Which has the added stupidity of saying that if someone dies for something they believe in, then obviously that "something" must be right.

Glad to know you believe that Islam is right. And early Mormons, etc.

So what? That's a red herring. I haven't heard anyone here say that about Colson (who raised this argument in his crappy article).

Colson's original argument talks about circumstantial evidence, in the backdrop of the Timothy McVeigh trial. There was no mention of greedy televangelists in Colson's text either.

What did you hope to gain, by bringing up an argument that nobody here is making?

And whom they quickly forgot about, evidently. You're suggesting that they wandered for 3 years with Christ, saw him do all kinds of miracles, and then, well:

(a) didn't believe it was him;
(b) didn't recognize him (in spite of seeing him daily for 3 years);
(c) wanted him to prove that he was real

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. I'm talking about Thomas. The text calls Thomas "one of the Twelve", yet Thomas would not believe unless he touched him.


The bigger question is as I posted it above:

how can you spend 3 years with someone who raises the dead, heals the sick, walks on water, feeds 5,000 people, casts out demons, walks with God (the transfiguration), etc. etc. etc. and not recognize him or believe it was him?

As with most theists, you refuse to answer the difficult questions.

There is an important distinction between 'die for a lie' and 'die for an untruth'. The belief in a risen Christ depended on the apostle's testimony. They were either lying about this(in which case they 'died for a lie') or were hallucinating. This is something they would have positiviely known- not the same as a thirdhand faith. They would not have died for a deception they concocted- not in the brutal way tradition relates that they did die(with the exception of John who survived being boiled in oil and died of old age in the 90s purportedly.) Colson understands the weakness of conspiracy, having been involved in a few(and seeing how quickly his cohorts told the truth to save their own necks). They would not have died for a deliberate deception, and they would have known positively whether or not Jesus was raised- this is knowledge rather than faith, and 'not dying for a lie' rather than a person with an unsupported belief dying for an 'untruth.' I hope that clears it up for you.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the 'wouldn't die for a lie' argument at least refutes is that Christianity was invented for the benefit of it's proponents(materially) like the televangelist who fleeces the flock to get a Rolls.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Because it does refute a skeptical position, although not a well-thought out one. A lot of people make that simplistic claim about Christianity. Whether or not you do is not the issue- the 'die for a lie' argument is not an all-purpose argument, but it serves a purpose, and has a value whether or not it deals with every skepticle issue or not. Meaning it is not a worthless argument, even if not an all-purpose argument(as if one existed)
The hard questions right? Rather perplexing I suppose. Their minds were paralysed by unbelief for one; some simply could not believe that Jesus rose from the dead(for it being an impossability) and so had trouble believing, being more willing to accept an alternative than the truth in the matter. But this unbelief did not last; if it had not been Jesus, we might expect them to mistake someone for Jesus(wishing it to be so) and later realising it was not him, as the imposter would more than likely fail in some manner of character later. There were a few occasions where some of the disciples saw Jesus; and became more convinced to surety rather than growing doubtful(the struggle between doubt and faith having been one they went through when Jesus was alive- they had not even really believed that Jesus would rise from the dead as he had claimed.)

Did the risen Jesus look the same as he had before the resurrection? I don't know in what way he would have looked different. (although I might speculate some way he was dressed, or perhaps being shaved or having hair cut for burial could make him look different enough to doubt. My own personal experience reminds me of how often people I have known and hung out with on numerous occasions don't recognise me at first if I've had a haircut or shave, glasses etc. This has happened to me quite a few times- Jesus had 'nothing in his appearence to attract us to him' so it is questionable as to how he may have looked after the resurrection as to before) You do remember that Thomas was the one who felt the pierced palms and side of Jesus, then proclaiming 'My Lord and my God'? Was this an imposter, someone who had had a botched crucifixion? Does one feel the flesh and blood of a hallucination? I have had a number of hallucinations in my day; I have never felt the flesh of any of those things I have seen. Because the ethereal and the unreal do not have flesh and blood as the risen Christ had.

So Jesus puts to rest their doubts, after spending hours with them once again, eating and drinking on a few occasions. The possibility for numerous succesive and coherent 'hallucinations'(that each would agree upon afterwords) with one who ate food is less plausable than this actually being Jesus.

James, the brother of Jesus. He became the head of the Jerusalem church after the resurrection, and did not become a believer until after the resurreciton.
I Corin 15:4-7
James was one of the skeptics that did not believe Jesus in his 'life.' But believed after his death; a rather strange turn. The controversial passage of Josephus speaks about his martyrdom. And Thomas, skepticle, did become a strong believer in the resurrection after his meeting with Jesus. According to traditions, he was martyrred on a missionairy journey to India.