Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3286
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1554 times
Been thanked: 1052 times

Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #1

Post by POI »



It's 16 minutes.

For Debate:

Christians, is the argument, "who's going to die for a lie", a good and sound argument to present to skeptics? If so, please watch the counter arguments in this above video, and then place your counter answers accordingly.

Mind you, this is also just ASSUMING that all his close followers did indeed martyr themselves....
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7962
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #71

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 6:20 am
TRANSPONDER wrote: Sat May 27, 2023 1:53 am
That's good, and thanks for it, but I have to observe that even if the Nativities are fake (as they plainly and provably are) that does not rule out the broad outlines of the Jesus - story being true even though the resurrection - stories are debunkable enough. And the empty tomb might be true, too, though Not, I think, in the way the Gospels show it.
I'm comfortable thinking a dude got fed up with his carpenter's wages and struck out as a preacher.

What I ain't comfortable with is saying he fed five hundred folks on a five pound minnow.
I agree. I have always lived with the idea that Jesus was a real person - a Jewish reforming teacher. I always suspected that Christianity had taken that ball and rushed to their mobile goalposts with it, scoring a nice try but no cigar. It was only when I pulled myself together and finally tackled Paul that I found him a more fascinating dude than I ever suspected and absolutely the one who was the real inventor of Christianity, halfway between Messianic Judaism of the 12 and the Gentile - Pagan Christianity of the Greco - Roman Christians, with their man messiah turned into a god, a lot of miracles and healings and a night of the living dead as the risen spirit wasn't good enough, nor even an empty tomb and we - all should draw the spoonfed Christian conclusions.

So even then, without going into my first Pet theory: the events were largely invented, or my second - Jesus did a lot of those things, but they were staged miracles (1) I have to go with the evidence of a real Galilean rather than a Judean, killed by the Romans governor rather than by the Sanhedrin, which makes for a true story the Christians didn't like but were stuck with. BUT - they then plastered, whitewashed and repainted it so much as a Christian fresco that you can hardly see the Real Jesus underneath. But he is there O:) and I couldn't love the dude more as a Pharisee zealot than if I were a believer.

And of course it means that if - If - the Turin shroud is really the body - bag of Jesus, I can live (as an atheist) with that. ;)

(1) I will reiterate that Invented becomes first choice as if the raising of Lazarus really happened, I can't explain it being totally ignored by the synoptics - for me, it HAS to be wholly invented by John. Even though for a long time it worked perfectly as a put up -job.

User avatar
AquinasForGod
Sage
Posts: 972
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2022 7:29 am
Location: USA
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 71 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #72

Post by AquinasForGod »

[Replying to POI in post #1]

We cannot be sure some of the disciples died for preaching Christ died and rose, but we do know they risked their lives preaching he died and rose.

One thing I think about is Peter. Peter wasn't willing to risk his life before Jesus rose. In fact, he rejected Christ three times to save his life. But after Jesus rose, Peter changed. Something major happened and it changed Peter. Peter then did go and preach Christ death and resurrection, risking his life doing so.

I used to wonder, what happened that so radically changed Peter?

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7962
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #73

Post by TRANSPONDER »

AquinasForGod wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:46 am [Replying to POI in post #1]

We cannot be sure some of the disciples died for preaching Christ died and rose, but we do know they risked their lives preaching he died and rose.

One thing I think about is Peter. Peter wasn't willing to risk his life before Jesus rose. In fact, he rejected Christ three times to save his life. But after Jesus rose, Peter changed. Something major happened and it changed Peter. Peter then did go and preach Christ death and resurrection, risking his life doing so.

I used to wonder, what happened that so radically changed Peter?
Do we know that? I don't think we do. These are at best, Bible claims. In fact only one in the utterly untrustworthy Acts - James, son of Zebedee is killed by Herod Antipas..sorry I mean Herod Agrippa I. I rather doubt that. But if so, it is more in line with the reason that Paul Really opposed the followers of Jesus - they were a threat to Authority, and that authority was not the Sanhedrin, but Rome.

As to the story of Peter denying Jesus, even if it is true (and it's in all the gospels, isn't it? (1) it works better as Peter fearing to be a Galilean follower of Jesus arrested (and Pilate of course knew about that) for the reason he was nailed up - and not that stupid 'Blasphemy' charge. In fact you really have no valid support for the disciples dying or even being in danger because they claimed they'd seen Jesus' corpse walking about. And we can forget about the convenient transformation of Peter into a godlike being on page 1 of Acts.

(1) it is, as it strikes me that this formative common story sets out to portray one thing - that Peter is pretty much as weak and flawed. Not I think to contrast him with the powerful Jesus figure in Acts, but to reflect an underlying dislike that the early Christians (who wrote the Gospels) had for the followers of Jesus who (I think they understood) were the ones who tried to undermine Paul and his mission to the Gentiles.

I know that you won't buy that (and probably not will Ehrman, Carrier or any of the other experts O:) ), But I think it makes more sense than the predicted betrayal of Jesus being acted out, even with Luke I think having Jesus stare at him "See? I told you you'd betray me" to rub his nose in it.

User avatar
POI
Prodigy
Posts: 3286
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:22 pm
Has thanked: 1554 times
Been thanked: 1052 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #74

Post by POI »

AquinasForGod wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:46 am [Replying to POI in post #1]

We cannot be sure some of the disciples died for preaching Christ died and rose, but we do know they risked their lives preaching he died and rose.

One thing I think about is Peter. Peter wasn't willing to risk his life before Jesus rose. In fact, he rejected Christ three times to save his life. But after Jesus rose, Peter changed. Something major happened and it changed Peter. Peter then did go and preach Christ death and resurrection, risking his life doing so.

I used to wonder, what happened that so radically changed Peter?
If you are referring to the Bible, which is an untrustworthy collection of documents, do we still need to explore?
In case anyone is wondering... The avatar quote states the following:

"I asked God for a bike, but I know God doesn't work that way. So I stole a bike and asked for forgiveness."

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7962
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #75

Post by TRANSPONDER »

POI wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 3:46 pm
AquinasForGod wrote: Thu Jun 01, 2023 10:46 am [Replying to POI in post #1]

We cannot be sure some of the disciples died for preaching Christ died and rose, but we do know they risked their lives preaching he died and rose.

One thing I think about is Peter. Peter wasn't willing to risk his life before Jesus rose. In fact, he rejected Christ three times to save his life. But after Jesus rose, Peter changed. Something major happened and it changed Peter. Peter then did go and preach Christ death and resurrection, risking his life doing so.

I used to wonder, what happened that so radically changed Peter?
If you are referring to the Bible, which is an untrustworthy collection of documents, do we still need to explore?
I think we do.I believe that not only can we come up with alternative possibilities (1) but we can come to conclusions about the probability and/or real meaning of thr gospel stories. Now one I heard Ehrmann suggest (not seriously) is the Didymus (Jesus' twin) hypothesis. This doesn't fit well with the narrative, but one that absolutely does is that the disciples took the body (Just as Matthew says and indeed John hints) and Mark ends it there at the empty tomb and the angelic explanation (denied by John) and the subsequent stories are demonstrable inventions.

I think there are conclusions and evidence to be teased out. Just for instance - the whole trial thing. We know the Blasphemy charge makes no sense in Jewish terms. It is only blasphemy in the Christian sense. Conclusion - the whole thing was made up by Christians, as though there wasn't already evidence for that. We get Pilate supposedly coerced into condemning Jesus but of course it isn't the blasphemy charge but hints of sedition.'King of the Jews' is only religious in Christian thought. To Rome it was sedition. The hints at insurrection go through the whole story. I won't list all the clues (2), but I think the evidence is all there that the Real Jesus was a messianic figure in the Jewish sense, transformed (first by Paul, but then by his followers) into a messiah in the Christian sense - that is, God incarnated.

(1) I recently disputed about Malaysian airlines 350 or whatever - even if we didn't know what had happened to it 'It got towed to heaven behind a flying horse' would not have been the default hypothesis. So there are other explanations for the Betrayal of Peter, the betrayal of Judas and of course the whole resurrection, but Bible apologetics works by taking one preferred explanation as true and dismissing all the other.

(2) from the Passover release nonsense to Paul not wanting to say anything about the doings of Jesus while alive.

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #76

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to Realworldjack in post #10]

Is it believable that anyone might die for what they thought MIGHT be true?

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7962
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #77

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JoeMama wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 12:14 pm [Replying to Realworldjack in post #10]

Is it believable that anyone might die for what they thought MIGHT be true?
I think it is. But there has to be something else. Crusades, Holy Wars. Family, city or tribal feuds. I guess they are not so much about what one believes but the pressure is put on where you are.
But again looking at the vid of the OP, thge caller says this claim is in the gospels. Is it? I think the claim is doubtful

Martyrs - Wiki.
Apostolic Age—1st century
According to the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles
Holy Innocents of Bethlehem[1]
John the Baptist[2]
Stephen (Protomartyr) [3]
James, son of Zebedee[4]
Antipas[5]
According to early sources
James, brother of Jesus[6] - attested by Josephus ca. AD 94
Simon Peter, first attested by Tertullian about AD 200[7]
Paul the Apostle, first attested by Ignatius of Antioch probably about AD 110[8]
According to tradition
Andrew the Apostle[9]
Matthew the Apostle[10] - not attested by contemporary sources
Philip the Apostle - conflicting accounts[11]
Thomas the Apostle[12]
Jude Thaddeus[13]
Bartholomew - conflicting accounts[14]
Barnabas[15]
Simon Zelotes - contradictory late traditions.[16][17]
Mark the Evangelist[18]
Timothy[19] - not attested by contemporary sources
Philemon[20] - not attested by contemporary sources


The 'innocents of Bethlehem', even if it was true, is not dying for anything they believed. John was not really a martyr for the resurrection - claim or Christianity, which hadn't been invented yet. He wasn't given the chance to recant. His was a political execution (and I do believe that one).
Stephen I do not believe. I do not credit Acts. I think it is a concocted biography by Luke,loosely based on Paul's letters and bits of Josephus. Similarly I doubt the execution of James in Acts. I suspect that Luke invented it because of the half - prophecy that the sons of Zebedee would'share Jesus'cup'. But only James, because in Luke's time John was supposed to have been still alive.

I cannot take this saint Antipas claim seriously. But I did take the James (brother of Jesus) story seriously, for quite a while (1). After some discussions, I was more inclined to think the story relates to two sons of Damnaeus, James being killed and Jesus being given his job. The gloss that the Jesus who was the brother of James was called 'Christ'was added later and is rather anachronistic for the Jewish Josephus. It smacks of the same falsification of the Flavian Testament (in part and probably totally) and I might guess was by the same editor.

So these are either irrelevant or dubious and all the later ones are extra -Biblical claims. Even the early writers had no personal knowledge of the events and just repeated stories they'd heard.

(1) the story of James slung from a tower is supposed to be the same James and the way he was killed. But I believe that is a story related by Hegesippus and it may be questioned whether this is the same James as the brother of Jesus, that the story is anything to do with the James in Josephus and indeed whether the story amounts to anything, anyway.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #78

Post by JoeyKnothead »

I think it's a bit weird some Christians carry on about how folks died for their beliefs, when Christians would kill folks for not sharing those beliefs.

Regardless, beliefs are not a reliable replacement for facts.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

JoeMama
Apprentice
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2023 1:47 am
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 34 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #79

Post by JoeMama »

[Replying to Wootah in post #65]

The question of whether Mark and Luke contradict each other was raised earlier in this thread. I feel that this apparent contradiction is reasonably well harmonized, but I've been wrong before, so I welcome comments.

The harmonization below probably has already been put forth in this thread, but I will offer it just in case.

Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb and are told Jesus had risen and was on his way to Galilee. The women went to Galilee and spoke to none of the persons they encountered on the way but told everything to the Eleven when they met them in Galilee.

Have I overlooked or inadvertently misrepresented anything?

Online
TRANSPONDER
Savant
Posts: 7962
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:05 am
Has thanked: 932 times
Been thanked: 3487 times

Re: Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

Post #80

Post by TRANSPONDER »

JoeMama wrote: Fri Jun 16, 2023 4:49 pm [Replying to Wootah in post #65]

The question of whether Mark and Luke contradict each other was raised earlier in this thread. I feel that this apparent contradiction is reasonably well harmonized, but I've been wrong before, so I welcome comments.

The harmonization below probably has already been put forth in this thread, but I will offer it just in case.

Mary Magdalene, Mary mother of James, and Salome went to the tomb and are told Jesus had risen and was on his way to Galilee. The women went to Galilee and spoke to none of the persons they encountered on the way but told everything to the Eleven when they met them in Galilee.

Have I overlooked or inadvertently misrepresented anything?
There are a few problems with that, even if we discount everything after that, which would discount the resurrection stories right away. For one,John has no angel or message, so they don't know where the body has gone to.

Apart from that, the women finding the tomb empty then packing up and leaving for Galilee without saying anything sounds odd,especially when it is supposed that the disciples went back there and the women then told them the tomb was open and empty. Presumably Peter first leaping to the conclusion that Jesus rose to heaven, which would fit with Paul (i Corinthians). So if that is taken to be a 'harmonisation' though it is really cutting everything other than Mark, then it seems to support the idea that there was no sighting of Jesus walking about, which is what I suppose from the accounts contradicting.

Post Reply