Atheistic Meme re: Good Friday--Your Thoughts?

[PRmerger]

No. I have no clue who wrote it or if it’s reliable. In fact, I really doubt that it is.

Wait…what???

spits out her drink, spraying liquid all over her computer screen

If you can’t even take your source seriously, why should I?

I am free to summarily dismiss your post referencing Hippolytus, as you don’t even believe your very own reference.

It’s as if I’ve asked you, “Do you know the way to San Jose?”
You respond, “Why, yes, I most certainly do! Mrs. Chan told me to take Highway 44, so that’s what you should do!”
Me: “Who’s Mrs. Chan and does she know the way to San Jose?”
You: “I have no idea. I don’t even really think she knows where California is”.

I think it would be safe to say that we could have redacted all the above to this:
Me: Do you know the way to San Jose?
You: No.

The exact OPPOSITE of your original position, yeah?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

If you can’t even take your source seriously, why should I?

You shouldn’t. That’s the point. The sources we have for the martyrdoms of the apostles with maybe a few exceptions are not reliable. Let’s recap this thread of the conversation and see if that help clarify this for you:

-you wanted to know the “minimal facts” that Gary Habermas uses to argue for the resurrection
-I provided a list which included the “fact” that the twelve apostles’ lives were transformed by their belief in the resurrection and were willing to die for it. I indicated I doubled this.
-you asked if it was possible that the accounts of the early Christians being martyred without recasting were not actual events.
-I interpreted your saying “early Christians“ was referring only to the apostles since the early Christians in general were not relevant to the point we were discussing and said that, yes, it’s possible that these were not actual events. I pointed out that most of the accounts are late and there are several contradictions among the accounts.
-you asked for a list of contradictions
-I provided one, which included a reference to Pseudo-Hyppolytus.

Now you seem to be surprised and confused that I don’t think Pseudo-Hyppolytus is a reliable source, even though I never said that it was, nor did my bringing it up require me to think that it was reliable. I don’t think it’s any more or any less reliable than a lot of the other sources of these stories.

 

[meltzerboy]

You shouldn’t. That’s the point. The sources we have for the martyrdoms of the apostles with maybe a few exceptions are not reliable. Let’s recap this thread of the conversation and see if that help clarify this for you:

-you wanted to know the “minimal facts” that Gary Habermas uses to argue for the resurrection
-I provided a list which included the “fact” that the twelve apostles’ lives were transformed by their belief in the resurrection and were willing to die for it. I indicated I doubled this.
-you asked if it was possible that the accounts of the early Christians being martyred without recasting were not actual events.
-I interpreted your saying “early Christians“ was referring only to the apostles since the early Christians in general were not relevant to the point we were discussing and said that, yes, it’s possible that these were not actual events. I pointed out that most of the accounts are late and there are several contradictions among the accounts.
-you asked for a list of contradictions
-I provided one, which included a reference to Pseudo-Hyppolytus.

Now you seem to be surprised and confused that I don’t think Pseudo-Hyppolytus is a reliable source, even though I never said that it was, nor did my bringing it up require me to think that it was reliable. I don’t think it’s any more or any less reliable than a lot of the other sources of these stories.

I have been following the ongoing dialogue between you and PR. So, if I am clear about your position, it is that ALL sources, both pro and con Jesus’ resurrection and the apostles’ reaction to it, have to be taken skeptically, with large grains of salt, and because of this, it is not possible to say for certain whether the event did happen or not. Further, due to the potential errors and contradictions in reconstructing the ancient events, it is more rational to doubt the events than believe in them. Finally, the same line of reasoning would no doubt apply to several other biblical “events,” as well as non-biblical historical occurrences. Is this your view?

 

[KnowtheSilence]

Meltzerboy, thank you for being charitable and trying to understand what I’m really saying. You’re very close to right, but I’m going to nitpick a few things just to add some nuance in case you or someone else wants to probe any of these points further.

So, if I am clear about your position, it is that ALL sources, both pro and con Jesus’ resurrection and the apostles’ reaction to it, have to be taken skeptically, with large grains of salt, and because of this, it is not possible to say for certain whether the event did happen or not.

Correct up until the very last point. I don’t want to declare that we can’t say for certain (meaning certain in a historical sense, which is still somewhat uncertain) whether an event surrounding Jesus’ resurrection, etc., actually happened or not. I won’t say that in principle this stuff can’t be “proved” historically. Also, I’m no expert and can’t claim to even have looked at all the evidence we may already have, so it’s entirely possible that there actually is enough evidence to confirm these events and I just haven’t seen it yet. But I will say that the evidence I’ve seen so far has been uncertain and not particularly compelling; that could be that because most of what I’ve read and seen has come from more of a “popular apologetics“ level and that will change when I get into more scholarly stuff.

Further, due to the potential errors and contradictions in reconstructing the ancient events, it is more rational to doubt the events than believe in them.

If by “the ancient events” we’re still talking about the resurrection, deaths of the apostles, etc., then yes.

Finally, the same line of reasoning would no doubt apply to several other biblical “events,” as well as non-biblical historical occurrences. Is this your view?

Yes. Obviously, the more evidence we have, the more confident we can be, but history doesn’t always leave us with very much.

 

[PRmerger]

I have been following the ongoing dialogue between you and PR. So, if I am clear about your position, it is that ALL sources, both pro and con Jesus’ resurrection and the apostles’ reaction to it, have to be taken skeptically, with large grains of salt, and because of this, it is not possible to say for certain whether the event did happen or not. Further, due to the potential errors and contradictions in reconstructing the ancient events, it is more rational to doubt the events than believe in them. Finally, the same line of reasoning would no doubt apply to several other biblical “events,” as well as non-biblical historical occurrences. Is this your view?

I don’t disagree with this.

Where my objection lies with KtS, and all others who claim to have a (justified) skepticism of the gospels, is that this skepticism has a different degree for all things religious, as compared to other events of antiquity.

Would that this skepticism was consistent in its cynicism.