Resurrection Story debunked?

  • Thread starter Thread starter redhen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

redhen

Guest
Can anyone help me refute this one?

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

If you discount the circular logic, i.e. using the New Testament to prove the New Testament, there’s not much that apologetics have to prove the resurrection.

The best apologetic argument I’ve seen is that “no one would die for a lie”

yet, " Matthew 28:17 actually claims that some eye-witnesses didn’t believe what they saw and might not have become Christians, which suggests the experience was not so convincing after all"

The only two martyrs in the New Testament were Stephen and James, and they were killed for breaking Jewish law, nothing for which they could recant for.

The article goes on and on…

Anyone want to take a stab at this?
 
Not really. He at least acknowledges that he says he is not convinced. Most non-believers simply pontifically declare it didn’t happen. Yes, we believe because we believe the apostolic testimony; and study, prayer, self-reflection and calling on Our Lord to enter our lives completes the picture. He can call it hearsay if he wants, but I believe simple and long dead apostles and not Richard Carrier. I can’t help but think this frosts his weenies to some degree which is the whole point of existence…

Ok, just kidding about that last part. 😃

Anyway, all he has done is pile on a bunch of difficulties. Difficulties most believers will acknowledge. But as they say, 10,000 difficulties do not equal one doubt. Doubt is an act of the will, not the intellect.

Scott
 
Scott Waddell:
Anyway, all he has done is pile on a bunch of difficulties. Difficulties most believers will acknowledge. But as they say, 10,000 difficulties do not equal one doubt. Doubt is an act of the will, not the intellect. Scott
Click to expand...
Hmm, I read his arguments, and intellectually I now have my doubts that Jesus rose physically from the dead.

What’s will have to do with it?
 
There has been plenty of contemporary scholarship in this area. William Lane Craig, I believe, has the best resources when it comes to the resurrection or general apologetics all together.

The arguments on the Infidels website are classics that have been refuted numerous times. No non-theistic reputable historian or psychologist will agree with these classical explanations for various miraculous events relative to the resurrection.

Jesus physically rose from the dead; that can be proven and rationally believed.
 
Personally, as a person who is highly interested in the Resurrection (as should we all) I consider all of these arguments to be very weak to disprove the Resurrection. Heres why:

First off, I think we can ignore his Saint Genevieve analogy. Suppose I were to write a journal entry about a friend of mine who died ten years ago and worked miracles. Since I am a Catholic and am going to go to the Seminary, I can’t be lying because lying is a sin. So now, we have two choices: one, my friend worked miracles, or, two, I am a bad Catholic. Suppose number two is true and I’m a bad Catholic, does that disprove a person, who writes a biography today on St. Padre Pio and describes the miracles that St. Pio worked? No! You can’t just make an analogy and apply it to every case. You must investigate every case for miracles individually. We must investigate the Resurrection account separately from St. Genevieve, separate from the “miracles my friend worked”, and separately from the miracles St. Pio worked. Why? Its like saying this “hey, if someone writes a biography on a person, claims this person worked miracles, these miracles obviously seem like big lies used to counteract a movement, but it was written by a holy man, but it was written 10 years after her death so it couldnt be legend and there is no counter-works against it: therefore it must be true.” You just can’t do that! Assume this for a second, assume St. Genevieve didnt work any of those miracles, but this monk still wrote this work and it was unopposed: the infidels would want to say, hey, if St. Genevieve didn’t work these miracles, but she the monk got away with it, then therefore we should apply it to the Resurrection. Thats called the fallacy of a Sweeping Generalization. If St. Genevieve didn’t work any of these miracles then it doesn’t mean that ALL miracle claims that were written within 10 years by holy men are automatically false. Nor does it mean that if she did work these miracles and the claims were written within ten years by a holy man that ALL claims written within ten years that have no opposition are automatically false. We must investigate each case individually, but the infidel does a great job at enforcing doubt on the reader by first using a fallacy.
 
40.png
redhen:
Hmm, I read his arguments, and intellectually I now have my doubts that Jesus rose physically from the dead.

What’s will have to do with it?
Click to expand...
It means you decide something is true or not true even if one can’t prove one way or the other. This guy is right in one sense that there is not lots of slam-dunk evidence for the resurrection. He can present mountains and mountains of alternatives, and he can even possibly make a case for one being likely, but he can’t prove it. He has decided the resurrection is not true because on some level he wants it to not be true. This is why charging the believer with wishful thinking is the pot calling the kettle black.

Scott
 
40.png
redhen:
Can anyone help me refute this one?

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

If you discount the circular logic, i.e. using the New Testament to prove the New Testament, there’s not much that apologetics have to prove the resurrection.

The best apologetic argument I’ve seen is that “no one would die for a lie”

yet, " Matthew 28:17 actually claims that some eye-witnesses didn’t believe what they saw and might not have become Christians, which suggests the experience was not so convincing after all"

The only two martyrs in the New Testament were Stephen and James, and they were killed for breaking Jewish law, nothing for which they could recant for.

The article goes on and on…

Anyone want to take a stab at this?
Click to expand...

The Resurrection can’t be debunked, because it is not able to be proved by reason - reason works as a weapon only against what is based on reason.​

The Resurrection is a Divine Reality, so it is too big for reason to contain - it is not a purely this-worldly reality, but a Divine Act, which is from God: so only God can reveal it. And reason cannot contain God, any more than human history can contain eternity.

Jesus Christ can be known - but not proved. That’s why we know Him by faith: faith is less inadequate than reason, because it is not purely this-worldly. Reason is fine for some things in this world, but it is not much use for things which transcend this world, as God does. Oxygen is fine - as long as one is not in the sea; it’s of limited use then. Something else is needed then. And just as we need different equipment for different envoirinments in this world, so we need to be equipped to live in Christ - so we receive faith, which reveals the Resurrection to us with a certainty that reason could not. And the Resurrection is not a mere “something to know” - it is a something to live by, a life-giving mystery.

Besides, the Resurrection is unique - as unique, and as creative, as the creation. So there is nothing it can adequately be compared with; it has to be known as itself, or not at all.

That’s why attempts to prove the Resurrection make no sense - they are using this-worldly things to try proving the reality of an infinitely rich something which is beyond reason’s ability to grasp. The Resurrection is so real, that it does not need such poor attempts to validate it. Either the Father Who raised Jesus from the dead reveals it to men by His Spirit - or He does not. That is the only way in which it can be known: God must show it to the hearts of men. 🙂 ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## The Resurrection can’t be debunked, because it is not able to be proved by reason - reason works as a weapon only against what is based on reason.

The Resurrection is a Divine Reality, so it is too big for reason to contain - it is not a purely this-worldly reality, but a Divine Act, which is from God: so only God can reveal it. And reason cannot contain God, any more than human history can contain eternity.

Jesus Christ can be known - but not proved. That’s why we know Him by faith: faith is less inadequate than reason, because it is not purely this-worldly. Reason is fine for some things in this world, but it is not much use for things which transcend this world, as God does. Oxygen is fine - as long as one is not in the sea; it’s of limited use then. Something else is needed then. And just as we need different equipment for different envoirinments in this world, so we need to be equipped to live in Christ - so we receive faith, which reveals the Resurrection to us with a certainty that reason could not. And the Resurrection is not a mere “something to know” - it is a something to live by, a life-giving mystery.

Besides, the Resurrection is unique - as unique, and as creative, as the creation. So there is nothing it can adequately be compared with; it has to be known as itself, or not at all.

That’s why attempts to prove the Resurrection make no sense - they are using this-worldly things to try proving the reality of an infinitely rich something which is beyond reason’s ability to grasp. The Resurrection is so real, that it does not need such poor attempts to validate it. Either the Father Who raised Jesus from the dead reveals it to men by His Spirit - or He does not. That is the only way in which it can be known: God must show it to the hearts of men. 🙂 ##
Click to expand...

Hey Gottle–This has got to be one of the best answers i have ever readon this board. Thank you much,–nicolo
 
Next, the old famous Rubicon analogy. Carrier uses this because Christians have commonly said that there is more evidence that Jesus existed, or that Jesus rose from the dead, then there is for Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Lets examine what Mr. Carrier says.
  1. He says since Caesar wrote that he crossed the Rubicon that he crossed the Rubicon. Thats sort of like one of my favorite lines to say. “Well guys, its on the internet, and if its on the internet it must be true. Why? Well, if it wasn’t true, why would someone waste their time writting something that is a lie.” Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying everything everyone writes is a lie, I’m saying just the opposite, that not EVERYTHING that is written is automatically true. Just because you write something doesn’t make it automatically true. Look at the craftiness of Mr. Carrier. He says that a monk wrote about St. Genevieve and he lied, but since Caesar wrote about crossing the Rubicon he must be telling the truth. Not EVERYTHING written is true, not EVERYTHING written is false, you cant make another Sweeping Generalization. Investigate each case individually.
  2. Carrier is very vauge on this argument. VERY VAGUE. Cicero is a contemporary. How contemporary? Was he at the Rubicon? Did he see Caesar cross the Rubicon? Next he says that we don’t have any anti-Resurrection claims until 100 years after the Crucifixion. Well, it seems like he is either disclaiming the Gospel of Matthew which states that the Jewish authorities claimed that Jesus’s disciples stole his body, or he makes an even more outrageous claim stating that the Gospel’s were not written until the 2sd century. He goes on to claim that Christian’s put words in the mouths of Jewish authorities and made up reasons for why the Resurrection did not happen. He says these were written 50 years later, a rather late period for the Gospel of Matthew. Carrier says that this claim started circling around, made by Christian’s fifty years after the Resurrection. Carrier says so little about what happened before. Surely there must have been claims made before 50 years to disprove the Resurrection. Carrier might say, no, there wasn’t, the Jewish rabbi’s had no reason to disprove the Resurrection because Christianity was a very small thing to Jewish authorities and just a tiny blip on the screen. This idea is so false. For instance, lets assume the Resurrection happened in A.D. 30. Paul was converted in 33A.D. Therefore, for the first three years of Christianity, Paul was killing Christians everywhere. Paul was a devout Jewish man getting his orders from the Jewish authorities. Why would the Jewish rabbi’s kill Christians if Christianity was no big deal to them? Slaughtering mass amounts of Christians doesn’t seem like a small blip to me. To conclude, Carrier states that out of nowhere, 100 years after the Resurrection, Jewish authorities start writing against the Resurrection and start offering reasons why its false, but had been killing Christians only 99-96 years earlier. They had to have reasons why they thougth Christianity was wrong. If the reason wasn’t that the disciples stole the body then what was it? And if the rabbis had a good reason to disprove the Resurrection, why did so many Christian’s become Christians knowing they would die? The only logical reason is they had no good reason besides that if they admited Jesus was Messiah that they would lose their power they had as rabbis and would become the persecuted
 
40.png
redhen:
Can anyone help me refute this one?

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/lecture.html

If you discount the circular logic, i.e. using the New Testament to prove the New Testament, there’s not much that apologetics have to prove the resurrection.

The best apologetic argument I’ve seen is that “no one would die for a lie”

yet, " Matthew 28:17 actually claims that some eye-witnesses didn’t believe what they saw and might not have become Christians, which suggests the experience was not so convincing after all"

The only two martyrs in the New Testament were Stephen and James, and they were killed for breaking Jewish law, nothing for which they could recant for.

The article goes on and on…

Anyone want to take a stab at this?
Click to expand...
I read the first part about historicity comapring the crossing of the Rubicon to the resurrection, and really how can you expect evidence to comparable? On one hand you have essentially the biggest human event in history up until that point. Here’s the mighty Roman Empire in full blown Civil War, the Roman Empire has tax collectors, scribes, historians and philosophers recording many details. Then on the other hand we have a Jewish carpenter’s son roaming countryside preaching repentance, and teaching with a group of 12 relatively unknown Jews. Then Jesus is crucified, now of course to Christians this is the biggest event in history. But at the time, it was just another enemy of Rome crucified, just another one of the probably tens of thousands crucified during the Roman Empire, nothing spectacular.

Right off the bat the article to me at least, starts off with a very uneven slant, and unreal expectations towards necessary evidence. I don’t have time to finish it, but I will tomorrow.
 
  1. Just because we have no paintings depicting King David or Moses doesn’t mean he never existed.
  2. Caesar has scholars mentioning him and his crossing. Great! We have historians too. They all talk about early Christians and about their “Leader”. These historians confirm the early Church community and that there was a certain Christus. No historian mentions Jesus until the 3rd or fourth century??!! This is a flat out lie.
  3. Caesar and Rome could not have moved forward without crossing the Rubicon? The Resurrection could not have been preached in Jerusalem 7 weeks after the Crucifixion if the tomb was not empty. The Church could not move forward, nor gain a single believer within the first three years in Jerusalem if the tomb was not empty. Not only did they gain a single believer, but they gained a large following who willing accepted the strictest moral code ever. That is against everything the body says to do! The body says I want pleasure, dont accept this. Furthermore, the Jewish people were the last group of people to confuse Creator with created. They were monotheistic where all other “religions” said the more gods the better, we can have a party. Furthermore, they were so convincing that they changed the Holy Sabbath which no one dare violate, from saturday to Sunday.
Carrier goes on to state that only 10% of the people were literate at the time the Gospel’s were written so thats why they went unchecked. Ignore the Gospel’s for a second. Why did so many people convert to Christianity BEFORE the Gospels? Assume the late date of 80AD like Carrier does. Therefore, for 50 years, the early Christian community was teaching about Jesus DAILY! for 50 years! The disciples and apostles were teaching. So, if the Gospels were false, wouldn’t someone, later on, say hey, someone wrote this Gospel, and, you know what? Not a single word in here is true. The society was highly oral. They passed news orally, thats why only 10% were literate. But some literate person, say in AD 90, ten years after the Gospel of Matthew was written(according to Carrier) would say, we have been taught completely different stuff about Jesus for the past 20 years I have been alive, these Gospels are false. Etc etc. Now, this argument Carrier proposes completely breaks down when we place the view that all the Gospels were written before 60 AD. Because so many eyewitnesses would refute the Gospels because of two reasons, either one they saw and knew Jesus, or two, they knew what the apostles teached about Him.
 
In short, we have seen how confused and misleading Carrier is. So, instead of examining all of the other arguments. I will simply chose to finish with what Carrier doesn’t disprove.

Carrier has to show the following atleast one of the following to disprove the Resurrection
  1. Jesus never existed.
  2. the tomb wasn’t empty.
  3. a logical reason why the disciples stole the body.
  4. a logical reason on how the disciples stole the body.
  5. a logical explanation for why the disciples would die for a lie. Now, he mentions how people nowadays die for what they believe in. Another falacy. Falacy of ambiguity. If I became a martyr tonight, I would die for something I BELIEVE in. The disciples and apostles died for something they SAW and KNEW happened. theres a difference between a modern day martyr, and the disciples martrydom. So why would they die for something they KNEW they never saw?
  6. How Christianity managed to spread so quickly in Jerusalem, and spread among the Jewish community. Remember, these early Jewish-Christians were said they were going to go straight to “Hell”(this is a weak word to use due to differing Jewish beliefs on eternity or not eternal life). These Jews would not leave something, being told that if they left it they would go straight to “Hell” unless they had convincing evidence to believe.
  7. Explain Peter dening Christ three times, then preaching He rose from the dead and being Crucified upside down preaching Jesus is Risin!
  8. Explain Paul persecuting Christians because he was a VERY devout Jew, and then becoming a VERY devout Christian.
No one can offer logical arguments to this.

In fact, I wish more people challenged the Resurrection. Why? Well, if you approach this 100% open to the Truth, whatever the Truth may be, you will find that the Resurrection is the most logical answer.

Atheist have been atheist until they examined the Resurrection.

I hope that God speaks through all of us and allows you to become a devout Catholic apologetic helping others who struggle with the Truth. May God Bless
 
Haebius Corpus…PRESENT THE BODY! Until a body that can irrefutably be shown to be that of Jesus whom we believe is Christ then the Resurrection is NOT debunked. The resurrection IS a matter of faith. “Blessed are they who have not seen, but have believed”
 
The Resurrection of Jesus Christ cannot be fully understand by human reason. It is a mystery which only God, the angels, and his saints know. In heaven, those who died in the state of grace will have all their answers revealed to him by the Almighty Immortal God.
 
Apologetics are limited in their ability to help. But you can not argue with my testimony. My testimony is that God through Christ has rescued me from the chains of depravity and addiction. I did not deserve it, in fact int he words of Saint Paul, I was and am the least deserving, but He is compassionate, slow to anger and rich in kindness and mercy. Praise be to God forever!

Try telling the lepor that Jesus didn’t heal him. Well in His mercy and compassion and love, the Lord has brought about GREAT healing in my life, miracuously. If Jesus was just a man and died like the rest of us never to see the light of existence again then this would be impossible. However this is not so difficult if Jesus Is who He says He is, the Son of God, and if He was raised from the dead.
 
Vi Type:
There has been plenty of contemporary scholarship in this area. William Lane Craig, I believe, has the best resources when it comes to the resurrection or general apologetics all together.

The arguments on the Infidels website are classics that have been refuted numerous times. No non-theistic reputable historian or psychologist will agree with these classical explanations for various miraculous events relative to the resurrection.

Jesus physically rose from the dead; that can be proven and rationally believed.
Click to expand...
And there are critcs of William Lane Craig
jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_craig/contra_craig.htm

I suppose there are debunkers of the debunkers of the debunkers.

If someone were to try to prove or disprove this themselves it would take years of study. First you would have to learn Hebrew, Aramiac, Greek, Latin and probably German. Then you have to study ancient history, the history of Judaism, Christianity Mithraism, Zoroastrism and myriad other ancient religions. Next you would have to master Logic, Rhetoric and Philosophy.

Finally you would have to learn archeology, anthropology and forensic analysis of artifacts using carbon 14.

For something that would affect all mankind, for all time, why would God base this on the resurrection of one man observed by a handful of others in one tiny spot on one tiny planet in one tiny corner of the cosmos ?

Wouldn’t it have better to say, etch out “Jesus Lives” (in Greek) on the face of the moon, where all humankind could witness the miracle, and observe it for all time without relying on hearsay?
 
Hmm, ok well maybe HUGE letters etched on the moon is too much to ask (although God could have produced this correct?).

How 'bout a Fatima size Miracle of the Sun every generation for all to see?
 
There are many flaws in his argument. But the most fundamental one is that he totally misunderstands or misrepresents what Christians have always believed Christ’s Resurrection to be. It was definitely NOT just a temporal resuscitation like Lazarus, who later died again and was buried. Nor was it just a spectral “appearance” in a vision or a dream. We believe, as the Apostles did, that He rose in a glorified, non-earthly form of his own earthly body. If you choose not to believe what we believe, fine, I respect your choice. But it really bugs me when people MISREPRESENT what we believe. Are they afraid to admit what it is we really believe, and really look at it, because then they might believe it too?
 
40.png
redhen:
Hmm, ok well maybe HUGE letters etched on the moon is too much to ask (although God could have produced this correct?).

How 'bout a Fatima size Miracle of the Sun every generation for all to see?
Click to expand...
If you are actually a Catholic, consult your Catechism. Most of these issues of faith are dealt with therein. There is a free copy on the USCCB website.
 
40.png
marvin:
If you are actually a Catholic, consult your Catechism. Most of these issues of faith are dealt with therein. There is a free copy on the USCCB website.
Click to expand...
Chapter 2 of the CCC:

56
After the unity of the human race was shattered by sin God at once sought to save humanity part by part.The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the “nations,” in other words, toward men grouped "in their lands, each with [its] own LANGUAGE, by their families, in their nations."9

So I googled this and found that many racist sites used it to justify nationalist/racist concepts and to curb immigration.

vdare.com/letters/tl_123001.htm

But the idea of God creating separate cultures/langauges and nations and revealing Himself to them one at a time seems absurd.

Is God a racist?

Anyways, I digress. I have found no explantion in the CCC as to why God would prefer to reveal Himself in this limited way.

This sounds to me like the rationalization I would use to explain the gradual growth of a localized religion into other geographic areas.

I am a lapsed Catholic, trying hard to “will” myself to believe these stories even though my reason tells me it is most likely superstition on par with other religions.

I guess I am guilty of wishful thinking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top