@ Thucydides

There are written works attributed to them. Paul was a big writer apparently.

@Thucydides

I was actually too conservative in my estimate of the epistles. They were written in the 50's AD.

I don't understand why this question.

Lots of people die because of something they believe in, and we don't all believe them for it. Just look at the sects committing collective suicide for this reason or another. It's not like we suddenly believe them now that they've died for their beliefs.

That's a very good point.

Thanks! Though I'd also like to see the reactions from other people who have posted in this thread...

@EvilGrass - if you read my last post I essentially addressed your point. The problem is the question. The answer is meaningless because it isn't objective.

@EvilGrass, yes - you hit the nail on the head.

@Crazy Anglican, 11 disciples giving their lives for their views (also earning them [in their view] eternal life by their sacrifice) is very persuasive to you... so how do you feel about 39 Heaven's Gate followers who took their own lives based on their conviction that it would save them? That must be about 3 times more persuasive than those 11 disciples sacrificing themselves... Or perhaps equally non-persuasive.

We're forgetting a more likely scenario to explain the whole gospel story: Jesus was a powerful alien disguised as a human... he appeared to die on the cross only because he stopped his fake human heart and bled out his fake human blood. He was still alive to appear to people a couple of days later. This all set us up for eventual harvest in the future. After all, Jesus wanted his disciples to be fishers of men, right? And how about all that imagery about sheep and tending the flock... we all know what happens to sheep in the end, right? The shepherd leads them to the slaughter. See, if Jesus the alien could get the whole human race to believe in him, then when he comes again for the harvest (taken bodily into heaven... they are very specific on that point) then we will go willingly. It is important for the animals set for slaughter to be calm... it makes their meat more tender. And then there is that whole imperative to be fruitful and multiply. Certainly we want our livestock to be fruitful and multiply, don't we? Now the apostles willing to die for Christ... that's easy enough... they either did actually view what they were convinced was a resurrection (a technology sufficiently advanced will appear as magic) or they themselves were also aliens faking their own deaths. I favor the first story - it's simpler as it involves less management by the aliens. See... it all makes sense now.

Then you could also take a kinder variation to that story... Jesus the alien as the monolith is in the movie 2001, A Space Odyssey. Jesus is put on Earth to stimulate growth of our culture into something a bit more peaceful and rational. Jesus performing miracles and such, of course, is easy given his alien nature and high technology. ...and why exactly would this be less likely than the God explanation?? Indeed, I give it much more of a chance of being true (which isn't saying much).

You're all just mooners, trying to air your private parts in public. [Sorry I interrupted your moonfest.]

@Timur, we're not "trying".

...and, besides, the guy who sticks his head into the conversation only long enough to issue an insult and nothing else is not a mooner?? I can think of nothing more moonerish than that.

@KaptinSpelling

The evidence is also scientific, that people are not resurrected.

@CA

"You admit that it's based on estimate and therefore it has no weight at all. It's just a bunch of numbers with no base."

That doesn't follow. The point is that I am being absurdly generous to your side of the case, and still it is defeated by a huge margin.

"fallacy of reductio ad-absurdum"

When did reductio ad absurdum stop being a totally valid form of argument.



"From there I can only conclude that I did not answer your question in a way that was convenient, so you need to reword my stance in a way that works better for your argument. Anyway you cut that, it’s a strawman. Let me be clear. I am willing to look at the evidence for and against this event occurring without asserting that it’s evidence of divinity. Please stop telling me what I ought to be arguing and attend to what I’m actually saying."

P1: If the resurrection is true, Christianity should be considered true.
P2: You assert that we can know that the resurrection is more likely than not true without being Christian in the first place
C: You essentially assert that we can know that Christianity is more likely than not true on the basis of the resurrection.

Ultimately, the only really important question is whether we can use scientific evidence or not against the resurrection.

In order to argue that the resurrection should not be repeatable, you have to first say that Jesus is distinct from other men. You cannot base this distinction on belief in Christianity, as that would be begging the question. When you argue that resurrection is not susceptible to science, you are asserting the Christian faith in that argument, and so are begging the question.

My point is this, and only this: that Christ's resurrection cannot be used as evidence for Christianity, and that rational belief in it has to rest on faith in Christianity, rather than the other way about.

@TheGhostmaker - I agree with your response to me as well as your final point. Neither refute what I said, which was that the question itself is flawed and this discussion is moot.

(KaptinSpelling? What did I misspell?)

@dexter: You're right. I'm butting out now. Just thought you all might need a heads-up before your heads end up where they seem to be heading.
Love the word 'moonerish', btw.

@dexter: Yes, you're not trying. You do it. Sad.

You misspelt 'captain'.

I *can't believe* no one has responded to my very serious alien Jesus theories. Actually, though phrased as a joke, the rhetorical argument is serious... How can we tell the difference between miracles performed by a god and seeming miracles performed by a much more highly advanced being? Being that the universe is immense and old... and being that there are many stars much older than our sun, and thus a good chance of more advanced civilizations than our rather new civilization (imagine us in a billion years... OK, I couldn't either)... it seems reasonable that somebody doing things impossible for humans could not be human. ...yes, they could theoretically be a god, but to be an advanced alien requires no miracles and no separate unseen spirit realm meddling in our physical realm. It is a simpler answer.

Answer me this, people:
Today someone performs an mysterious, seemingly impossible act in front of your eyes... do you conclude: hallucination, magic trick performed by a human, alien intervention, or miracle performed by a god?

OK, how about this: someone appears to you after they are dead... do you conclude: hallucination, person faked their death, practical joke/magic trick by someone posing as that person, ghost, or divinity of that person? Come on, fess up. How many of you are going to conclude that the person is divine?

...now after you've thought about that... add the fact that you didn't see the event, you only heard about it from an anonymous writer who also didn't see it directly...

David Blaine is God.

Why not? We all are aren't we?

Cast in his own immutable image?

We can all be David the B . . . or J the C.

Or wtf?

clarify.

@TheGhostMaker - lol, I see, yes it is an inside joke with a Friend who isn't even on webDip, so fail on my part I suppose.

@dexter: reminds me a bit of Clarke's Third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

But my problem with you theory is motivation. Why the heck would an alien do that??

practical joker? power hungry? Wanted to inspire people and jump start our civilization? I can't say that I know... But I'm not sure that the possible motivations would be different than if he was alien, human or god.

dexter, shafto, evil grass.

my previous post addresses you.

suicide bombers' testimony is irrelevant to anyone who is sane. They just sat in a mosque way too long and listened to people talk. Just as some priest's testimony is also irrevelant because they've just been sitting in their church/seminary their whole life (not literally obviously).

However this is a different case. These people KNEW the person in question and claimed to have seen WITH THEIR OWN eyes, the basis of this new religion.

So it's not really a good comparison at all...


Anyway.... that's not what I was after here I have said several times. If they genuinely believed that Jesus was raised... it doesn't mean he was. I am well aware of that. I was asking for explanations why they would have maintained that they had seen him raised. From the assumption that it didn't happen (impossible..) there has to be a good reason they went to a fiery grave maintaining it to the last. It is not the same reason suicide bombers go to their graves because suicide bombers have not spoken to Muhammad.

Anyway, the best answer I have yet seen is that they did not originally espouse anything regarding a resurrection, but only espoused Jesus' general message. The rest was added later in a fanciful way.


Now, as to what you are saying, Crazy. Totally different talk, but I think I would like to discuss it with you.

You gave the date of the epistles at 50 AD. I will just assume that is totally correct (though I don't know). Even so, the death dates of the apostles are not known for certain, and are mostly based on tradition. Also, it is not clear that they would have had access to read the epistles. It's not like there was internet. Wasn't Thomas already in India by that time? That early there would have been few copies.

It is pretty easy to imagine Paul as a "heretic" of sorts in that his new message was different than that of the original 11, but not a heretic in history's eyes given that his message prevailed.

He could have written whatever he wanted about conversing with Peter, the resurrection etc, and wouldn't have been challenged in a big way, though I'm sure he was challenged in limited ways.

For whatever reason he won out. Maybe just a better speaker, or better connections, or whatever. Maybe Paul didn't even write the epistles.

A couple of things to note about that argument. There is some evidence for the council of apostles in or around Jerusalem at about 50 AD. It's also not unlikely, we know that the apostles moved around and a council of at least some of them would have been both possible and beneficial. It seems a little unlikely that Paul, regardless of his charisma, would have over shadowed the brother of Jesus himself. I mean if you were there who would you favor as the authority? As far as can be determined though the discussion was not about the resurrection, but about dietary habits, circumscision, and the adviseability of preaching the word to Gentiles. Also, if Paul is the perpetrator of some sort of heresy then the accounts that Jesus was crucified and resurrected would have been isolated to areas in which he preached. This doesn't seems to be the case. The resurrection seems to have been pervasive, and the Gospel of Mark comes pretty soon after the epistles and it's likely to have been dictated by St. Peter. The resurrection is certainly a part of that one.