bad logic cuts both ways.

Considering that Christians to this day tell the truth as their Lord commanded, then it is very obvious that they were not making up stories all along. It is then a definite possibility that their stories of martyrdom are history.
That's right. Christians don't always tell the truth, so it is possible that there is some truth to their martyr stories, but we need to be careful to recognize lies in what they say.
So go ahead and concede for me it’s not impossible that they are all historically accurate.
Yes. Some Christians probably were martyred, a claim I never denied. We know that the early Christian sect knowingly led its followers into life-threatening situations pitting them against the Romans. Although the Christian leaders of that time knew full well what the Romans did to rebels, they nevertheless encouraged converts to refuse to worship the emperor. The results were tragic for many Christians some of whom were burned alive or torn to pieces by wild animals.
You are just throwing possibilities around. Possibilities are not evidence.
You know full well that all possibilities need to be fairly considered to sensibly determine if any Christians did in fact die for the resurrection.
I already explained we ought to be believe (or not believe) Acts for the same reasons we believe (or don't believe) Plutarch, Suetonius, etc.
Then why not believe Joseph Smith? It's interesting how the more we know about religious propagandists, the more we see just how dishonest they are. If Luke lived at the same time Joseph Smith did, then we might see Luke just like we see Joseph Smith!
As long as it's possible that the martyr stories are myths, then we don't know that any of them really happened. Without that knowledge, the apologetic that I outlined in the OP fails to substantiate the resurrection.
That’s some more atrocious historical reasoning. Let’s apply your reasoning to the rest of history and see what happens.

As long as it's possible that [all the] stories [from ancient history] are myths, then we don't know that any of them really happened.
If all the evidence we had for stories from antiquity was the word of Christians, then we wouldn't know that any of it happened.

Goose, you really seem to be getting it!
Actually, I thought I made it clear posting more than once that we need evidence for a specific kind of martyrdom--death chosen over recanting belief in the resurrection. You have not met that burden.
That doesn’t get you out of the contradictory position of holding that there is evidence for martyr claims and no evidence at all for martyr claims. And, yes, you’ve made it clear you need the kind of evidence with abduction and an ultimatum to either recant or die. But can’t seem to coherently explain why it fails to be a case of martyrdom without it.
I post the difference between the kinds of martyrdom I'm discussing, and you go on saying that I'm contradicting myself completely missing what I just got done explaining.

Goose, maybe I spoke too soon because you're not getting it.
Well Peter’s death is evidence of dying for belief in the resurrection so Moss is wrong.
Why should anybody believe you over Moss? She has the credentials. What are your credentials aside from saying that a martyrdom does not require an actual execution?
I have a copy of the 2008 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith. I couldn’t find where Craig gives your six point criteria or anything even closely resembling your strawman in the OP.
In what way does Craig's version of the apologetic differ from the implied criteria I posted in the OP? I think you're trying to argue that since I explicitly stated what's implied in the apologetic, then that somehow distorts the apologetic. Of course you are wrong. Clarifying implications is not a straw man.
If it’s simply a matter of googling it why don’t you just google it and post the link?
I'm glad you asked. An apologist lied to me once saying that if I posted links to evidence he demanded, then he would concede what I was stating. I posted the links, and he refused to concede that I was right. I don't play games like that.

Is that the kind of truth that Christians tell as commanded by their Lord?
Laughing out loud doesn’t make your argument more coherent or compelling.
If you don't want to be laughed at, then don't make laughable arguments.
If the disciples had good reason to believe they could be killed for preaching a message which entailed the resurrection, chose to preach it anyway, were subsequently killed because they preached it, then that’s martyrdom for belief in the resurrection. When they chose to preach the message anyway despite the real threat of death for doing so, they implied a sincere belief. See how that works without any abduction or grand execution scene playing out?
No, that's martyrdom for preaching. They may have preached, but that doesn't prove they would die for the resurrection. We can't know if they truly would have died for the resurrection unless they did die for that reason. They may have shouted, "I recant!" only to be executed anyway.
Your personal distrust of Christian sources is hardly evidence that Acts and Clement are weak historical evidence.
Well, obviously you might want to uncritically accept the word of Christians, but I prefer more credible sources.
If you consider a claim to be evidence, then we do have evidence for martyrdom.
Exactly. That’s pretty much all we have for ancient history. Fragmented documentary sources from ancient writers making claims about what happened.
Many of the documents from antiquity describe stories that never happened too. People of that time loved creating myths which in many ways closely resemble the works of the New Testament. Since many of the stories people of that era wrote about are not true history, then we need to use our brains to separate fact from fiction.

Such critical thinking is anathema to Christian faith.
But those are modern ongoing claims and thus subject to a different standard of evidence. I can go, for example, to Loch Ness and investigate the claim for the existence of Nessie. I could use sophisticated modern equipment such as sonar and underwater photography. I could sweep the lake for reptile DNA, interview eyewitnesses, and so on. I can’t do any of that with martyrdom accounts from ancient history.
That's right! Since we generally have far less evidence for older stories, we cannot say with much assurance that very old stories are true. That's why we need to take care not to be too quick to believe what the first Christians claimed, and that includes their tales of martyrdom.
Since you seem to be very interested in this topic (so much so that you are buying books on it) may I suggest, in the interest of getting the perspective of the other side of the argument, also buying Sean McDowell’s The Fate of the Apostles.
I watched the YouTube video. Since McDowell is a Christian apologist, I'm not quick to believe what he says.
Even in modern culture we don’t expect there to be some grand scene of abduction and ultimatum to either recant or die in order to be considered a martyr. Consider the case of Jacques Hamel. A priest killed by Muslim terrorists in 2016 while he gave mass. There was no abduction or opportunity to recant.
I wouldn't call Hamel a martyr. A lot of people are killed, but being killed is not enough to make one a martyr. Which, by the way, is what a Christian apologist argued when I told him that Joseph Smith was killed!

So will you argue against your fellow apologist now that his apologetic is not handy to defend Christianity?

So Goose, if you don't have the evidence to support the claim that some of the disciples died for the resurrection, then I will move on.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #36

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:33 pm Nope! I'm afraid not my friend. Because you see, I am not insisting the claims would be true. Rather, I am simply claiming to believe the claims, based upon the facts, and evidence we have.
Based on the facts and evidence we have, I find that there is no compelling reason to believe that the claims are true. Your threshold of credibility must be different if you are convinced otherwise. It all then rests there since you have no apparent intention of convincing anyone else that you are right. If you did, then the burden of proof would be yours.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1844
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #37

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to brunumb in post #36]
Based on the facts and evidence we have, I find that there is no compelling reason to believe that the claims are true.
Imagine my surprise! But in reality, this is no surprise at all. As I have continued to say, "we can all look at the same exact evidence, and come to completely different conclusions". I have no problem with this in the least. However, it could be that one simply stops at a certain point, while the other continues on to think beyond this certain point. As an example, I have dealt with many folks who simply stop at the fact that a resurrection would be impossible, and for these folks that is reason enough not to go any further. Again, I want to stress that I have no problem at all with those who are satisfied with this sort of thinking, and I am fine with any conclusion they choose to come to. The problem comes in, when these same folks want to go on to insist, that I have no reason to believe as I do, when they cannot in any way whatsoever, demonstrate their case.

Next, as I have already discussed, there are certainly folks who are satisfied with easy answers, while there are others who are not so easily satisfied. There are others who truly want to believe a certain thing, and since this is what they would rather believe, then it does not take much at all to convince them to believe, what they already want to believe. As an example, there are those right here on this site who claim they really wanted to believe Christianity to be true, and they go on to admit that all it took to convince them, was the word of others. They wake up suddenly one day, and come to realize that they only came to believe Christianity to be true on the word of others, and now they really want to believe Christianity to be false, but they demonstrate they really have no idea what Christianity is, because they have simply taken the word of others, but now that they have changed their mind, they continue to simply take the word of others, which is demonstrated now by the one who wants to appeal to Candida Moss, and other such scholars. In fact, allow me to demonstrate, by giving you a direct quote from this member,
unknown soldier wrote:Carrier is a competent historian. Since I cannot verify the history of the church myself, then I must rely on his expertise.
GOOD GRIEF! So then, it would seem that all we have done is to go from taking the word of those who convinced us Christianity was true, to taking the word of those who are opposed? The question is, when does one begin to think for themselves?
Your threshold of credibility must be different if you are convinced otherwise.
Well no, this is not necessarily the case. In other words, as explained above, there could be a number of reasons we come to different conclusions. It could be me who has a bias, or it could be you. One of us my be easily satisfied, while the other is not. Or, it could be simply the fact that we look at the same exact evidence, and honestly come to different conclusions. Again, I am fine with any conclusion you, and others may come to. The problem comes in when there are those who want to insist that I have no reason to believe as I do, when they cannot demonstrate this to be the case.
It all then rests there since you have no apparent intention of convincing anyone else that you are right.
I do not have to convince anyone that there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection, because this would simply be a fact. If you claim there would be no facts, evidence, and reasons to believe these reports, then it would be you who owns the burden. With this being said, I am not insisting there would be no reasons to doubt the claims, or not believe the claims. It depends on how far one wants to go in their thinking process, and I am fine with whatever you choose to believe, as long as you are not insisting that I have no reason to believe as I do.
If you did, then the burden of proof would be yours.
One owns the burden who is making a claim. The only claim I am making is, there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of a resurrection, and I can surely demonstrate this to be the case. What seems sort of strange to me is, when there are those who freely admit they once truly embraced something to be true, that they now want to insist there would be no reason to believe? GOOD GRIEF!

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #38

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:39 am The only claim I am making is, there would be facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims of a resurrection, and I can surely demonstrate this to be the case.
OK, all you have really demonstrated is that people believed the claims of a resurrection. That's a far cry from demonstrating that the resurrection actually occurred. Let's face it, people today believe in the resurrection for no better reason than that they were told it happened.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1844
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 5 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #39

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to brunumb in post #38]
OK, all you have really demonstrated is that people believed the claims of a resurrection.
I have not said a word about "people believing the claims of a resurrection"? What I am saying is, there are facts, evidence, and reason in support of the claims. All you are really doing, is to avoid this fact, by attempting to build your own "straw man".
That's a far cry from demonstrating that the resurrection actually occurred.
I have never in all my years on this site ever claimed that the resurrection can be demonstrated. However, this takes nothing away from the fact that there are facts, evidence, and reason in support of the claim. Again, you are avoiding the actual argument, and creating your own.
Let's face it, people today believe in the resurrection for no better reason than that they were told it happened.
All we have to do to confirm what you say is to look at the many here on this site who claim to have been convinced Christianity was true, who now freely admit they believed it to be true, based on what they were told by others. But, what in the world would this have to do with the truth of the matter? Well, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with it. In other words, if one believed the Sun to be stationary, simply based on what they had been told, would this cause what they happen to believe, to be any less true? The question is, what in the world do you think this fact demonstrates? Are you under the impression that since there are many Christians who believe simply because of what they have been told, somehow demonstrates Christianity to be false? I assure you it has nothing to do with it.

However, there is something else you need to face, and that would be the fact that there are many, well educated, and intelligent folks who were at one time opposed to Christianity, who became convinced Christianity is in fact true, based upon their study of the facts, and evidence involved. Now, are you under any sort of impression that this fact would in any way demonstrate Christianity would be true? Certainly not! So then, what would cause you to think that Christians believing simply upon what they have been told, would be any sort of argument? It is not an argument in the least!

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1921
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 203 times
Been thanked: 90 times

Re: Does martyrdom prove the resurrection?

Post #40

Post by brunumb »

Realworldjack wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:31 am I have never in all my years on this site ever claimed that the resurrection can be demonstrated. However, this takes nothing away from the fact that there are facts, evidence, and reason in support of the claim.
Your alleged facts, evidence, and reason in support of the claim are not worth much if they do not demonstrate that the resurrection actually occurred. When it can be demonstrated then that is the time to believe. Until then I reserve judgement and see no reason to accept belief in something that could very well be false. Believing in things that just might be true but have not been shown to be true is not really prudent.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Post Reply