The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum)
December 10, 2014 at 12:50 am
(This post was last modified: December 10, 2014 at 12:53 am by YahwehIsTheWay.)
I would like to think His Majesty for a brilliant job defending The Historical Jesus (TM Bart Ehrman) even if he never got around to posting his argument for the flying zombie Jesus.
It's here I'd like to discuss an easy to follow formula for anyone who wants to follow in his footsteps and defend The Historical Jesus in a way that would do either Habermas or Bart Ehrman proud. It's very simple and with a little practice, you'll be frustrating skeptics in your execution of a breathtaking performance art of ducking, dodging and weaving, not to mention padding of paper thin evidence.
PHASE 1: The Ad Hominems
The easiest debate to win is the one you never have. It's really best if you can discourage debate on this topic by unleashing a deluge of ad hominems and related arguments (appeal to ridicule, false comparisons, poisoning the well). It probably won't work but your realistic objective here is to take the high ground. If you can paint your opponent as a crackpot, you have the edge. Plus, with a little slight of hand, you might even force the burden of proof into the skeptic's camp (and I don't need to tell you what a coup that always is).
Step 1: Laughter and Feigned Incredulity
"What, you don't even believe in a historical Jesus? Ha ha, that's a good one."
Never go much further in your first post. You want to draw phase 1 out as long as you can. Plus, you can better create the impression that the issue is so settled, you aren't even sure the skeptic is serious in an expression of such doubt. Make it convincing.
Step 2: Appeal to Ridicule
"Oh sorry, you're actually serious. Um, OK, are you a holocaust denier too? Do you doubt the lunar landing?"
Linger a bit on the incredulity that you're dealing with someone who is skeptical about even a historical Jesus. At this point, you can draw out this part of phase 1 with all kinds of false comparisons to crazy conspiracy theorists. It's a two-fer, with you combining appeal to ridicule with some false comparisons. Maybe you can even set the stage for some red herring evasion tactics, discussed in phase 2. The purpose of this step is to compare the skeptic to as many different nut cases and conspiracy theorists out there.
A big help was the movie Zeitgeist, which followed its "part 1" on the Jesus myth with parts 2 and 3, Trutherism and a New World Order respectively.
Tip of the hat to HM, I'm using his favorite emotocon for this appropriate moment
What a Godsend! We couldn't have done a better job coupling skepticism of our faith with crackpot conspiracy theories if we've been in on the project. ...or were we? [Jack Chick laugh: Haw haw haw.] Praise the Sweet Name of Jesus!
Step 3: Appeal to Authority
"You know that you're going against overwhelming scholarly consensus, right?"
OK, you've milked the empty ad hominem parts of this phase and the persistent skeptic has continued to demand you produce evidence for a historical Jesus. Now is when you really start to dance. It's called "The Scholars Say Shuffle". This is the main move of your performance art. With a little practice, you'll be ducking, dodging and weaving as well as Bart Ehrman himself.
Step 4: No True Scotsman
"No serious scholar disputes the existence of Jesus"
Richard Carrier is not a serious scholar. Robert Price is not a serious scholar. What makes a serious scholar? One who doesn't dispute The Historical Jesus ™ of course.
Step 5: The Strawman
"What, you think a group of people would just make up Jesus one day?"
Suggest the skeptic is a conspiracy theorist at every opportunity. Don't ask them how they think Christianity came to be. Just act as if you already know they think it was a conspiracy. Use the "false dilemma" argument to close the door on Christianity being a synchratic faith or any discussions on how urban legends form. This fits well into your ad hominem tactic and may just put the burden of proof into the skeptic's camp. The skeptic in any discussion is never required to explain anything but don't let that stop you.
Draw phase 1 out as long as you can. Don't go to the evidence phase until the skeptic drags you kicking and screaming. A well versed defender of The Historical Jesus ™ can drag this part out for a good 7 or 8 posts.
PHASE II: Padding the Case
Don't worry that the evidence is paper thin and highly dubious. Remember to always dance back to appeals to scholarly consensus.
Step 1: Jospehus' Testimonium Flavianum
"Josephus wrote... why's everyone groaning?"
Our star witness was first brought to the stand by Bishop Eseubius who miraculously "discovered" that Josephus was apparently a closet Christian through much of his life, or so it would seem from what he "wrote". In one chapter, Josephus breaks off from an unrelated discussion for one awkward paragraph in which he rants about The Christ (messiah) in ways one might expect of an evangelical preacher, firing off in rapid fire bullet point succession nearly every tenet of the Christian faith, cramming it all into one paragraph before returning to the subject he was discussing before in the next paragraph. Funny, it's almost as if Josehus never wrote the paragraph, the Testimonium, at all but the whole thing was crammed in between two open paragraphs.
Unfortunately, no one actually believes that Josephus converted to Christianity and so, being a Jew, would not have called Jesus "The Christ" nor would he have raved about all the miracles and the resurrection. For this reason, even the sleaziest ...er, most zealous of apologists like Strobel, are forced to admit that there are "interpolations".
Remember that word!
Don't say "forgery". Say "interpolation". First of all, you should use big words wherever possible. Don't say "interpretation of scripture", say "exegesis". Second, the big words have a way of softening the charge of dishonesty. Don't say "the whole thing was forged by someone else". Say "it's a pseudo-epigraphical work" when forced to admit certain "inauthentic" sources, like at least half of Paul's letters if not more of them.
"Interpolation" also allow for accidental tampering of documents, such as those that might be done by mistake from a Christian scribe. Yeah, the scribe just accidentally scribbled in a whole paragraph of flaming Christian propaganda. That could have happened.
For those savvy enough to recognize Josephus was a Jew, make the claim of "interpolation" and "partial authenticity" of the passage. This is accomplished by simply removing all the embarrassing words so we're still left with a confirmation that Jesus had existed and people claimed things about him, like the miracles, that he was the so-called Christ and that he rose again. You can even present the watered down paragraph as the "one that (Christian) scholars think is likely". Oh Glory! We know it's "likely" because we simply carefully and surgically edited out the words that were dead giveaways to Eseubius' tempering with the document.
How do we know there must have been some partially authentic core to the paragraph in question? Do we have earlier extant copies prior to the Eseubian pseudo-epigraphical addition? Not exactly. For some reason, we don't have any. It's as if they were all destroyed for some reason. Do we have earlier Christian apologists quoting this miracle of a passage? Not exactly. What do we have? Um, let's call it "textural evidence". It basically uses words Josephus would have used and stuff.
Step 2: "The Jamesian Reference"
"OK, the TF may be a little shady but only a crackpot would deny Josephus' reference when he spoke of 'the brother of Jesus, James'."
Please don't keep reading that passage. They might discover that it refers to "Jesus Bar Damneus". Well, Jesus was a common name. Handy that.
Step 3: "Tacitus"
"Well, you may want to throw Josephus off the witness stand but we have another witness we're ready to swear in..."
There's an oblique 2nd century passage where Tacitus explains that the Christians get their name from "Christos" who was crucified by one of our procurators, Pilate. "Christos" isn't a name but a title, "the anointed one" or "the messiah". It's so oblique it doesn't mention Jesus by name, the proper title for Pilate was "prefect" as "procurator" wasn't used until later centuries and some recent examination indicates some tampering with this passage too but hey, it's something, right?
Step 4: "Seutonius"
"And then we have..."
...a reference to Claudius by the works of Seutonius that says that one "Chrestus" was causing problems with the Jews in Rome, causing Claudius to expel them from the city. OK, "Chrestus", Rome, circa 50 CE. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong name. Picky picky picky.
Step 5: "The Talmud"
"The Jews also mentioned Jesus."
It's just that the document is a fourth century entry, about a heretic and sorcerer named Yeshua who's trial lasted 40 days and he had five disciples, none of which are familiar names. Aint it lucky for us that Yeshua was such a common name. I don't know why the Jews didn't have more to say and closer to the date than nearly three centuries later when Jesus had caused so much trouble for them. I'm going to have to pray on that.
Step 6: "Thallus"
"The darkness that covered the earth when Jesus died is also recorded"
OK, you may need a shower after making this argument but for those who aren't afraid to dig deep, here's one you can shovel out there. Thallus is refuted by one Christian Africanus who lived a good century later, who tells us that Thallus was trying to explain the darkness as an eclipse. We have no idea who Thallus is. Even his name only comes to us from this source. We have no idea what he actually wrote, as he's only quoted by Africanus. But don't let that bother you. Just shovel it out there. We need to pad this case, you know.
Step 7: "Bar Sarapion"
"What did the Jews gain by killing their wise king?"
Actually, that's the whole quote. It must refer to Jesus. It must!
Step 8: "Historical Documents"
"And let's not forget the most detailed historical accounts of the life of Jesus..."
Yes, the Bible counts as historical documentation! Even the hellbound heathen Bart Ehrman says so, and he oughta know since he's spent his career tearing it a new one with all his uncovering all the problems of interpolation, contamination, pesudo-epigraphy and non-canonical scriptures. Praise!
Step 9: Dancing Back
"You aren't convinced by the evidence? Well, the scholars don't agree with you."
Oh the look on the skeptic's face as you dance right back to phase 1 and resume your appeals to scholarly consensus. It's just priceless.
PHASE 3: Argumentum Ad Neuseum
Once you've exhausted your arsenal, look for ways to hit the reset button and start all over again. The "dancing back" step (see above) is a good method. Moving back to ad hominems and appeals to ridicule is another. Regardless, remember the "scholars say..." move. Keep hammering that point home.
If nothing else works, just ignore all the skeptic's points and restate earlier arguments as if they hadn't been presented or refuted before. Act like you've already proven your point even if you haven't. Presentation, as always with apologetics, is key.
HM managed to stretch out this discussion for 60 pages and you can too! As long as you can wear the skeptics or the readers down and muddy the waters to where it is a draw, you've won the match. Or at least you can claim it's so.
Praise the Sweet Name of Jesus!
It's here I'd like to discuss an easy to follow formula for anyone who wants to follow in his footsteps and defend The Historical Jesus in a way that would do either Habermas or Bart Ehrman proud. It's very simple and with a little practice, you'll be frustrating skeptics in your execution of a breathtaking performance art of ducking, dodging and weaving, not to mention padding of paper thin evidence.
PHASE 1: The Ad Hominems
The easiest debate to win is the one you never have. It's really best if you can discourage debate on this topic by unleashing a deluge of ad hominems and related arguments (appeal to ridicule, false comparisons, poisoning the well). It probably won't work but your realistic objective here is to take the high ground. If you can paint your opponent as a crackpot, you have the edge. Plus, with a little slight of hand, you might even force the burden of proof into the skeptic's camp (and I don't need to tell you what a coup that always is).
Step 1: Laughter and Feigned Incredulity
"What, you don't even believe in a historical Jesus? Ha ha, that's a good one."
Never go much further in your first post. You want to draw phase 1 out as long as you can. Plus, you can better create the impression that the issue is so settled, you aren't even sure the skeptic is serious in an expression of such doubt. Make it convincing.
Step 2: Appeal to Ridicule
"Oh sorry, you're actually serious. Um, OK, are you a holocaust denier too? Do you doubt the lunar landing?"
Linger a bit on the incredulity that you're dealing with someone who is skeptical about even a historical Jesus. At this point, you can draw out this part of phase 1 with all kinds of false comparisons to crazy conspiracy theorists. It's a two-fer, with you combining appeal to ridicule with some false comparisons. Maybe you can even set the stage for some red herring evasion tactics, discussed in phase 2. The purpose of this step is to compare the skeptic to as many different nut cases and conspiracy theorists out there.
A big help was the movie Zeitgeist, which followed its "part 1" on the Jesus myth with parts 2 and 3, Trutherism and a New World Order respectively.
Tip of the hat to HM, I'm using his favorite emotocon for this appropriate moment
What a Godsend! We couldn't have done a better job coupling skepticism of our faith with crackpot conspiracy theories if we've been in on the project. ...or were we? [Jack Chick laugh: Haw haw haw.] Praise the Sweet Name of Jesus!
Step 3: Appeal to Authority
"You know that you're going against overwhelming scholarly consensus, right?"
OK, you've milked the empty ad hominem parts of this phase and the persistent skeptic has continued to demand you produce evidence for a historical Jesus. Now is when you really start to dance. It's called "The Scholars Say Shuffle". This is the main move of your performance art. With a little practice, you'll be ducking, dodging and weaving as well as Bart Ehrman himself.
Step 4: No True Scotsman
"No serious scholar disputes the existence of Jesus"
Richard Carrier is not a serious scholar. Robert Price is not a serious scholar. What makes a serious scholar? One who doesn't dispute The Historical Jesus ™ of course.
Step 5: The Strawman
"What, you think a group of people would just make up Jesus one day?"
Suggest the skeptic is a conspiracy theorist at every opportunity. Don't ask them how they think Christianity came to be. Just act as if you already know they think it was a conspiracy. Use the "false dilemma" argument to close the door on Christianity being a synchratic faith or any discussions on how urban legends form. This fits well into your ad hominem tactic and may just put the burden of proof into the skeptic's camp. The skeptic in any discussion is never required to explain anything but don't let that stop you.
Draw phase 1 out as long as you can. Don't go to the evidence phase until the skeptic drags you kicking and screaming. A well versed defender of The Historical Jesus ™ can drag this part out for a good 7 or 8 posts.
PHASE II: Padding the Case
Don't worry that the evidence is paper thin and highly dubious. Remember to always dance back to appeals to scholarly consensus.
Step 1: Jospehus' Testimonium Flavianum
"Josephus wrote... why's everyone groaning?"
Our star witness was first brought to the stand by Bishop Eseubius who miraculously "discovered" that Josephus was apparently a closet Christian through much of his life, or so it would seem from what he "wrote". In one chapter, Josephus breaks off from an unrelated discussion for one awkward paragraph in which he rants about The Christ (messiah) in ways one might expect of an evangelical preacher, firing off in rapid fire bullet point succession nearly every tenet of the Christian faith, cramming it all into one paragraph before returning to the subject he was discussing before in the next paragraph. Funny, it's almost as if Josehus never wrote the paragraph, the Testimonium, at all but the whole thing was crammed in between two open paragraphs.
Unfortunately, no one actually believes that Josephus converted to Christianity and so, being a Jew, would not have called Jesus "The Christ" nor would he have raved about all the miracles and the resurrection. For this reason, even the sleaziest ...er, most zealous of apologists like Strobel, are forced to admit that there are "interpolations".
Remember that word!
Don't say "forgery". Say "interpolation". First of all, you should use big words wherever possible. Don't say "interpretation of scripture", say "exegesis". Second, the big words have a way of softening the charge of dishonesty. Don't say "the whole thing was forged by someone else". Say "it's a pseudo-epigraphical work" when forced to admit certain "inauthentic" sources, like at least half of Paul's letters if not more of them.
"Interpolation" also allow for accidental tampering of documents, such as those that might be done by mistake from a Christian scribe. Yeah, the scribe just accidentally scribbled in a whole paragraph of flaming Christian propaganda. That could have happened.
For those savvy enough to recognize Josephus was a Jew, make the claim of "interpolation" and "partial authenticity" of the passage. This is accomplished by simply removing all the embarrassing words so we're still left with a confirmation that Jesus had existed and people claimed things about him, like the miracles, that he was the so-called Christ and that he rose again. You can even present the watered down paragraph as the "one that (Christian) scholars think is likely". Oh Glory! We know it's "likely" because we simply carefully and surgically edited out the words that were dead giveaways to Eseubius' tempering with the document.
How do we know there must have been some partially authentic core to the paragraph in question? Do we have earlier extant copies prior to the Eseubian pseudo-epigraphical addition? Not exactly. For some reason, we don't have any. It's as if they were all destroyed for some reason. Do we have earlier Christian apologists quoting this miracle of a passage? Not exactly. What do we have? Um, let's call it "textural evidence". It basically uses words Josephus would have used and stuff.
Step 2: "The Jamesian Reference"
"OK, the TF may be a little shady but only a crackpot would deny Josephus' reference when he spoke of 'the brother of Jesus, James'."
Please don't keep reading that passage. They might discover that it refers to "Jesus Bar Damneus". Well, Jesus was a common name. Handy that.
Step 3: "Tacitus"
"Well, you may want to throw Josephus off the witness stand but we have another witness we're ready to swear in..."
There's an oblique 2nd century passage where Tacitus explains that the Christians get their name from "Christos" who was crucified by one of our procurators, Pilate. "Christos" isn't a name but a title, "the anointed one" or "the messiah". It's so oblique it doesn't mention Jesus by name, the proper title for Pilate was "prefect" as "procurator" wasn't used until later centuries and some recent examination indicates some tampering with this passage too but hey, it's something, right?
Step 4: "Seutonius"
"And then we have..."
...a reference to Claudius by the works of Seutonius that says that one "Chrestus" was causing problems with the Jews in Rome, causing Claudius to expel them from the city. OK, "Chrestus", Rome, circa 50 CE. Wrong place, wrong time, wrong name. Picky picky picky.
Step 5: "The Talmud"
"The Jews also mentioned Jesus."
It's just that the document is a fourth century entry, about a heretic and sorcerer named Yeshua who's trial lasted 40 days and he had five disciples, none of which are familiar names. Aint it lucky for us that Yeshua was such a common name. I don't know why the Jews didn't have more to say and closer to the date than nearly three centuries later when Jesus had caused so much trouble for them. I'm going to have to pray on that.
Step 6: "Thallus"
"The darkness that covered the earth when Jesus died is also recorded"
OK, you may need a shower after making this argument but for those who aren't afraid to dig deep, here's one you can shovel out there. Thallus is refuted by one Christian Africanus who lived a good century later, who tells us that Thallus was trying to explain the darkness as an eclipse. We have no idea who Thallus is. Even his name only comes to us from this source. We have no idea what he actually wrote, as he's only quoted by Africanus. But don't let that bother you. Just shovel it out there. We need to pad this case, you know.
Step 7: "Bar Sarapion"
"What did the Jews gain by killing their wise king?"
Actually, that's the whole quote. It must refer to Jesus. It must!
Step 8: "Historical Documents"
"And let's not forget the most detailed historical accounts of the life of Jesus..."
Yes, the Bible counts as historical documentation! Even the hellbound heathen Bart Ehrman says so, and he oughta know since he's spent his career tearing it a new one with all his uncovering all the problems of interpolation, contamination, pesudo-epigraphy and non-canonical scriptures. Praise!
Step 9: Dancing Back
"You aren't convinced by the evidence? Well, the scholars don't agree with you."
Oh the look on the skeptic's face as you dance right back to phase 1 and resume your appeals to scholarly consensus. It's just priceless.
PHASE 3: Argumentum Ad Neuseum
Once you've exhausted your arsenal, look for ways to hit the reset button and start all over again. The "dancing back" step (see above) is a good method. Moving back to ad hominems and appeals to ridicule is another. Regardless, remember the "scholars say..." move. Keep hammering that point home.
If nothing else works, just ignore all the skeptic's points and restate earlier arguments as if they hadn't been presented or refuted before. Act like you've already proven your point even if you haven't. Presentation, as always with apologetics, is key.
HM managed to stretch out this discussion for 60 pages and you can too! As long as you can wear the skeptics or the readers down and muddy the waters to where it is a draw, you've won the match. Or at least you can claim it's so.
Praise the Sweet Name of Jesus!
"You don't need facts when you got Jesus." -Pastor Deacon Fred, Landover Baptist Church
™: True Christian is a Trademark of the Landover Baptist Church. I have no affiliation with this fine group of True Christians ™ because I can't afford their tithing requirements but would like to be. Maybe someday the Lord will bless me with enough riches that I am able to.
And for the lovers of Poe, here's your winking smiley:
™: True Christian is a Trademark of the Landover Baptist Church. I have no affiliation with this fine group of True Christians ™ because I can't afford their tithing requirements but would like to be. Maybe someday the Lord will bless me with enough riches that I am able to.
And for the lovers of Poe, here's your winking smiley:
![[Image: angry-jesus.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=dausonstimpsongagnon.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F11%2Fangry-jesus.jpg)
And if I get desperate, I can make a lot of money with those techniques.
