thedeist

Hello all,


I was wondering how some of you would respond to Christian apologist' claims about the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

1. Christian apologist affirm that the post-resurrection appearances (plus the empty tomb) account for the origin of the disciples belief in the resurrection of Jesus and the disciples' willingness to die for Jesus when they were previously too scared to stand up for Jesus at his time of execution.

2. Christian apologists also make the argument that there is no documented evidence of mass-hallucinations, thus the skeptic cannot make the contention that Jesus' appearances to the 500 or to his disciples were mass hallucinations.

3. Furthermore their position maintains that Jesus ate and drank with his disciples. They connect this to the conjecture that there is no evidence even in ancient historical texts of ghosts (of all things) eating and drinking. Moreover, Jesus body was touched by doubting Thomas.

4. Peter Kreeft: "Hallucination cannot account for the appearances because hallucinations are brief, local, private, and non-life changing. The appearances of the risen Jesus, on the other hand, transformed the Apostle’s lives, were geographically dispersed, occurred to numerous witnesses and sometimes to entire groups of people, and continued over a long period of time. Even unbelievers (James) and his enemies (Saul) experienced them."

5. In addition Christian apologists assert that the post-resurrection appearances meet the historical criteria of multiple attestation in that all 4 of the gospels (not really in Mark!) and in Paul's testimony attest to the appearances.


How would you counter the above arguments made by Christian apologists?


Peace

Peter Kirby

In brief, their arguments depend on the appearance stories in the Gospels being taken as historical record, and, as they are not, the apologist's argument is not a historical one.

There is a bait and switch in the first point listed, where the "post-resurrection appearances . . . account for the origin of the disciples belief" is shifted in every subsequent point to be the accounts of resurrection appearances in the Gospels being historical. We don't need those accounts in the Gospels to account for "the origin of the disciples' belief."

thedeist

Hi Peter,

What then would be a reasonable explanation for the disciples belief?

Licona and Habermas alway argue: “Liars make poor martyrs" and "If Jesus wasn’t resurrected the disciples would not have said that he resurrected from the dead but rather that he never died."


Peace

Asha'man

What exactly did the disciples believe? How do you know?

The problem is that the disciples themselves left no written record for history. The only record we have was written decades, perhaps a full century, after the events portrayed within them. These records were almost certainly not 1st or 2nd hand accounts, and may have been pure fabrications based on multiple layers of oral traditions that had been circulating for quite some time.

At the core, it's the same as if you believe that Frodo really did carry the One Ring to Mount Doom, based on what appears to be a travel log written by Frodo, Bilbo, and completed by Sam. Just because parts of the story claim to be 1st hand accounts doesn't mean they really are.

ETA: Remember, the disciples are not witnesses to a story, they are characters within that story.

DaMan121

Why oh why do people keep reapeating this? Its been disprooved time and time again - Koresh, Heaven's Gate, Joseph Smith, etc and if Christianity is true, every other religion ever!

No, if the story is true, making him come back from the dead, only to ascend to heaven is alot more sexy. Resurrected hereos was the rage back then, doesnt work as well today.

Peter Kirby

Note: You failed to address the clear bait and switch performed by Habermas! One doesn't need the accounts in the Gospels of appearance stories in order to have a hypothetical hallucination as part of a historical explanation. Habermas advances from a hypothetical hallucination to a historical Gospel record of appearances with nothing but sanguine faith in the inability of his readers to spot the trick.

By the way, Thomas Sheehan, in The First Coming: How the Kingdom of God Became Christianity, presents a reasonable explanation.

Johnny Skeptic

Perhaps many if not most religions were started based upon innocent but inaccurate revelations. Christianity might have started that way.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, probably with one of these: followed closedly by one of these: to start...

They "affirm" that, do they? Neat trick. Let me guess how it is they go about "affirming" that...Would it be by reading the stories in the Bible and saying, "These claims must be true because here they are written!"

Not that I know anyone who does (nor could I fathom why they would) argue such a thing, there is "documented evidence" of mass-hallucinations, but even if there weren't, that would only mean one of two things; (1) that doesn't disprove that this one-time it was mass-hallucination, or (2) if 500 people actually did claim to see the same thing, well, then we'd ipso facto have at least one documented case of mass-hallucination.

:huh:

The determination of whether or not what one is seeing is an hallucination does not rest on numbers of witnesses alone; a primary factor would be in what is claimed to have been seen.

We have reams and reams of documented UFO and Elvis and St. Mary and Bigfoot and Yetti and Pixy and Elf and Leprechaun and hello Mr. Wilson sightings. We have "shared" experiences of UFO abductions and people used to burn women because they were witches. We have a whole pantheon of monsters and goblins and ghouls, ghosts that thousands if not millions claim to have experienced first hand, alone and in groups. We have "shamans" and other deeply stoned "holy men" who gather together around roaring bonfires and trip their collective balls off. And one of those guys came up with the Zero.

So, you know, sometimes some good shit can come out of some gooooood shit.

But what we have in Paul is, at best, a cult leader who has admitted in his writings that he wouldn't have any trouble flat out lying to any members of his sheeple, including and especially to those Greek bastards who won't believe him when he says that Jesus ascended bodily into the "heavens." Personally, I don't blame them, since what would be the point in that? He'd freeze and/or implode before getting one-tenth the distance to the moon.

So, the question isn't about mass halucinations; it's about what they saw and who wrote the ridiculous story and why?

And yet, the Bible "maintains" that they didn't recognize him at first, which is pretty odd, considering he had only been "dead" for a couple days and supposedly arose bodily. Which would mean his body.

So, at best, this would be evidence of remarkable gullibility and downright stupidity in these first century peasent fishermen, but then, these were people who already apparently believed that dead people can rise and "demons" can be "sent into" pigs and the blind can see just by a messenger from God touching them and, you know, talking snakes, and parting red seas and I could go on and on and on and hello again Mr. Wilson.

Well, considering the point of the story is that he's not a ghost and that's what the story is intending to prove by having him sit and eat and drink, no big surprise, yes?

Which, to the astute reader, would be evidence of pure fiction, since why wouldn't any of them immediately recognize a man who had only been dead for a few days, let alone one that they had followed for some time now?

The inclusion of the doubting Thomas is obviously a literary cheat; he is the Greeks and all who don't believe the story as told, so they have to be further convinced, but wait! Fear not, ye Greeks! For there was already one such as you and he too needed to touch Jesus to know that he was risen, so none of you need to keep asking that question over and over and over again!

And cue cheap halo lighting effect and BLACKOUT! Ok, girls, you're on! Shake'm like you got'em! We're on in Corinth at the Goat and Flail this Thor's Day.

That's funny. I could swear that what he just wrote affirms that hallucinations do occur. Oh, but they're "private" and "non-life changing." Wow. He must be omniscient. Cool.

And how do we affirm this? Oh, right, by going right back to where it all came from; from the stories about the Apostle' lives in the Bible. Gee, that's a neat trick.

"It changed their lives, because the Bible says it changed their lives, therefore we know it changed their lives! Who want's a wafer? Body of Christ? No? A little blood, perhaps?

As related by one person. A cult leader who has admitted he would lie if it meant acceptance of "the truth." Irony; so delicious, so nutritious.

Well, then that proves it! Even the unbelievers and his enemies, you say? Wow. I wonder why they never told anybody, or wrote it down, especially his "enemies?" Funny how the whole thing comes only from Paul, the lying preacher who would spread the truth.

Hmmm, let's see. "Multiple attestation" is what it takes, eh? Pardon me while I turn on all the lights and make sure the boogeyman isn't in my closet. BRB.

Nope. He was under the bed again.

In a gif? :rolling: They rarely respond well to that one.

Pax.

ETA: Let me ask you something. Which do you think is more plausible? That a dead resurrected God appeared to 500 people (the exact number of which not explained) two thousand years ago in the desert, or a snake oil salesman made up a spectaclur story to control a group of incredibly ignorant, honest, oppressed people?

One of those things is not like the other and the other is like countless millions of similar stories told over the mellenia to hook countless billions of incredibly ignorant, honest, oppressed people, extending all the way up to present day in many different forms, the most notable of which we call in America an "election," where all kinds of shamans tell their incredible tales in order to convince people to give them power.

But hey, it could be true. Except for all the ridiculous things it implies; like, for example, that there is a "heaven" to bodily ascend to up in the sky.

aa5874

You may be right. Mary might have tricked Joseph into believing that her baby was of a god when it was actually from another man. And then maybe Joseph went beserk and started to 'see' things.

Matthew 1:20, But while he thought of these things, behold the angel of the of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying thou son of David, Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

Did a little white lie get blown of proportion? Joseph's head appeared to have been completely messed up.

OneInFundieville

I read Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) this week.

Here's what I coincidentally journaled this morning. Please forgive the "parable" in lieu of anything more interesting.

I love to run.

This morning a had a wonderful 10 miler along Lake Michigan in Chicago being out-of-town on business. Beautiful sunrise over the lake. OK, a did swallow a bug, but otherwise, it was a great run. Lots of people out in the spring time. Nice to see people making healthy choices.

Anyhow, I had a wonderfully close relationship with my grandfather. He passed away about 12 years ago and I still really miss him. The other day I came across an old photo of him and my brother and myself sitting on the porch swing on the front of his house. I'm there, about two years old sitting next to Grandpa with my hand tenderly on his arm. He had strong arms and gentle, yet worn, hands from years of honest farm labor, under the sun, in the vast wheat fields of the North American Great Plains.

After retirement when my grandparents moved out of their house to move to a smaller, yet "independent living," accomodations for an end stage in life, they left that special-place-for-me porch swing there with the house. That I did not buy it from them at that point is one of the biggest regrets of my life.

I could go on and on about stories in my childhood about my grandpa, how I spent time with him, how he patiently taught me things, how he was always there. I think the key point is that there have only been four persons in my life with whom I have been really close - my mom, my dad, my grandpa, and my wife.

Tying this all back together, a bit like me, my grandpa was a bit athletic.
I remember how well he used to play softball. Even in his 60s. At least before arthritis had really set in from decades of manual labor.

And I remember how my mom, my dad, and my grandma each attested that he could do something quite amazing in his youth.

Extremely amazing in fact.

That he could run a four minute mile.

Incredible.

That fast?

It probably would have been 15 or 20 years before Roger Bannister did the same.

He never ran as part of any sort of organized competition or team. So it's not like there is any record.

But my mom used to say that, and my dad, and my grandma as well.
I wonder...

Is it true?

I sure would like for it to be true.

I would love for it to be true.

As I love to run so much myself.

But do I know?

I know he was athletic although a bit short in stature. And that he was a wonderful, honest man, one of the best men I have ever known.

And that I don't see my mom, my dad, or my grandma as intentional liars about stuff. And I vaguely remember in my earliest years that when they would make such a claim around my grandpa, he would just kinda silently smile and nod in that gentle way that was characteristically unique and humble to him.

So I wonder...

Could he have actually run a four minute mile?

Anyhow, I was quite surprised this all came to mind.

An incredible event.

About seven decades ago.

I'm telling you I know and interacted with the principal but after the event.

And that I know one still living witness.

And that I knew and know others who would attest to it.

It's oral tradition.

Now you need to write down what happened.

I'm Paul. You're the author of Q.