The Christian faith is based on the historicity of Jesus resurrection. What evidence exists for accepting this? The Bible records that there were at least 500 eyewitnesses to Jesus post-resurrection appearances. (1 Corinthians 15:6)
The early Christians were so convinced of the reality of Christ's resurrection that they were willing to undergo persecution and even death rather than renounce their faith in Christ. Do you accept Christ's resurrection as historical fact, and if not, why not?
I agree that the Christian faith must be based on the historicity of Jesus. If Jesus wasn't raised from the dead, the Christian faith is a delusion, period.
As for your arguments:
1.)
Over 500 Eyewitnesses to the Risen Jesus. I don't know why Christians bring this up. I know that Christian apologists like William Lane Craig and Gary Habermas think that this is powerful evidence but it isn't. Think about it: over 500
anonymous eyewitnesses? Who were these people? What were their backgrounds and education? Did they all see the
exact same thing? How does Paul know what they saw? Did Paul or the other disciples interview these people?
Christians expect me to explain this if I don't believe it's evidence for a risen Jesus. But what is there to explain, really? Christians may not like this but I operate on an axiom that is the basis of my approach to history and biblical studies:
Miraculous claims require miraculous forms of evidnece to validate them.
500 or more anonymous witnesses doesn't constitute miraculous evidence. The bodily resurrection of Jesus is a miracle claim. Do we have a signed affidavit from these witnesses describing in detail what they saw? Did all of them claim to see the same thing
at the same time? Where did this sighting take place? Were all of them Jews? Were they already disciples of Jesus? Were any of them skeptical and then convinced after this event allegedly occurred?
If people open the Book of Mormon, they will see a testimony signed by eleven eyewitnesses who alleged that they had seen (and some claimed that they had handled) the plates that Joseph Smith Jr had translated from. These men signed their names on it. Yet no Evangelical Christian finds this impressive. In fact, Evangelicals are happy to refer to ex-Mormon websites that attempt a debunking of this signed testimony from the eleven men.
Now think about this. Eleven men who signed a statement. You have Christians appeal to over 500 anonymous people. We don't know a thing about them or what they supposedly saw, how they knew it was Jesus, etc. Am I really supposed to take this seriously? I wish the Evangelicals who are skeptical of the Mormon claims would apply their skepticism to the creed in 1st Corinthians 15.
2.)
The Marytrdom Argument. This is one of the most popular arguments used by Christians to support their faith. It's complete sophistry, though. There are several flaws to this argument. Let me explain the biggest one:
The biggest flaw with this argument is that it's based on a false dichotomy. To say that the disciples of Jesus would never die for a lie, knowing it was a lie, creates a false dichotomy. The argument assumes that it's all history or one big hoax. But why is hoax the only alternative to the resurrection being historical? Another possibility, which the argument rules out of consideration without even attempting to refute it on historical grounds is
delusion. What if the disciples were sincerely yet seriously deluded?
When Christians say "People will die for something they mistakenly think is true"-this option is delusion. People dying for something they mistakenly think is true is dying for a delusion. Yet this argument doesn't even
refute delusion. It just rules it out from consideration. This is amusing considering that apologists will rule out delusion and whine about just how closed-minded skeptics are with their "antisupernatural bias".
Really rusra02, do you find this sophistry convincing?
Matthew
