Apologetics You're Unlikely to Hear

[unknown soldier]

Can you explain why apologists are unlikely to make the following arguments?

The Argument from the Unique Traits of Evidence for Christianity
Evidence for Christianity is unlike the evidence for other religions in that we write lots of books to defend our faith, we testify to our experiences with God, we have eyewitnesses to verify our beliefs, and we share stories of miracles and answers to our prayers. Heck, some of us even die for our faith, and we couldn't die that way if our religion is untrue. What other religion can offer such evidence?

The Argument From the Character of Christians:
If you skeptics want to see why God is real, then just look at the character of us Christians. Only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost can explain our superhuman honesty, trustworthiness, and sensible behavior.

The Argument From Substantive Presentation (We will show you.):
If a jumble of words does not convince you, and you want to actually see God, then just lookee here--here he is!

The Argument from Knowledge:
I can tell you anything you want to know because I'm talking to God, and he will tell me.

The Argument From Testing Prayer:
God's power is granted through prayer, so go ahead and test prayer to see if what I'm saying is true.

The Argument From Read the Bible and See
We are so confident that the Holy Bible is the word of God, that we ask you to read it and come to your own conclusions regarding its divine authorship. We will accept any conclusion you come to and will treat you with respect even if you disagree with us.

The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration:
1 Corinthians 12 clearly promises us Christians the power to heal miraculously, and I will prove it to be true. Get those TV cameras ready, and assemble the skeptics to be eyewitnesses. Now, see this amputee over here? Just watch me go restore his legs in the name of Jesus!

[Clownboat]

Do you know how many Christian forums I have been banned from in the past 12 years because some Christian moderator who HATES my eternal knowledge so bad that they cannot tolerate it?

Yes. I know the exact number of forums you've been banned from.

Jeremiah 6
10: To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn, they take no pleasure in it.

What makes you so sure this passage isn't referring to you?

Because I am the only one who understands all the prophecies. No human being can understand them because human beings are only temporary. Their CREATED MINDS are all influenced by information known as Satan and the Beast and it's the CREATED MINDS in the invisible IMAGE of our CREATOR that is eternal, not human bodies.

And once again, a debate topic gets turned in to nonsense.
Thanks for your random ramblings IAMinyou. They sure help to foster good debate!

[unknown soldier]

Do you know how many Christian forums I have been banned from in the past 12 years because some Christian moderator who HATES my eternal knowledge so bad that they cannot tolerate it?

Yes. I know the exact number of forums you've been banned from.

Jeremiah 6
10: To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn, they take no pleasure in it.

What makes you so sure this passage isn't referring to you?

Because I am the only one who understands all the prophecies. No human being can understand them because human beings are only temporary. Their CREATED MINDS are all influenced by information known as Satan and the Beast and it's the CREATED MINDS in the invisible IMAGE of our CREATOR that is eternal, not human bodies.

Assuming that you are serious, it appears to me that merely "hearing voices in one's head" is rather trivial compared to what you believe. Religious belief like this obviously involves a sense of extreme self-importance and feeling uniquely superior to others. Other people are not just different but are different in a very negative way. This kind of belief also involves a rejection of that which is "common" in lieu of what is extreme or infinite.

Jesus, if we can trust the gospel writers, experienced the same symptoms. He was a megalomaniac because he granted to himself extreme self-importance. He was literally God's "right-hand man." To Jesus, all who rejected him would be eternally punished in hell. Nobody was his equal. Any person who disagreed with him was a fool who was doomed. For him any disagreement was a lie that he could not tolerate because he personified truth itself. He rejected and told others to reject everyday needs and concerns and turned attention to what he believed was an eternal fate for all people.

So although Christ is long gone, his mental state is still very much with us.

[IAMinyou]

Do you know how many Christian forums I have been banned from in the past 12 years because some Christian moderator who HATES my eternal knowledge so bad that they cannot tolerate it?

Yes. I know the exact number of forums you've been banned from.

Jeremiah 6
10: To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn, they take no pleasure in it.

What makes you so sure this passage isn't referring to you?

Because I am the only one who understands all the prophecies. No human being can understand them because human beings are only temporary. Their CREATED MINDS are all influenced by information known as Satan and the Beast and it's the CREATED MINDS in the invisible IMAGE of our CREATOR that is eternal, not human bodies.

And once again, a debate topic gets turned in to nonsense.
Thanks for your random ramblings IAMinyou. They sure help to foster good debate!

A good debate takes two good liars to prove to other liars who is a better master debater.

[IAMinyou]

Do you know how many Christian forums I have been banned from in the past 12 years because some Christian moderator who HATES my eternal knowledge so bad that they cannot tolerate it?

Yes. I know the exact number of forums you've been banned from.

Jeremiah 6
10: To whom shall I speak and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ears are closed, they cannot listen; behold, the word of the LORD is to them an object of scorn, they take no pleasure in it.

What makes you so sure this passage isn't referring to you?

Because I am the only one who understands all the prophecies. No human being can understand them because human beings are only temporary. Their CREATED MINDS are all influenced by information known as Satan and the Beast and it's the CREATED MINDS in the invisible IMAGE of our CREATOR that is eternal, not human bodies.

Assuming that you are serious, it appears to me that merely "hearing voices in one's head" is rather trivial compared to what you believe. Religious belief like this obviously involves a sense of extreme self-importance and feeling uniquely superior to others. Other people are not just different but are different in a very negative way. This kind of belief also involves a rejection of that which is "common" in lieu of what is extreme or infinite.

Jesus, if we can trust the gospel writers, experienced the same symptoms. He was a megalomaniac because he granted to himself extreme self-importance. He was literally God's "right-hand man." To Jesus, all who rejected him would be eternally punished in hell. Nobody was his equal. Any person who disagreed with him was a fool who was doomed. For him any disagreement was a lie that he could not tolerate because he personified truth itself. He rejected and told others to reject everyday needs and concerns and turned attention to what he believed was an eternal fate for all people.

So although Christ is long gone, his mental state is still very much with us.

You only BELIEVE that Christ is long gone. I know differently but since I AM invisible, I cannot make you BELIEVE in what is invisible. All you have is the VISIBLE things around you that eventually disappear including you.

[Difflugia]

Jesus, if we can trust the gospel writers, experienced the same symptoms. He was a megalomaniac because he granted to himself extreme self-importance. He was literally God's "right-hand man." To Jesus, all who rejected him would be eternally punished in hell. Nobody was his equal. Any person who disagreed with him was a fool who was doomed. For him any disagreement was a lie that he could not tolerate because he personified truth itself. He rejected and told others to reject everyday needs and concerns and turned attention to what he believed was an eternal fate for all people.

You've actually described Paul more than you have Jesus.

But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said before, so say I now again, If any man preacheth unto you any gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? or am I striving to please men? if I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ.

For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. For ye have heard of my manner of life in time past in the Jews’ religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and made havoc of it: and I advanced in the Jews’ religion beyond many of mine own age among my countrymen, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me, even from my mother’s womb, and called me through his grace, to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles; straightway I conferred not with flesh and blood: neither went I up to Jerusalem to them that were apostles before me: but I went away into Arabia; and again I returned unto Damascus.

False modesty? Not on Paul's watch!

[unknown soldier]

You've actually described Paul more than you have Jesus.

Both Paul and Jesus had symptoms of megalomania. It was their way or the "hell way." The two figures are suspiciously alike in many other ways both having disciples and deadly encounters with mobs of Jews who were indignant at what was being preached by the two sect leaders.

False modesty? Not on Paul's watch!

I would describe Paul as a self-appointed prophet because as far as I know, nobody else selected him believing he had a gift of prophecy. Many religious people like Paul see themselves as special no doubt wanting to see themselves that way. That's why both Jesus and Paul could not tolerate competing prophets. If others were also prophets of God, then Jesus and Paul were not so special considering that anybody could claim to be a prophet of God.

[Don Mc]

`

Without even approaching Jesus mythicism or questioning the crucifixion, there's still a great deal of uncertainty over which parts of the Gospels and Acts are historical. In most cases, "it tells the right story" has at least as much explanatory power as "it happened that way" and requires fewer ad hoc assumptions.

That's stated fairly, and fairly well. But my point was that the central evidentiary claim of Christianity, the resurrection, is set apart from other religious claims in that it is, or was, falsifiable in principle. If the resurrection story was made up, the authors went to tremendous lengths to make it appear that it took place in a well-documented historical setting, that it was easily falsifiable (by inspecting the tomb), and that they believed it to the core of their being.

You're still assuming that enough church tradition is true that your argument is nearly circular.

No, I'm explicitly not assuming that church tradition is true.

I'm saying that even on the overtly nontraditional premise that the Gospels were entirely fabricated by some naïve religious people who for no discernible reason decided to believe that Jesus performed miracles and had risen from the dead thirty years before, they somehow managed to create a story that reads as historical narrative and includes an ingenious empty tomb account that would have made the resurrection falsifiable for Jesus' disciples as well as his enemies – and all of that many centuries before anyone spoke seriously about "falsifiability." In other words the authors were remarkably naïve and sincere at the same time that they were remarkably clever and cynical.

Paul doesn't include any verifiable elements of the crucifixion, burial, or resurrection in any of the epistles. His descriptions are vague and spiritual enough that we have no idea if any part of his conception of Christ's passion aligns with the Gospels and there are clues that it doesn't (the "different flesh" of 1 Corinthians 15 is at odds with the experience of "doubting" Thomas, for example).

One possible reason Paul's epistles don't read as Gospels is that they were written for a different purpose. That is, Paul didn't bother to continually recount the central facts of the gospel narrative because they were already known by those in the church through oral tradition (and most likely some written documents as well). Rather it appears they needed theological understanding of those facts, and because Paul was so often in prison or else far removed from a particular church in need of correction or instruction, he wrote letters. Had he not face those impediments we probably would not have them today. You mentioned 1 Corinthians 15. There Paul leads into an in-depth theological treatment of the resurrection with a quick recap of the historical context of the gospel in verses 1-4:

1Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, 2by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you—unless you believed in vain.3For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures,…

Why such short shrift given to these foundational gospel facts? Well, he's merely reminding them of what he and they both already knew: "I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you…. I delivered to you…that which I also received..." Without an implicit shared background understanding of Jesus' crucifixion, burial and resurrection, Paul's epistles would be almost nonsensical.

Mark's account has a tomb, but doesn't identify it, so what tomb would a skeptical investigator inspect? Furthermore, Mark wasn't written until at least the 50s according to even the most optimistic attempts to make it as early as possible. The Zondervan Study Bible says:

Dating the Gospels is notoriously difficult. But the above scenario is consistent with the bulk of church tradition, which has Mark writing while Peter is yet living. That dates it perhaps in the late AD 50s or early 60s.

Let's say that someone knew what tomb to look in and found it. What should they find that would confirm anything? A plaque announcing that this tomb was found empty twenty-five years ago?

Scholars of all theological stripes agree that the Gospels (including Mark) were not simply written at a single sitting by a single author trying to remember what happened decades before. They represent units of teaching, preaching and tradition that began to circulate shortly after the crucifixion and resurrection. Thus it seems rational to suppose that the first "investigators" of the tomb were not the first readers of the first published text of Mark, but the disciples and detractors of Jesus – those most immediately concerned with the resurrection question.

In other words, the most plausible alternative to the resurrection is a sophisticated and cynical conspiracy, without any clear purpose, yet cooked up by "ignorant fishermen" who had nothing to gain from it and everything to lose.

The most plausible explanation is that Christians in the 30s believed in a spiritual, nonphysical resurrection. By the time the 70s rolled around, some of the Christians had convinced themselves that Jesus had risen from the dead in a way that left a tomb empty. It's unlikely that (or at least arguable whether) the Gospels were actually written by "ignorant fisherman." More plausibly, we have the writings of literate and educated folks that were already members of fledgling Christian sects who were not only trying to convince others to join, but to shore up the faith of and encourage those that were already fellow members. Explanations that are rightly considered "ad hoc" rely on apologetic arguments that try to dismiss the new problems created by the explanations themselves. Despite common-sense expectation, for example, poor Galilean fisherman like Peter, James, and John are asserted to have written documents in Greek, shaped by Greek standards of rhetorical argument.

Okay, so we have (at least) two possible explanations:

1. The resurrection happened, the account of it was transmitted within the community and kept in the memory of the disciples and their converts via oral tradition (and possibly some written documents), then was published in the Gospels to broadcast the message to a wider audience and to preserve the narrative for future generations.

2. The resurrection did not happen, the church was perfectly content to believe in a "spiritual" resurrection for forty years, after which some of the believers inexplicably convinced themselves that Jesus had risen not only spiritually but physically and felt compelled to fabricate a story to explain this new but wholly unfounded belief. These latter believers – unlike the poor blue-collar ignoramuses who only believed in a spiritual resurrection – were more literate and educated, which enabled them to tell the revised story with at least some knowledge of Greek and a bit of rhetorical panache.

The first scenario seems relatively simple and in keeping with common practices of the time such as maintaining an oral tradition based on memorable units of teaching – and it's plausible if one permits the possibility that Christian doctrine is actually true, and therefore a resurrection took place in history. And even if the stereotype holds, first century rednecks like Peter, James and John had plenty of time in the years between conversion and authorship to become less interested in fishing and more interested in Scripture and related scholarly pursuits (not to mention that Luke evidently had a well-rounded education all the while, with a mastery of Greek in particular). I know this from experience. Before I became a Christian in in 1985 I had no interest in books or letters, least of all the Bible. That all changed quickly and dramatically upon conversion.

The second scenario appears lacking by comparison. There is no explanation, for example, for how or why first century Jews would have initially (the 30's) recognized any particular significance in Jesus' spiritual resurrection if it was a common belief that everyone would experience a spiritual resurrection anyway. Nor is there any explanation for why the later Christians (in the 70's) came to believe that Jesus resurrected physically if Jesus never said anything about it, there was strictly no evidence for it, and there was apparently no need for it (from all indications the churches were growing at a healthy clip without believers arbitrarily adding new and controversial theological wrinkles). And if belief in miracles is a mark of ignorance, and skepticism a sign of education, we have to wonder why the church had to wait for more sophisticated literary types to tell the story of Jesus' bodily resurrection in historical terms.

If you still think that's somehow implausible, read through the Dead Sea Scrolls. The most interesting parts of the scrolls aren't the various copies of Old Testament books (though those are interesting), but the rules for the community and prophetic, apocalyptic stories of the coming war between the "sons of light" and "sons of darkness." Did they make up these prophecies? By any reasonably objective standard, they did. We can ask what they would gain by that, but we know. Objectively, they were slaughtered to a person by the Roman Army a few years later. Subjectively, we can only assume that they believed to the end that they would attain some sort of salvation.

Your incredulity itself at various motivations for writing the Gospels was never evidence of anything in the first place, but we even have historical examples that belie that very incredulity.

I may be incredulous, but clearly I'm not alone in that, and my skepticism of the earliest disciples' willingness to die for an easily falsifiable fabrication is based on basic universals of human psychology. The critical point for me is that – in principle, and for the disciples even if not for the "sons of light" or later generations of believers – the tomb was publicly accessible.

That said, it's far from evident – if we allow the existence of God as an open question – that such a conspiracy requires fewer ad hoc assumptions than a resurrection that was prophesied by a man who claimed to be the Son of God and was widely reported performing miracles.

You're allowing far more than just the existence of God because, once again, you're sneaking dubious details from the very document in question over to the side of established fact. A resurrection that was prophesied by Jesus himself? To whom and when? Paul records no such prophecy. We instead have a tradition of such a prophecy at least twenty years later.

That brings us back to the relative plausibility of a historical interpretation of historical narrative versus what amounts to an elaborate and ingenious hoax.

I fully concede that it's possible the Gospel writers projected the entire narrative into the past, complete with Jesus predicting his own resurrection. But it doesn't seem at all probable given the reverence the believers had for Jesus, the sincerity of their faith, and the problem of widely publishing these manifest distortions without a hint of protest from people still alive (believers and otherwise) who knew better. To me it all starts to sound like a secular-historical version of Last Thursdayism.

And don't forget that along with predicting his own murder and resurrection, Jesus is depicted predicting the destruction of the Temple. One would think that if the account of Jesus predicting the Temple's destruction was added to the account after the fact, at least one of the Synoptic writers would have had Jesus go ahead and supply an answer to the question, "When will these things be?" He could have even been made to say something relatively cryptic in reply like, "In the reign of the last of four kings a son of the king will arise…" – alluding to Titus and Vespasian.

Claimed to be God? If modern theologians still argue over whether the texts we have mean that even now, you can't justifiably put it in your pile of established facts. "Widely reported?" To whom and when? The earliest evidence of this is in the stories under debate.

In fairness, I said "Son of God." But yes, the best evidence of miracle reports circulating among first century Judeans is within the texts, and is given as one of the reasons for his execution. The Babylonian Talmud suggests that Jesus was executed for "sorcery," which sounds like an allusion to his miracle ministry. You think Jewish Rabbis were in on the conspiracy?

Well, I think the Gospels and the book of Acts are strong prima facie evidence that the disciples acted as described.

It would have to be prima facie evidence, because no other documentation exists to corroborate any of it.

Even apart from the fact that the four Gospels and the book of Acts are not a single source but five sources, that's an overstatement. There's corroboration from Roman historians and church fathers, along with all kinds of archaeological evidence.

The NT accounts straightforwardly depict a magical tale of how a small, beleaguered group of misfits founded a successful religion. After the miracle-working avatar of God was slain by agents of the evil empire, the heroes were losing their nerve in the face of what appeared to be a hopeless situation. When the heroes were variously contemplating their darkest hour (the stories differ "somewhat" on exactly how) their dead leader walked up, teleported, or transformed (again, details are "somewhat" different) before them to restore their fortitude. Stories of founding sect members having supernatural reassurance in difficult situations can be explained several ways. Even if we assume that God is real, claiming that the stories actually happened requires asserting that God acted in unique ways that he normally doesn't, which is the very definition of ad hoc.

I don't think that's right. The definition of ad hoc is not uniqueness in the phenomena to be explained. Otherwise, it would be ad hoc to claim that the 2001 attacks on the twin towers of the World Trade Center by foreign terrorists, using domestic airliners as missiles, actually happened. Ad hockery has more to do with the addition of extraneous elements to make a preferred explanation compatible with the relevant facts. As it happens, notably complex conspiracy theories are commonly cited alternative explanations for both the demolition of the Trade Center on 9/11 and the resurrection of Jesus.

The key players interact with known historical personalities like Pilate, Caiaphas, Porcius Festus and Herod Agrippa, in cities and buildings confirmed by archaeological digs.

These are all features of historical fiction.

Yes, and they are also features of genuine history. But unlike writers of fiction, who openly admit and often boast that they invented the characters and events in their books out of their talented imaginations, the Gospel writers make a point to assert that what they have written is true. That alone suggests that the Gospels don't really belong in the genre of fiction. The primary purpose of historical fiction is basically leisurely – to entertain – even if the readers are treated to historical information along the way. The primary purpose of the Gospels is informative – to enlighten readers to the historical reality of Christ's teaching, healing ministry, crucifixion and resurrection.

Now what I find really fascinating there is the archaeological evidence. Luke and John, especially, make reference to various sites, architectural features, and personalities apparently not otherwise widely known and only confirmed by archaeologists centuries later. Writers of historical fiction don't (and can't) do anything of the sort.

You keep talking about falsifiability as though it somehow applies more to Christianity that it does to Tibetan Buddhism, Mormonism, or Islam. They all make historical claims, but they also fade into historical obscurity in ways that can't be verified.

If you disagree, then I challenge you to pick any of the writings that you consider canonical and assume the standpoint of someone holding that document immediately after it was written and the ink is barely dry. What assertion could anyone check? What would they have found that would have disintegrated their belief system? Now, let's say that someone did do that. Would that have affected everyone else's?

I do disagree. For me the question is not whether the accounts were verifiable when (or just after) they were written, but whether, in principle, the earliest disciples were able to verify that the tomb was empty three days after the crucifixion of Jesus.

Do you think that simply falsifying a claim is enough to disabuse enough true believers of their faith to destroy a movement? Mormons are convinced that the Book of Mormon describes aboriginal Americans as having descended from the tribes of Israel, but that has been shown to be objectively false. Do you think the apologetic arguments you believe are better?

That's a pretty good point on its face, I must say. Even then, though, I would suspect that Mormons really do believe that Native American are of Israeli tribal stock, and do not believe their claim has been falsified per se (despite there being good evidence and good reasons to believe their claim is false). And indeed the claim appears difficult to directly falsify. The difference there is that it takes arguments based on accumulated evidence (and more so, absence of evidence), as opposed to some sort of test, to demonstrate the claim false. For the disciples in the first century there was, again in principle, at least one very reasonable, relevant, simple and telling empirical test available to falsify the hypothesis that Jesus was risen from the dead – by examining his tomb. In that sense, yes, I do think the argument for the resurrection is better.