Orthodox_Freethinker

This is to see if an individual skeptical, without the help of quoting websites, can refute Christian apologetics.

Apikorus

What is wrong with quoting arguments or data from other sources? Either the arguments are sound or they are not.

Illandur

In your own words: "This is a hotly contested claim."

You are assuming that the testimony given in the bible is one that is reliable. Many people do not agree with you. Also, given the extraordinary nature of of the claim that they are testifying, it is not necessarily reasonable to believe even if the sources were reliable. Many people claim that they have been abducted by alien lifeforms, since some testimonies can most assuredly be considered reliable, does it make it reasonable to assume belief?

Toto

This argument has been made, but extensively refuted by Richard Carrier. If you are going to argue it, you should become familiar with his work. First century Hellenistic Jews had a variety of beliefs about the resurrection of the dead.

One indication that this passage speaks of a non-physical resurrection is that the word appearance is used for both the disciples and Paul - and we are pretty sure that Paul never met Jesus in the flesh.

If the original apostles thought that Jesus had risen spiritually into a higher plane, why would that not provide a sufficient reason to sacrifice their own lives? Maybe it would be an extra incentive.

We don't have any actual record of what the original disciples believed, or why they died. We know a lot of people who have died for false and bizarre ideas, and we know that there are a lot of people through history whose behavior could be described as insane.

Sauron

Nonsense. The burden of proof is on Craig, and on anyone else who accepts his statements (such as yourself). Affirmative claims always have the burden of proof.

No you don't.

Sauron

Not really. We have testimony from people today who claim to have seen flying saucers and been victims of alien abduction. They are, by all accounts, good and honest people. Yet it is not reasonable to believe their testimony, because the extraordinary nature of such a claim requires evidence of a far more extraordinary and irrefutable nature.

"Attempts" is the key word here.
Nobody has agreed that Craig met his burden of proof yet.

And since you don't appear able to carry Craig's argument for him, who is going to answer for Craig?

Sauron

So? Inviting other people to perform for your entertainment probably isn't going to work.

All you did was link to Craig's argument - you haven't defended it.

Given that Lowder's article addresses Craig directly, you have already been given the response you asked for. If you don't understand Lowder's article, then why not ask about the areas that confuse you?

If you haven't read it yet, then whose fault is that?

Mageth

Accounts from 2000-year-old, clearly religious texts, written long after the alleged events by non-eyewitnesses, and written purposefully to support a particular belief system to which the claim is essential, do not count as "reliable testimony" in my book.

In other words, I do not have reliable testimony that it actually happened, so it is not reasonable to believe. Just a few religious texts that include many other "miraculous" accounts to bolster a believe system that claim it did happen. And there are other explanations for why those texts include that claim that are far more "reasonable to believe" than that it actually happened. Believing it's an invented myth, an embellishment of the "legend of Jesus", is more reasonable to believe than that it actually happened.

Heck, I can hardly imagine what would count as reliable testimony for something like that. I'd pretty much have to see it myself (and even then I'd question if what I'd witness really happened). Otherwise, there would be many other explanations which I would find more reasonable to believe than that a body, actually dead for three days, re-animated (and then proceeded to walk through doors, appeared and disappeared all over the place, and, after a bit, flew up into the clouds).

And please, please drop the "why did they die for a lie?" schtick. It sucked as an argument the first time you posted it, and you were told why it sucks, and it still sucks. Your use of it Argumentum ad Nauseum is not improving it.

As does the ridiculous "empty tomb" argument that you continue to repeat ad Nauseum.

Orthodox_Freethinker

You think that I haven't heard the purported refutations of the empty tomb? Furthermore, would it be logically consistent, in the whole of Paul's teaching on Christ, for Paul to not believe in the empty tomb?
Did not Peter visit the tomb to verify its emptiness and did not the Apostles also witnessed the risen Christ, in the flesh? Now, this best explains why they would die for Him. No one dies for what they know for a fact to be a corpse. That's obvious.

Actually, Paul did meet Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles. This was the reason for his conversion. The Apostles witnessed the risen Christ in the flesh but Paul saw Him in a vision. Paul is claiming that both happened. What you've commited is the fallacy of equivocation.

No, that makes no sense. The Apostles would have no reason to believe Jesus to be God if he were a dead corpse. Do you think the Apostles were somehow mentally retarded? Jesus told Thomas to touch his wounds, his real flesh. The most logical explanation is that they gave up their lives for believing in his physical resurrection. However, they were in the position to know for a fact if he had not physically risen.

Given that Matthew wrote a Gospel, John wrote a Gospel, epistles and Revelation, Peter wrote epistles, as did James, we kind of do know what the Apostles believed. :thumbs:

Orthodox_Freethinker

If you are going to claim that Matthew and John were not eye witnesses, this would be your thread to prove it. Otherwise, don't make a claim which you can't back up. Furthermore, it's a religious text that is contingent upon the historicity of an event - the resurrection of Christ, something which you have not bothered to disprove.