The nub of this argument is that the apostles would not have willingly spent their lives promoting and risking and often suffering death for an untruth.
The problem with this as an argument is that other causes, which most of us would consider untrue or evil, such as Nazism and Marxism, have elicited similar dedication from their proponents.
The intensity with which something is believed does not always correlate to its truth.
I once argued (by correspondence) with an agnostic about this. Six months we traded letters. I pulled out all the usual stuff: philosophy, bibliographic evidence, logic etc. etc., all to no avail. Of course his bottom line claim was that I had simply not given him enough evidence, and the last I heard of him, he told me he was investigating zen buddhism.
I have learned the hard way that objective arguments are useful for keeping a skeptic from changing the subject, but that is about all. The problem with evidential argument is that the doubter will keep raising the bar high enough that has an excuse not to believe. In essence, the agnostic has a “fundamentalist agenda” of his own, one which allows him to live his life as he jolly well pleases. A hard, tedious lesson to learn—but I learned it. Bill O’Reilly likes to use the term “no spin,” but (contrary to what Bill O’Reilly claims) everyone has a spin. It’s a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with.
I love Peter Kreeft. He is so clear,logical, and well-spoken.
Simple logic tells us that Jesus could not have been walking around in a Roman province in a dead human body for forty days and nights without Romans seeing him; they'd have crucified him a second time and done whatever it took to ensure that he stayed crucified.
Nonetheless he did come back and to the people who witnessed it, what they witnessed was utterly indistinguishable from him having come back in his own body.
The mistake people make here is thinking that Jesus was the first and/or the only person ever to have been heard from after he died; he was the last. The OT contains a ghost story (1 Samuel 28:7 - 28:20 or thereabouts) in the familiar tale of Saul, Samuel, and the "witch of Endor" and in times more remote than that, such stories were less rare.
The resurrection was the sort of thing which Julian Jaynes described as "bicameral"; it was the last such thing ever seen by more than one or two people on our planet, and it was not any sort of an "auditory" or visual mass hallucination, but was sufficiently real.
Simple logic tells us that Jesus could not have been walking around in a Roman province in a dead human body for forty days and nights without Romans seeing him; they'd have crucified him a second time and done whatever it took to ensure that he stayed crucified.
Nonetheless he did come back and to the people who witnessed it, what they witnessed was utterly indistinguishable from him having come back in his own body.
The mistake people make here is thinking that Jesus was the first and/or the only person ever to have been heard from after he died; he was the last. The OT contains a ghost story (1 Samuel 28:7 - 28:20 or thereabouts) in the familiar tale of Saul, Samuel, and the "witch of Endor" and in times more remote than that, such stories were less rare.
The resurrection was the sort of thing which Julian Jaynes described as "bicameral"; it was the last such thing ever seen by more than one or two people on our planet, and it was not any sort of an "auditory" or visual mass hallucination, but was sufficiently real.
I thought it was all about belief and not proof. Blessed are those who believe but have not seen or a reasonable facsimile thereof.
Not really. Consider Ezkiel 37:
13 Then you shall know that I am the L-RD, when I open your graves and have you rise from them, O my people!Resurrection says nothing about the resurrected. It only says something about the resurrecter.14 I will put my spirit in you that you may live, and I will settle you upon your land; thus you shall know that I am the L-RD. I have promised, and I will do it, says the L-RD.
ML/NJ
Not the Apostles, they were hunched up scared for their lives behind a locked door.
Not the Jews, they even asked the Romans to post guards so that something like that would not happen.
Not to Romans. They wanted this whole problem to go away and be forgotten.
And that leaves......
"We do not need to presuppose that the New Testament is infallible, or divinely inspired or even true." Yet, in the very beginning of his "refutation" of the "swoon theory" he states: "The fact [sic] that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus' legs..." Where does this "fact" come from if not from a presupposition that the story in the New Testament (NT) is true?!? The author is violating his own rules that we need not presuppose the NT is true, by presupposing the story in the NT as being "factual."
Then he continues in #3 by saying:
"John, an eyewitness, certified that he saw blood and water come from Jesus' pierced heart (Jn 19:34-35).
How does he "know" John was "an eyewitness," or that John even wrote John's Gospel if not by presupposing that the NT is true?
In #4, he continues to use NT "evidence" (in violation of his own rules) of something that is not recorded by any other source.
"The body was totally encased in winding sheets and entombed (Jn 19:38-42)."
Then, in the refutation of the "conspiracy theory" he quotes "Blaise Pascal [who] gives a simple, psychologically sound proof [sic]"
"The apostles were either deceived or deceivers. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead."
No, but according to the NT, they saw Jesus raise people from the dead. So why would that be difficult for them to believe?
MaBut even the NT says it was. Matthew 28:17 actually says that some of the eleven "doubted" even after the resurrected Jesus supposedly spent 40 days with them!
Pascal's reasoning doesn't constitute "sound proof" but simple rationalization, or better yet a speculation.
In #2 of the refutation of the 'conspiracy theory," the author states:
"If they made up the story, they were the most creative, clever, intelligent fantasists in history, far surpassing Shakespeare, or Dante or Tolkien. Fisherman's "fish stories" are never that elaborate, that convincing, that life-changing, and that enduring."
Well, the Jews made up a myth of Exodus, being in Egypt, being in the Sinai for 40 years, and the Muslims believe a myth that Mohammad, an illiterate Bedouin, received the Koran from Allah, word by word, and memorized it infallibly!
Actually, Homer's Iliad is much more believable (historically) than anything written in the Bible, because it doesn't really claim the world to be full of magic, and because of external evidence that gives the story some sense of credibility.
In #3 of the same argument, he states:
"The disciples' character argues strongly against such a conspiracy on the part of all of them..."
How does he know the disciples' character? We only know of two alleged eyewitnesses, Matthew and John and practically nothing of the others. Neither Luke nor Mark nor Paul are eyewitnesses. And all this is based, again, on the presupposition that the NT is true.
In the "refutation" of the "genius" of the "hallucination theory" he states:
"There were too many witnesses. Hallucinations are private, individual, subjective..."
Hallucinations (visions) are often referred to as "wittiness" in the Bible by various authors. They "see" and "hear" things and they "know" it's from God (how did they know what God is?).
In addition to that, they often admit it is in a state of trance! Peter experience visions and auditory hallucinations in a state of trace in Acts regarding what one can eat, for example. In another example, Paul experiences hallucinations on the way to Damascus, but his companions don't.
In other instances, the visions are communal. Mass hysteria has been a proven psychological phenomenon that involves visual and auditory hallucinations of a whole bunch of "witnesses." The best example of it was one of the "falling sun" that was "witnessed" by thousands of Catholics in the 20th century Spain!
The arguments of the author then seem to get more ridiculous, as he offers refutations of this type:
"The witnesses were qualified. They were simple, honest, moral people who had firsthand knowledge of the facts."
Based on what? Presupposition that the NT is true? We have nothing to corroborate this with except by the NT which cannot be used on any presupposition of truth by author's own rule.
Then in the refutation of the "myth theory", the author states:
"The style of the Gospels is radically and clearly different from the style of all the myths. Any literary scholar who knows and appreciates myths can verify this. There are no overblown, spectacular, childishly exaggerated events."
LOL! First of all, we can't go by what the Gospels say, by author's own rule. Second, the Gospels are full of childishly exaggerated, spectacular events too numerous to recount! Just think of the voice from heaven and a dove descending...or Lazarus getting up after being dead for four days...or the transfiguration on Mt. Tabor...or the feeding with the fish and bread story...how realistic is that?
This is not the world as we know. Things just don't happen like that in the real world, so no wonder no one recorded it except the interested parties.
Is this is the best they can come up with, this is pathetic, if not embarrassing. Not a single irrefutable "fact" is stated. All "evidence" and claims made as "factual" are based on the presupposition that the NT is true, even though that is one of the two rules not to follow.
The only thing this individual proved is that he has no proof whatsoever and that his arguments are based on violation of his own rules.
Faith is a belief and as such it requires no proof. Like anything else of that nature (such as love) it cannot be demonstrated by reason or gestures. A person who believes he or she loves another person does not need proof, and cannot provide provide proof of that awareness. Love cannot be described, measured, or defined. As such trying to prove logically that you love your spouse is an exercise in futility. And so is this article.
Those who believe, like those who love, need no proof, and no amount of skepticism can prove them wrong, just as no amount of rationalization or works can prove them right.
Thank you very, very much for this post, GonzoII. It boils down to you believe it or you toss it ALL out. No middle ground.
bump for later read
bump for later