(September 25, 2012 at 3:22 pm)Reasonable_Jeff Wrote: I'm not studied enough to be able to speak to all of the OP, but the concept of resurrection seems to be to be original to the Christian movement.
I wrote about it here (it's not long and the sources are at the bottom).
http://morethanmorality.blogspot.com/201...n.html?m=1
From that blog entry, at the end:
Quote:Only the resurrection of Jesus would have so changed them and convinced them that Jesus was in fact Messiah. Only an appearance from Jesus who had conquered death could take these cowards and change them to so boldly and fearlessly proclaim that Jesus of Nazareth was the Messiah and had risen from the grave. Only an appearance of the risen Messiah would have prompted these men to be willing to die for the belief that Jesus had risen from the dead.
Men are willing to die for what they believe in, but no one dies for what they know to be a lie. These men were willing to die proclaiming Jesus has risen!
There are two significant problems with the logic of this apology:
1. You're using folklore to prove mythology.
2. You falsely proclaim that nobody dies for what they should know is a lie. We have plenty of examples.
On the first point, your argument is built on the assumption that the story of the disciples and apostles is completely reliable. If this were so, we we not require this argument because the very same story tells us of the resurrection. If the story were reliable historical documentation, what do we need this argument for? If the story is not reliable as historical documentation, where does our information about the disciples and apostles come from?
You need to prove that not only did these apostles and disciples exist but that they were arrested and executed for their beliefs AND that they refused to recant these beliefs even when offered their freedom for doing so. You can't simply cite the story and spuriously beg the question by saying the story says-so and therefore the story is true.
When pressed for evidence for Roman persecution of the early church, one of the documents offered is Pliny's letter to Trajan. However, this letter documents that these Christians were willing to curse Christ and hail the emperor. I've not seen any independent corroboration that the early disciples were not only persecuted for their beliefs but refused to recant for their freedom, instead holding their heads high as they went to their execution, yatta yatta, insert Hollywood imagery and swelling soundtrack audio here.
On the second point, even if you could claim that Christians died for their beliefs, it is special pleading to suggest this fanaticism proves anything.
In the modern age, we have plenty of examples of crazy cultists and their leaders dying for silly beliefs that no sane person should ever consider. Jim Jones, David Koresh and the Hale Bopp cult (Heaven's Gate) are all grim examples of the tragedy of religious fanaticism. The human mind is reluctant to admit error, especially where cherished beliefs are concerned, and will rationalize away even the most profound evidence against it. Ask any ex-Christian and they'll tell you the transition away from faith was slow, gradual and full of back-and-forth.
"Oh no," Christians will say, "These cultists don't count. They were crazy."
The fact is many people would literally rather die than admit they were wrong about their most sacred beliefs. This is not only believable, it is to be expected for most people.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
