"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.
Wouldn't it be great if we had another source to corroborate the resurrection of Jesus and stories in the NT? We do! It is called the Book of Mormon. In fact it says the following regarding it being a second witness.
7 Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 8 Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.