Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

In a message dated 99-01-31 01:25:37 EST, you write:

<< Subj:	 Re: Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)
 Date:	99-01-31 01:25:37 EST
 From:	wcarter@mediaone.net (Jason Carter)
 Sender:	owner-errancy@infidels.org
 To:	errancy@infidel.org
 
 >Ed
 >
 >I don't think that there's any question that the early Christian martyrs
 >believed in what they died for, just as there's no question that the many
 >Muslim martyrs have believed in what they died for.  Obviously,
 >Christianity and Islam cannot both be true, so it is clear that one's
 >willingness to die for a belief is not a testimony of the truth of that
 belief.
 
 CARTER
 There is a difference. Muslims died (and die) for they believe in the
 truthfulness of Mohammed's -teachings-.  
 
 The early Christian, especially the apostles and early witnesses, died
 defending the death and resurrection of a crucifed peasant. The difference
 is this: The early Christians (again, especially the apostles) were in a
 position to -know with certaininty- whether or not the resurrection
 happened. Yet they testifed to the upmost of its occurance. In fact, Paul
 the importance of the truth of the resurrection especially clear throughout
 his epistles. "And if Christ has not been raised, then your faith is in
 vain, and you are still in your sins", and "We have not followed cleverly
 devised myths..". What evidence was there to convince a man who was
 involved in the systematic murder of Christians to become a preacher of
 Christ? What event caused the men who had seen their leader die disgraced
 upon a cross to dedicate the rest of their lives to spread a story like the
 resurrection?
 How also was such a belief not immediately shot down by the Jewish leaders
 of this time? Do you see the difference? 
 
 -Jason 
=====================
Joe Alward: 
 
Jason, you're assuming things to be true that cannot be verified.  How do you
know that those who followed Jesus were in a position to know "with certainty"
that Jesus was raised from the dead?   If we assume for the sake of argument
that Jesus was placed in a tomb, you need to explain how you know that Jesus
could *not* have been still alive when he was placed in his tomb and why he
couldn't have fooled the peasants into believing he was truly resurrected.
Why couldn't this have happened? Why couldn't Jesus have been a liar, or a
lunatic, or both, and the peasants very credulous?

In regards to Paul's statement that "if Christ has not been raised, then your
faith is in vain, and you are still in your sins", this can be taken as
nothing more than the use of the fallacy of undesirable consequences:  If you
don't believe the Christ rose from the dead, then you're going to hell."  

You ask, "What evidence was there to convince a man who was involved in the
systematic murder of Christians to become a preacher of Christ?"  Why do you
think we should take his conversion to be proof that Jesus was risen from the
dead?  After all, a group of computer programmers in California killed
themselves recently because they believed that a man named Do told them there
was a spaceship in a comet's tail.  If these intelligent men could have
believed such nonsense, why couldn't Paul have believed something false, too?
What evidence is there now to convince you that Paul could *not* have been
deceived, or perhaps lying?

• Previous message: Resurrection (Alward rebuts Carter)
• Next message: Teachings vs Resurrection?
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]