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?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Hawkins in post #23]

Moderator Comment

You could have made the same points without the initial name-calling. Please refrain from such uncivil remarks.

Please review the Rules.





______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #26]

Does this (category) of argument provide any traction to the claim of a resurrection?

It was not intended to.

Interesting. Okay? Are you saying apologists should not use this argument, at all, to support a resurrection claim? Meaning, these 'facts and evidence' lend nothing to the veracity of the claim that "a man rose from his grave, after rotting for 3 days"?

[brunumb]

Atheists are usually clueless about how our reality operates.

What is it that particularly qualifies atheists in that regard?

[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?

An apologetic..in fact I think of it as a misdirection - I've heard before. In fact too - similar wording does cause critics to suspect that there was a common source for the synoptics; yes, they are not relating eyewitness accounts but basing their gospels on One original gospel and thus their additional bits are invention. But that's a different matter.

If the accounts were exactly the same, we would indeed say they were spoonfed the same tale. In fact this is why I consider John and the synoptics two sources, not four. But I digress. Four stories that are basically similar like, in fact the crucifixion, contradictions notwithstanding, can stand as a decently credible record of an event.

The resurrections are different. They contradict so badly that (or this is my case) they are not credibly an account of a real event, or they would at least be coherent.

The last thing they agree on is the open tomb, They don't even agree on the angel - John doesn't have it. Mark doesn't even have a resurrection story. I bought for a long time the 'it got lost' excuse. It is clearly rounded off with an angel explaining everything . That's all there ever was, originally.

Then the wild discrepancies make sense - they had the claim and they had to flesh it out. They invented their own stories, and they clash. Courtroom fail, perjury charge, orange suit and the sooner the better.

Incidentally, the claim is not evidence for the claim. Just as in the Nativity, two contradictory stories were made up to make the claim work. So that 'they all claim a resurrection' is the claim, not the evidence. The 'Evidence' collapses. Or that's what I argue, and I reckon is demonstrable.

p. s . folk, this is not (it appears) widely understood even by the Bible critics and Experts. But I think it is obvious, once the penny drops. I have put the penny in. I just reckon the (atheist) apologetic just has to be the penny that droppeth for them all, and it'll be as well known as 'slavery in the Bible'. Another well known evident and obvious one, despite the furious attempts to explain it away.

But back to the resurrection...if this didn't happen and Jesus was either left dead in the Talpiot tomb or some other (NOT any of the garden tombs - that was off limits for burials in Jesus' day they can't get their story right for getting it wrong, and no via Dolorosa of course - the Bible pilgrims are wasting their time and money on Bible tours, but then they are on Bible disneyland and the Ark fairytale..) .or as could be argued from the crucifixion was removed from the tomb, hopefully still alive, then what was the resurrection the disciples undoubtedly believed in and yes, would die for like any Muslim Kamikaze pilot and maybe did? It isn't the one in the gospels, as it didn't happen; it is the imaginary one in I Cor.

For what it's worth the gospel of Peter (banned and cancelled by the Church of Rome) shows the 'Powr' leaving Jesus on the cross. This, I suspect, is a heretical memory of the spirit leaving Jesus on the cross (1), ascending to heaven and appearing in the heads of :
Simon, the 12, 500 at once, the rest of the apostles and lastly to the pragmatic James, with Paul a later 'me too' comer. A mental image of a spirit Jesus, and the New Incorruptible body still with the marks of the car crash never walked abroad, no more than Matthew's zombies shambling into Jerusalem calling for brains.

Those who actually have them and know where to find the 'On' switch will see this makes sense, the solid body resurrection does not.

(1)Gospel of Peter [15] But is was midday, and darkness held fast all Judea; and they were distressed and anxious lest the sun had set, since he was still living. [For] it is written for them: Let not the sun set on one put to death. [16] And someone of them said: 'Give him to drink gall with vinegary wine.' And having made a mixture, they gave to drink. [17] And they fulfilled all things and completed the sins on their own head. [18] But many went around with lamps, thinking that it was night, and they fell. [19] And the Lord screamed out, saying: 'My power, O power, you have forsaken me.' And having said this, he was taken up.

[boatsnguitars]

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).

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheists are usually clueless about how our reality operates.

What is it that particularly qualifies atheists in that regard?

That's funny as atheists 'Having "Faith" in Darwinistic sciencism, understand how the world, and indeed the ruled of logic (burden of falls on the claimant,not the doubter) and in fact how everything works, better than the Bible apologists, generally. Just take the debate about the Exodus. They tossed in Ramesses II Djozer, Amenhotel II Tuthmosis III and hardly seemed to understand the actual history...mind, it does take a bit of study. But is worth it to cite the 2nd intermediate, Ramesses V Hatshepsut, Ahmose I, the Theban dynasy, the Peleset, and I'll see you the Amarna letters and raise you the Pagan governor of Jerusalem, But Study is what we signally don't get, but dismissal of 'Study' as denial of science, ...pretty much.

Just take( pretty obvious) the seashells on mountains apologetic for the Flood. Just a quick Google will show that these are raised up undisturbed fossil sea - floors. But none of the Bible apologists look. Same with the prophecy of Tyre. A look at Google earth will show Tyre is still there. Built over all the old city. I am sure they just toss Bible apologetics at us (cut and paste) and never check them So it's a hoot they accuse atheists of not understanding how the world works. We do, or at least know to go to those who do.


[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #36]

Yes.Thanks. But I see SO Many Authorities or spokesbods, even critics, who seem to buy the accounts as reliable.Why can't they put two and two together and see that it doesn't make 12? This isn't obvious, sure, and it took me a while to figure out, but only ONE source i have seen has twigged that Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person. He didn't see the implications (Jesus is the Christian Jesus and Barrabbas is the Zealot/insurrectionist Jesus) and the Jews doomed themselves to the Jewish war by Rejecting Jesus, and I'll bet the farm on that. But so many still seem to swallow the basics as credible. Mind the apologists skip Matthew's descending angel perching on the rock door like a parrot. They know it looks daft.

[boatsnguitars]

Yes.Thanks. But I see SO Many Authorities or spokesbods, even critics, who seem to buy the accounts as reliable.Why can't they put two and two together and see that it doesn't make 12? This isn't obvious, sure, and it took me a while to figure out, but only ONE source i have seen has twigged that Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person. He didn't see the implications (Jesus is the Christian Jesus and Barrabbas is the Zealot/insurrectionist Jesus) and the Jews doomed themselves to the Jewish war by Rejecting Jesus, and I'll bet the farm on that. But so many still seem to swallow the basics as credible. Mind the apologists skip matthews descending angel perching on the rock door like a parrot. They know it looks daft.

I think we are all tired of the endless repeat of Apologists "singing the hits". They love to go through the "evidence" that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, because as long as they're talking about Jesus, they win.

It's exhausting. I bet I could find any number of threads on it, and I bet I can find apologists here that were part of those discussions. Selective memory - or is it? I think they simply rewind the tape and play it again because they love the old songs so much.

"Jesus loves me, yes he does! All the Apostles died without recanting their belief in Jesus! The Gospels are eyewitnesses! The books of the Bible were all written by the authors attributed to them and within a few years of Jesus's death! The Ark could have fit every animal! The flagellum is proof of God - even though God can't give proof because then we wouldn't have Faith..., etc..."

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes.Thanks. But I see SO Many Authorities or spokesbods, even critics, who seem to buy the accounts as reliable.Why can't they put two and two together and see that it doesn't make 12? This isn't obvious, sure, and it took me a while to figure out, but only ONE source i have seen has twigged that Jesus and Barrabbas are the same person. He didn't see the implications (Jesus is the Christian Jesus and Barrabbas is the Zealot/insurrectionist Jesus) and the Jews doomed themselves to the Jewish war by Rejecting Jesus, and I'll bet the farm on that. But so many still seem to swallow the basics as credible. Mind the apologists skip matthews descending angel perching on the rock door like a parrot. They know it looks daft.

I think we are all tired of the endless repeat of Apologists "singing the hits". They love to go through the "evidence" that the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, because as long as they're talking about Jesus, they win.

It's exhausting. I bet I could find any number of threads on it, and I bet I can find apologists here that were part of those discussions. Selective memory - or is it? I think they simply rewind the tape and play it again because they love the old songs so much.

"Jesus loves me, yes he does! All the Apostles died without recanting their belief in Jesus! The Gospels are eyewitnesses! The books of the Bible were all written by the authors attributed to them and within a few years of Jesus's death! The Ark could have fit every animal! The flagellum is proof of God - even though God can't give proof because then we wouldn't have Faith..., etc..."

The Flagellum proves God? That explains a few things about medieval monasticism. And yes, it is a bit tedious to just see the stock apologetics trotted out with no check. But then, it's fascinating to see how faithbased thinking works: I swear this is true...Science is false and wrong and even the lies of the devil if it doesn't suit them, even when demonstrably right. But it is pretty much Holy Writ - true because it is is said, even when they got it wrong. This idea of post a passage and it's true evidence goes deep all the way from a John quote proves a creator to election - denial. Too few have made the connection yet.

[Wootah]

Atheists are usually clueless about how our reality operates.

What is it that particularly qualifies atheists in that regard?

I think your post and mine should be deleted. Mods have responded - let it go.