Switch89

It's my new article on DB Skeptic:
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2009/08/16/...allucinations/

Description: This article is a rebuttal to Gary Habermas, who defends the Jesus’ resurrection appearances against the hypothesis that these appearances were simply hallucinations. A plausible natural explanation of the facts concerning the origin of Christianity is presented and compared to the traditional Christian explanation (that Jesus was raised from the dead). It is shown that the acceptance of the empty tomb, appearances of Jesus to his followers, conversion of the Jesus’ skeptical brother James, and the conversion of Paul as fact does not warrant the conclusion that the resurrection occurred.

spin

Just out of curiosity where do you stand on all those Elvis sightings? You wanna tell me that they were all hallucinations?


spin

ApostateAbe

The extraordinary claims of religious leaders seem to be best explained as intentional falsehoods, for it is in a leader's interest to gain the commitment of religious followers. Evidence can be seen in modern cults. The early New Testament writings give evidence of only two leaders after the death of Jesus--Peter and Paul. Peter was the earliest successor to Jesus. My contention would be that the resurrection was most likely a myth among Christians that was "confirmed" by the testimony of the Apostle Peter-- or simply an invention of the Apostle Peter.

jakejonesiv

That is well done, a triumph of logic over superstition!

Jake

Juststeve

I would criticize your rebuttal on the grounds that you accept far too much as fact without sufficient evidence. Consider the following:

1. The Gospels are not eye witness accounts but rather documents written by non witnesses 40 to 60 years after the events narrated. Therefore they do not contain witness accounts of what a resurrection appearance was like. They reflect an oral tradition about what was claimed to have happened to some guys no longer around to confirm or deny. Habermas would agree with this.

2. Mark probably contained no resurrection appearances in its original form. They were added later at an unknown time by an unknown hand. Mark therefore doesn’t count as early evidence but does count for the proposition that early Christians were willing to embellish the story with resurrection accounts.

3. The only first hand account of a resurrection experience we do have is from Paul’s letter and his account bears the crucial sign of a hallucination, he saw Jesus but his companions didn’t. What do we call it when one fellow sees someone and no one else does? We call it a hallucination.

There is simply no reason to concede that anyone other than Paul believed that they personally experienced the risen Jesus or that Paul thought his experience was with the fleshy version of the risen Jesus.

Steve