Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

[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....

[Wootah]

What you say is true. And if we have four accounts that differed n exactly who was there, how many people, or even the church had gothic or perpendicular windows, we could roll with that and stretch a point. But when one says it was cremate another says it was mummified and lay in an open casket for a month while thousands filed by, a third says it flown back to Scotland where it was placed in the ancestral family vault the fourth says it was levitated by a flying saucer and abducted, you might suspect that these accounts are not to be trusted.

Well, that in a manner of speaking is the problem with the resurrection accounts. They contradict so badly that there is real reason to suspect that somebody is making stories up. And it isn't the first time we found them doing it.

Well actually ... if you were investigating a crime and all 4 witnesses had the exact same story that is more suspicious not less.

But if you had them all talking about the same event from their perspective and the input of the people they were with it would look gospelly.

Yep, your example might be too extreme and would be evidence of someone lying. But I could even imagine in your example of the four competing stories gelling together. UFO and Scotland are similarish, mummified in a casket for a month does not mean it was later cremated. etc ... But I agree in general.

However no they don't contradict so badly. What contradictions bother you that much?

Can we please stop pretending the Gospels are four eyewitness accounts. And it's not just their contradictions, it's as you say - they are often EXACTLY the same (as in copied from each other).

How is that debating?

Sometimes my friends and I sit around talking about the past and tell the same story with different details and often with each others details because we have told them so many times. This is evidence for something, not against it.

[Wootah]

Gospel of Peter information



https://www.gotquestions.org/gospel-of-Peter.html

I don't think it needs to be taken seriously.

[TRANSPONDER]

What you say is true. And if we have four accounts that differed n exactly who was there, how many people, or even the church had gothic or perpendicular windows, we could roll with that and stretch a point. But when one says it was cremate another says it was mummified and lay in an open casket for a month while thousands filed by, a third says it flown back to Scotland where it was placed in the ancestral family vault the fourth says it was levitated by a flying saucer and abducted, you might suspect that these accounts are not to be trusted.

Well, that in a manner of speaking is the problem with the resurrection accounts. They contradict so badly that there is real reason to suspect that somebody is making stories up. And it isn't the first time we found them doing it.

Well actually ... if you were investigating a crime and all 4 witnesses had the exact same story that is more suspicious not less.

But if you had them all talking about the same event from their perspective and the input of the people they were with it would look gospelly.

Yep, your example might be too extreme and would be evidence of someone lying. But I could even imagine in your example of the four competing stories gelling together. UFO and Scotland are similarish, mummified in a casket for a month does not mean it was later cremated. etc ... But I agree in general.

However no they don't contradict so badly. What contradictions bother you that much?

Can we please stop pretending the Gospels are four eyewitness accounts. And it's not just their contradictions, it's as you say - they are often EXACTLY the same (as in copied from each other).

How is that debating?

Sometimes my friends and I sit around talking about the past and tell the same story with different details and often with each others details because we have told them so many times. This is evidence for something, not against it.

This doesn't wash. The crucifixion stories have an apparent common story, additional details that have to be invented apart.The Resurrection stories diverge so much that there is not a common story. 'Details'are not the issue.

Gospel of Peter information



https://www.gotquestions.org/gospel-of-Peter.html

I don't think it needs to be taken seriously.

I agree. Even if it had been included in the NT it would be considered ludicrous and I'd be arguing (as I do) that it was a later concoction using Matthew and Luke. I only mentioned it because it has this idea of the power leaving Jesus, which at least was an idea that 'something' left Jesus and a dead man was left behind. That's all I'm saying.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #43]

Well let's not derail the thread. Create a new one to discuss the resurrection issues that are deal breakers for you.

On topic. What is the issue with using the persecution as evidence for the resurrection?

[TRANSPONDER]

So you want to decide the rules so you can control the debate? Sorry, Doesn't work like that. Discussions range pretty wide here, but even if On Topic was monitored as closely as on my last board, anything pertaining to the resurrection would be on topic, even if you were right in making doubts about the resurrection the claim and the burden of (dis)proof fell on the doubters. As the title says, the claim is that the resurrection happened. The burden of proof is on the Believers.

That burden is discharged (1) by pointing to the Bible as evidence. We are cross - examining that. The supplementary evidence of 'why would the disciples die for a lie?' has also been questioned. There is no really good evidence that they did and the list in Paul is evidence against the Gospel account, not for it.

What's your response? To try to rule out any evidence you don't like, so it seems, by your trying to take control of the rules. Sorry, you don't rule here. If you think the goddless are breaking the rules of discussion, report it to the mods; don't try to manipulate the debate. It just makes it look like you have nothing better to say by way of argument.

(1) I have always accepted the Bible as supporting evidence for the Christian claim, rather than a claim that has to be proven, the burden of (dis) proof falls on the doubters. That I think has been 'discharged' and the burden of validation now is back on the believers to counter the skeptic debunk of the Bible. I think that is how the Rules work. I also think, btw, that how it works is you don't have to get us to admit we were wrong but to present a persuasive and sound case. Then the burden of proof then falls back on us.

[JoeyKnothead]

However no they don't contradict so badly. What contradictions bother you that much?

The ones that make a mockery of our scientific knowledge.

[Wootah]

However no they don't contradict so badly. What contradictions bother you that much?

The ones that make a mockery of our scientific knowledge.

Apparently it would force you to write a long laborious post if I asked you to make a new thread to discuss your contradictions.

You may as well post them here ....

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #45]
OK then.

Post in this thread.

Good grief.

What contradictions you got for us?

[JoeyKnothead]

However no they don't contradict so badly. What contradictions bother you that much?

The ones that make a mockery of our scientific knowledge.

Apparently it would force you to write a long laborious post if I asked you to make a new thread to discuss your contradictions.

You may as well post them here ....

Let's start with how elephants don't come back alive after they die.

[Wootah]

However no they don't contradict so badly. What contradictions bother you that much?

The ones that make a mockery of our scientific knowledge.

Apparently it would force you to write a long laborious post if I asked you to make a new thread to discuss your contradictions.

You may as well post them here ....

Let's start with how elephants don't come back alive after they die.

Just a black swan problem. You say you haven't seen one and now you have.

This isn't a contradiction regardless.