GunnerJ

Sure thing. Your friends' argument is made against the idea that Jesus' ressuertion was a hoax. The argument is, usually, "Since the Apostles were martyred for believing in Christ's ressurection, and they would know if it really happened, why would they die when they could have recanted? Why would they die for what they knew to be a lie?" The argument, if reduced to a sylogism, is a valid one,* but it is false. Observe:

If we allow that the Apostles would know whether Jesus really rose from the dead,

P1: People will not die for what they know to be a lie.
P2: The Apolstles died for belief in Christ's ressurection when they could have recanted.
C1: Therefore, the ressurection must be true.

It's major premise (P1) is a pretty sound one, but the problem is in the minor premise (P2). How many apostles actually did die for believing the Jesus really was ressurected? Could they have saved themselves by recanting this belief?

This is what you should ask your friends when they bring this up. The case for Apostles martyring themselves for their belief in Jesus' resurection is pretty thin, and they will have to resort to unconfirmed myths about Saints if pressed. Certainly, the Bible makes no mention of Apostles dying for belief in the resurection. There are (and I hope someone will help me with this on details) only two martyrs in the NT who would have known if Jesus really rose from the dead or not, and neither of them were killed for belief in the resurection, nor would recanting have even helped.

*When I said it was a valid argument, I was refering to technicalities of sylogistic logic. Basically, an argument is valid if the conclusion follows logically from the major and minor premises. This doesn't mean it's true, though. The argument, "All dogs are green, and poodles are dogs, so therefore poodles are green," is a valid argument, but not a true one, because the major premise is false.

King Arthur

A little? How about a lot as usual.

I thought about it very well thank you. If some dork lied when they put in writing that about 500 people saw Jesus after his resurrection, then surely there was at least one reasonable person to write "No, it did not happen that way." Nice try on trying to trip me up, but don't bother because you can't.

His problem is that he called it a lie. How does he know? Huh? I don't even know, and I'm much much smarter than Vorkosigan. The facts are that there are ancient texts that say that about 500 people saw Jesus after he arose. Unfortunately, we can't verify their claims.

Vorkosigan was wrong. He is highly steeped in dogmatic atheism and is too blind to see it. Everything Biblical seems to threaten him unless he can find some way to dismiss it.

I'm just being tough on ya, Vorky baby. You might do well to think on what I say regardless of the silly badmouthing, but I'm sure you won't heed it any time soon, you dogmatic atheist you.

Vorkosigan

Lie? And you have proof of this lie, Vorkosigan? Is there some ancient writer that I don't know of who said "No, there were not 500 people who saw Jesus after his supposed resurrection"??

Whoa! You seem to have the proof thing exactly backwards. It isn't me here whose making claims in violation of natural law. That would require strong evidence. Jesus was not raised from the dead bodily -- that's impossible -- so no further evidence required. It's a lie. Paul made it up.

And in the line itself is sufficient evidence. (1) 500 is a nice round number, suspicious (2) where did this event take place? (3) how did the person know 500 were there? Did they sell tickets, or what? (4) Such lies and exaggerations are common in missionary activity of all religions, and in advertizing.

There are ancient manuscripts, called the New Testament, which say that Jesus was seen by 500 people after his resurrection. There's your proof. It's more than you've got against.

ROTFL. It also says Jesus rose from the dead bodily. I am supposed to take that as proof? Your standards of evidence are practically non-existent, I see. I am not a Christian pretending to be atheist, and take a more critical stance toward violations of natural law. Like post-resurrection appearance lies, for example.

You are so stinkin' dogmatic, Vorkosigan. You don't have to be. There is no threat here to your life. Wake up and smell the coffee. You can be critical without being dogmatic.

Why are you so threatened by dismissal of an obvious lie? All of the post-resurrection appearances are lies or one kind or another, and represent attempts by various factions of the new cult to assert their leadership against each other. See, for example, the leadership struggle after the death of the Taiping leader. Such events are common in cults, especially during leadership transitions. Instead of wasting your erudition attacking atheists, try a little comparative thinking. It can be liberating; NT studies being singularly lacking in that regard.

Just last month a friend of mine whose wife is a lawyer here in Taiwan reported a case in which a wealthy man wanted to remarry a much younger Vietnamese woman. Suddenly the daughter took sick, possessed by the spirit of her mother, who warned that the marriage was a bad move. Amazingly, the mother also appeared to the Vietnamese woman -- who was obviously quick on the uptake -- commanding the opposite. Think either of the women was telling the truth? Think Paul was?

Try, "Well, 500 is probably too many", or "well, maybe someone else appeared to them whom they thought was Jesus". Why a lie??

Wake up and smell the natural law, KA. No spirits, ergo, no spirit appearances. And other reasons I listed above. It is clearly a lie. No equivocations required.

Vorkosigan

xeren

King Arthur,

This 500 man thing deserves a new post.

But no, someone wouldn't necessarily have blown the whistle on a lie like that, that is your assumption.

King Arthur

Vork, look, the point is that you said it was a lie. How do you know that this text in the New Testament is a lie? I don't know that. An ancient text (which is evidence) says that 500 people saw someone that they thought was Jesus. Were they lying? How do you know?

Are you only saying that they are lying because Jesus couldn't have been resurrected from the dead? This is different. I don't have any personal experience that tells me that someone can be resurrected from death, but that's the problem. I only know what I know and have experienced. I can't say definitely that no one has ever been raised from the dead. Doesn't seem likely, but I can't deny it and call it a total lie. Why can you? Just because your own limited life experience tells you so?

King Arthur

Nope. See, you made the claim that it was a lie. I'm saying, prove that claim. You can't because you can't know for sure if it was a lie. If you can know for sure that it was a lie, then I want to see the proof to back up your claim with some evidence. Someone said you can't prove a negative. Then you also shouldn't assert it because there is no way to know for sure.

not a theist

Maybe 3.

1.) James the son of Zebedee- killed by Herod. We have no idea whether he would have been allowed to recant or what the particular beliefs he was killed for were. He was probably killed simply for being a leader of the Christian movement.

2.) James called "the brother of the Lord"- according to Josephus, put to death by order of the high priest during an interval between Roman governors. <a href="http://www.uncc.edu/jdtabor/james.html" target="_blank">Here</a> is the Josephus passage. It may have been tampered with by Christians. We don't know what was the specific quarrel between himself and the high priest; it may have had nothing to do with Jesus.

3.) Peter is described as a martyr by Clement. ""Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory" There are also hints that the author of John knew of Peter's death. We don't know the details of it though it was probably during the persecution by Nero.

Amen-Moses

If it was then it was almost certainly for terrorist activities. Rome was burned, the blame was put on the christians and because they couldn't identify the culprits they just rounded up as many "iffy" christians as they could and punished them for it.

(Why does that sound so familiar?)

Amen-Moses

Vorkosigan

It's a lie, pure and simple. It involves a violation of natural law, people aren't resurrected. Period. There are no spirits. Period. So claims about resurrections and spirits are either errors or lies. In Paul's case, the proper answer is "lie" for the other reasons I gave above. Such lies are normal in missionary discourse.

I don't know anything "for sure." However, there are only two choices available: Paul is in error, or Paul is lying (or Paul is reporting errors or lies, but that collapses into the first two for our purposes). One error is possible; multiple claims of experiences that could be errors, from several vectors, indicate lies.

I'm just being tough on ya, Vorky baby. You might do well to think on what I say regardless of the silly badmouthing, but I'm sure you won't heed it any time soon, you dogmatic atheist you.

Mancub, if you ever had arguments that were anything BUT badmouthing, I might think you were being tough on me. I mean, I am still waiting for you to respond meaningfully to anything I've said about natural law, or the 4 quick questions I raised. Instead, I get a lot of "nyah, nyah, nyah, so there." I get cleverer arguments from my 6 and 8 year olds, and more interest in discourse too.

But frankly, I doubt you're up to serious analysis of the question. It seems that any comments that bear negatively on the resurrection "evidence" bring you out of the woodwork in a panicked farrago of childish insults and knee-jerk assertions.

The purpose of this thread was to supply xeren with constructive suggestions for arguments. I notice that, as is typical with you, you have failed to provide any constructive comments that would help xeren. There are currently 4 threads on the Test. Flav., 3 on John, 1 on Ant.20.200, another on 1 Clement, and several others on various topics. In not a single one have you appeared to make helpful comments out of the well of erudition you claim to have, but which mysteriously vanishes whenever you are pressed.

Vorkosigan

King Arthur

Vork, you can't say it was a lie if you don't know for sure. And you don't.

It is entirely possible that a bunch of people saw someone they thought was Jesus and someone else wrote about it. Thus, it would not be a lie.

I provide substance when I feel challenged. So far, everything here is pretty much drivel. And repeated drivel too!

"Mole! Mole! Moley, moley, moley! Mole!" -Mike Myers