Apologetics Thread!!!

Soul Winner · 26-10-2009 07:07PM #1

I think the best thing to do before defending the objections that present themselves to the Christian faith is to actually hear some objections first. So the best way to proceed with this thread is to ask skeptics, agnostics and atheists what their objections to the stories about Jesus in the New Testament particularly the account of the resurrection actually are.

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

All are welcome to respond with valid arguments relevant to this thread and all are welcome to respond to those objections but let us be civil to each other and make our points without resorting to ad hominem attacks to fellow posters or the people they cite and quote. Please stick to the arguments being made and stay on topic.

Obviously as a Christian I feel that the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection stand up very well to past and current scrutiny and would pass any test of historicity that the skeptics will throw up.

Were the Gospel writers actually recording history when they wrote the doings and sayings ascribed to Jesus? Or where their stories mere projections of divinity added over time onto the Jesus they walked and talked with acuminating in the Christ of faith we have today?

Forgive me if I cannot respond to every reply but there are many here that can adequately respond should they wish. This thread is for everyone and I will try me best to pop back and reply to as many responses that I can.

OK fire away

lugha · 26-10-2009 07:59PM

Let me throw in a fairly low brow, mundane problem I have with the resurrection. When seeking to understand or explain something I would generally hitch my wagon to Occam's razor, look for the most plausible explanation. The problem with the resurrection is that, in the context of how we understand how the natural world works, it has zero plausibility. People do not return from the dead. A Christian can of course accept on faith that the resurrection did in fact happen but I was genuinely astonished to find several Christian posters here denying this and insisting that personal convictions aside, the resurrection of Christ is the most plausible explanation of a historical event (presumably because of the witnesses and also because of how Christianity expanded subsequently). It is not more plausible, and just as consistent with the evidence, to suggest that the witnesses merely believed that they witnessed the resurrection of Christ?

Zombrex · 26-10-2009 08:07PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics?

Because they are all written by the followers of a religion (not necessarily the most unbiased observers) and they describe fantastical supernatural things.

Various theories I've heard put forward is that they were pobably telling the truth because of various reasons, such as why would they lie, why would they be prepared to die if they were lying, why did the Romans not present the body etc etc

These excuses are, in my opinion, the very evidence that these are not good historical sources. No one looks at Hitlers biography and wonders "Why would he lie!? Would make no sense!", no one looks at the Jonestown deaths and goes "Jones must have been a miracle worker, otherwise why would they die for him". These excuses for the Bible are not applied to anything else, why make an exception for the Bible. Or at least why would a non-believer make an exception for the Bible?

All these discussions about the historical accuracy of the Bible always end up with Christians putting forward some what wacky, in my opinion, excuses for why these accounts, particularly of the resurrection, are valid and then demanding that they be proved wrong, which is really not where the discussion should go. If someone is claiming that something is historically accurate they should present why, not demand that someone prove otherwise.

So hopefully this thread will avoid that sort of thing, as it becomes a tedious as someone saying Prove to me God doesn't exist!

Turtwig · 26-10-2009 08:25PM

Edit : Oops misread thread..

Are we allowed to discuss OT stuff?

Ickle Magoo · 26-10-2009 09:08PM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

Ironically, the idea of applying logic to supernatural events is probably the crux of the conundrum. The more fanciful and illogical the tale, the less likely I think it is to be the true version of events. When I add together who is telling the tale, their motivation for making the tale extraordinary and add it to the other supernatural events that are written in the Bible and their likelihood (eg Genesis) then I have to come to the conclusion that the NT miracles are more of the same fantasy genre as the OT.

PDN · 26-10-2009 09:20PM

lugha wrote: »

Let me throw in a fairly low brow, mundane problem I have with the resurrection. When seeking to understand or explain something I would generally hitch my wagon to Occam's razor, look for the most plausible explanation. The problem with the resurrection is that, in the context of how we understand how the natural world works, it has zero plausibility. People do not return from the dead. A Christian can of course accept on faith that the resurrection did in fact happen but I was genuinely astonished to find several Christian posters here denying this and insisting that personal convictions aside, the resurrection of Christ is the most plausible explanation of a historical event (presumably because of the witnesses and also because of how Christianity expanded subsequently). It is not more plausible, and just as consistent with the evidence, to suggest that the witnesses merely believed that they witnessed the resurrection of Christ?

That depends to a certain extent on your initial presuppositions.

If you start from a position of atheism, accompanied by a belief that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead, then any other explanation will be more plausible.

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

Turtwig · 26-10-2009 09:33PM

PDN wrote: »

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

Maybe, but that opens up a whole other can of worms.
If you assume God exists and that He could raise someone from the dead, namely Himself, then you would have to ask 'why'.
Why did he resurrect Jesus? Why not just leave Him as dead as the dodo?

PDN · 26-10-2009 09:38PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Maybe, but that opens up a whole other can of worms.
If you assume God exists and that He could raise someone from the dead, namely Himself, then you would have to ask 'why'.
Why did he resurrect Jesus? Why not just leave Him as dead as the dodo?

Sorry, I really don't get your point at all. While I can see a number of reasons why God raised Jesus from the dead, I don't follow your reasoning. Why should your failure, or anyone else's failure, to discern the reason for God's actions constitute a 'can of worms'?

Zombrex · 26-10-2009 09:44PM

PDN wrote: »

That depends to a certain extent on your initial presuppositions.

If you start from a position of atheism, accompanied by a belief that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead, then any other explanation will be more plausible.

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

Some what ironically I agree with you 100%. We should not assume that it is impossible that Jesus rose from the dead.

The issue though is that not assuming this doesn't make him rising from the dead any more likely.

Given two contrasting possibilities, that Jesus did rise from the dead or that his followers merely mistakenly believed he did, the later is still miles ahead of the former in terms of plausibility.

Religious followers are mistaken about things like this all the time. If we accept that this happened merely because his followers thought it did then we should really be accepting of pretty much every religious claim going.

The only way this story gains plausibility over the far more likely explanation that his followers were mistaken as so many other religious followers have been in the past, is if you start inserting theistic assumptions (God exists, he could raise someone if he liked, Jesus could be his son)

And you then move from agnostic firmly into the theistic realm.

Turtwig · 26-10-2009 09:51PM

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, I really don't get your point at all. While I can see a number of reasons why God raised Jesus from the dead, I don't follow your reasoning. Why should your failure, or anyone else's failure, to discern the reason for God's actions constitute a 'can of worms'?

The agnostic viewpoint means we have to consider the possibilities and how plausible they really were e.g why these possibilities could be chosen by God.
It'd be far easier if we just assume either:
a) It's all a myth and discuss the evidence.
b) It actually happened and discuss the evidence.

Options a) and b) acknowledge the story the way it was told and simply set about proving/disproving it. The agnostic skeptic should be thorough and ask:
"Why this possibility?"

lugha · 26-10-2009 10:24PM

PDN wrote: »

That depends to a certain extent on your initial presuppositions.

If you start from a position of atheism, accompanied by a belief that it is impossible for someone to rise from the dead, then any other explanation will be more plausible.

If you start from a position of agnosticism, where you concede that you don't know whether God exists, and therefore you don't know that it is impossible for an omnipotent God to raise someone from the dead, then your assessment of what is plausible may well shift.

But then how are we to judge the veracity of any historical event, or any other kind for that matter?
If God may intercede in our affairs and violate natural laws (which without his intervention would be immutable) then we have no possibility of understanding anything. Perhaps the theory of gravity is all nonsense. There may be no attractive force between massive bodies, it may be an on going act of God. And we cannot discount this on the basis that there is no good reason for God to this, we are not competent to assess his motives. He may well have fabricated all our evidence for evolution to test out faith as some suggest. He may have forged historical documents, again for good reason that we cannot know. If you admit an omnipotent being who involves himself in earthly matters and if you concede that we are not equipped to assess his motives then we can have little confidence in any knowledge of science, history or anything else we acquire in this world.

Rev Hellfire · 26-10-2009 10:33PM

One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

PDN · 26-10-2009 10:44PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

For Christians, of course, this would be tied to our belief that man is made in the image of God. That image is marred through sin (hence we have ungodly emotions as will) but enough remains to explain the similarities.

PDN · 26-10-2009 10:52PM

lugha wrote: »

But then how are we to judge the veracity of any historical event, or any other kind for that matter?
If God may intercede in our affairs and violate natural laws (which without his intervention would be immutable) then we have no possibility of understanding anything. Perhaps the theory of gravity is all nonsense. There may be no attractive force between massive bodies, it may be an on going act of God. And we cannot discount this on the basis that there is no good reason for God to this, we are not competent to assess his motives. He may well have fabricated all our evidence for evolution to test out faith as some suggest. He may have forged historical documents, again for good reason that we cannot know. If you admit an omnipotent being who involves himself in earthly matters and if you concede that we are not equipped to assess his motives then we can have little confidence in any knowledge of science, history or anything else we acquire in this world.

Well, if you want to take that kind of opt-out you can. Maybe everything is an illusion and you're really stuck in a pod like in the Matrix.

Most of the human race doesn't have a problem with allowing for the possibility of God's existence while still weighing up the probability of various scenarios.

chozometroid · 26-10-2009 10:53PM

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

I don't get this "problem" you seem to have. You seem to be looking at it backwards. The question should be, "assuming such an entity exists, is it reasonable to expect the humans it creates to have some of the emotions which are commonly attributed to it?"

Zombrex · 26-10-2009 10:57PM

PDN wrote: »

Most of the human race doesn't have a problem with allowing for the possibility of God's existence while still weighing up the probability of various scenarios.

That is because most humans find it easy to view nature as a human like agent that does things for human like reasons.

That doesn't mean that this has nice neat logical consequences, quite the opposite in fact.

monosharp · 26-10-2009 10:58PM

Its impossible for me to comment here without mentioning the OT.

I have a deep dislike for the OT and the god/people therein. Thats all I'll say about it here since it is off topic.

As for the NT, I actually quite like a lot of the stories there and I do believe many of them contain a good moral message.

As for it been a historically accurate document, I can't agree at all. Perhaps there was a historical Jesus, I have no problem with it been true or not, but there basically isn't much evidence to support that at all.

We have other historical accounts of people referenced by two or even more separate sources which are still under a lot of scrutiny.

Altogether I don't dislike the NT, its a religious text that contains some good stories.

I do dislike the way Christianity developed since its inception and the control it had/has over peoples lives and politics. e.g > The Holy Roman Empire, JesusLand etc.

Zombrex · 26-10-2009 11:02PM

chozometroid wrote: »

I don't get this "problem" you seem to have. You seem to be looking at it backwards. The question should be, "assuming such an entity exists, is it reasonable to expect the humans it creates to have some of the emotions which are commonly attributed to it?"

Why would that be the question since we aren't starting from the position of assuming this entity exists (if I'm following the point of this thread correct)?

The question should be if humans were going to imagine gods would we imagine them as being like us. And we find across cultures and religions we do. Gods are defined as powerful human like agents.

So this established (that if we are going to imagine a supernatural agent acting in nature we are going to imagine it as a human like supernatural agent in nature, this is pretty easy to show), we then look at the Christian god. And he turns out to be a human like supernatural agent who does things for human like reasons.

Now that doesn't mean he is not real. But it does put him on par with every other supernatural agent we know humans tend to invent.

There is no point having this discussion if we assume the Christian God exists and is as described in the Bible. Where exactly is the defence of Christian belief if we are all Christians to start with? This whole thing just becomes an exercise in circular reasoning.

chozometroid · 26-10-2009 11:05PM

Wicknight wrote: »

That is because most humans find it easy to view nature as a human like agent that does things for human like reasons.

This is like the 1,000,000th time you have stated this. It doesn't discredit belief in God one iota. If God and the supernatural exist, then surely people will have the tendency to not always see a purely naturalistic view of things.

chozometroid · 26-10-2009 11:07PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would that be the question since we aren't starting from the position of assuming this entity exists (if I'm following the point of this thread correct)?

The question should be if humans were going to imagine gods would we imagine them as being like us. And we find across cultures and religions we do. Gods are defined as powerful human like agents.

So this established (that if we are going to imagine a supernatural agent acting in nature we are going to imagine it as a human like supernatural agent in nature, this is pretty easy to show), we then look at the Christian god. And he turns out to be a human like supernatural agent who does things for human like reasons.

Now that doesn't mean he is not real. But it does put him on par with every other supernatural agent we know humans tend to invent.

There is no point having this discussion if we assume the Christian God exists and is as described in the Bible. Where exactly is the defence of Christian belief if we are all Christians to start with? This whole thing just becomes an exercise in circular reasoning.

Maybe you should read the post I quoted from, or better yet, the quote that I actually had in my post.

Originally Posted by Rev Hellfire
One of my biggest 'problems' with the Christian ideal of a god is that its too human, at least in its portrayal.

Assuming such an entity exists is it reasonable to even expect it to have the basic human emotions which are commonly attributed to it such as love, compassion, anger, etc ?

For something so extraordinary its attributed motives are rather ordinary.

Turtwig · 26-10-2009 11:23PM

PDN wrote: »

Well, if you want to take that kind of opt-out you can. Maybe everything is an illusion and you're really stuck in a pod like in the Matrix.

I'm not sure that's an opt out on Lugha's behalf.

You're basically saying that anything is possible e.g the Pod in the Matrix, the universe was created last thursday etc etc.
Would you not accept that it is far more plausible that Jesus was 'beamed' up to a spaceship and cloned by a bunch of aliens than actually resurrected?

chozometroid · 26-10-2009 11:28PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not sure that's an opt out on Lugha's behalf.

You're basically saying that anything is possible e.g the Pod in the Matrix, the universe was created last thursday etc etc.
Would you not accept that it is far more plausible that Jesus was 'beamed' up to a spaceship and cloned by a bunch of aliens than actually resurrected?

I'm gonna jump in here....

You are proposing that an alien took Jesus' dead tissue and grew a clone from Him, thereby created a new Jesus? Did the alien transfer memories and things too?

PDN · 26-10-2009 11:37PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I'm not sure that's an opt out on Lugha's behalf.

You're basically saying that anything is possible e.g the Pod in the Matrix, the universe was created last thursday etc etc.
Would you not accept that it is far more plausible that Jesus was 'beamed' up to a spaceship and cloned by a bunch of aliens than actually resurrected?

No, while not starting from a presupposition of that being impossible, it does not therefore follow that it is plausible.

My point was that avoiding a dogmatic atheistic starting point will alter one's views of what is plausible. Both yourself and Lugha seem to want to argue that avoiding a dogmatic atheistic starting point makes all things equally plausible.

Turtwig · 27-10-2009 12:22AM

chozometroid wrote: »

This is like the 1,000,000th time you have stated this. It doesn't discredit belief in God one iota. If God and the supernatural exist, then surely people will have the tendency to not always see a purely naturalistic view of things.

It does however confuse the issue of the supernatural a heck of a lot. I mean we are wired to believe stuff yet most of those beliefs have turned out to be false. Extrapolating a little bit leaves all beliefs as being wrong.
Indeed, I would argue more for ignosticism we cannot yet define any such supernatural being that created the world and we almost certainly not created in its image.

Turtwig · 27-10-2009 12:28AM

chozometroid wrote: »

I'm gonna jump in here....

You are proposing that an alien took Jesus' dead tissue and grew a clone from Him, thereby created a new Jesus? Did the alien transfer memories and things too?

Even though it's outlandish it's still more plausible than resurrection. Yep, the aliens created the perfect clone of Jesus that actually though it was Jesus.:)

Overheal · 27-10-2009 12:30AM

Soul Winner wrote: »

Why are the accounts in the New Testament considered non historical by many skeptics? And what would you as a skeptic consider to be an actual historical account from ancient history and what do you base that conclusion on and why can't the same logic be applied to the New Testament accounts?

Well what we were taught in school. Actually an Irish Catholic school :pac: was that Historical documents, are only as strong as their references. First hand accounts, media, second hand accounts, etc.

The issue being that outside of the New Testament, there is little reference or evidence to go off of which would verify that Jesus did in fact undergo a resurrection. While there is an always growing amount of evidence that helps prove he was a man who lived over 2000 years ago, theres less to suggest that he rose from the dead.

All are welcome to respond with valid arguments relevant to this thread and all are welcome to respond to those objections but let us be civil to each other and make our points without resorting to ad hominem attacks to fellow posters or the people they cite and quote. Please stick to the arguments being made and stay on topic.

Ad Hominem is without a doubt the best term I have learned all year.

Obviously as a Christian I feel that the New Testament accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection stand up very well to past and current scrutiny and would pass any test of historicity that the skeptics will throw up.

I can't offer up proof of something - I dont feel anyway - never happened. I'd at least like to suggest the burden of proof lay with the believer to provide historical backups outside of religious scripture that help verify that Jesus may have in fact undergone a resurrection.

Were the Gospel writers actually recording history when they wrote the doings and sayings ascribed to Jesus? Or where their stories mere projections of divinity added over time onto the Jesus they walked and talked with [accumulating] in the Christ of faith we have today?

Its an excellent question. The first problem as I understand it was that the Gospels were written and re-written/copied several times over the course of 30 years for some of the Disciples wasnt it? I wonder if by some chance they didnt agree to certain additions over time to increase interest in their work. I wont degrade Jesus by calling him the Balloon Boy or anything, but if you were going to tell people this guy rose from the dead and was the son of god, you get a lot more viewership, and far more people interested in your ideals and morals and your beliefs: most of which I had thought were founded in the parables.
Dont get me wrong, I've never completed the bible and have only read the scattered passage. But I was always less interested in what I might consider "The Fluff" and more interested in the Core Values that get established in those parables and such. Leaving the weeds for the harvest and all that.

I have no problem accepting that Jesus was a Man who had 12 disciples and did very charitable deeds. But I just feel the accuracy of the reports have been grossly exaggerated.

chozometroid · 27-10-2009 01:26AM

Malty_T wrote: »

Even though it's outlandish it's still more plausible than resurrection. Yep, the aliens created the perfect clone of Jesus that actually though it was Jesus.:)

Maybe the aliens, with their advanced technology, had a way to reset/reactivate the current DNA as opposed to growing a new person through cloning.

What we currently know as being dead is only when the brain's electrical activity has ceased and is there is an inability to resume brain activity. Certainly this is only due to our limits in knowledge, and our definition of "dead" and "death" will continue to change.

Also, what makes a resurrection so hard to believe when you consider that life did not always exist? If life can come from non-life, and certainly it must(unless you believe life originally came from "potentially life-producing" particles, which doesn't change anything) then the resurrection is nothing more fantastic.

Turtwig · 27-10-2009 01:45AM

chozometroid wrote: »

Also, what makes a resurrection so hard to believe when you consider that life did not always exist? If life can come from non-life, and certainly it must(unless you believe life originally came from "potentially life-producing" particles, which doesn't change anything) then the resurrection is nothing more fantastic.

:eek:
You just stumped me on myself there (not sure that makes sense?)
I just realised that I always just assumed the resurrection was implausible merely because it defied common sense - a grave error.
So let's get science fiction/speculating.
If you have the exact details of the brains neurons just before the subjects death and then supposedly you posses the knowledge to re-ignite the cells then I see no reason why a resurrection wouldn't be possible.
Food for thought, thanks Chozo

Must point out though Chozo,
Life from non life is viewed as a naturalistic. If the resurrection appears so, then Jesus's ultimate feat is toned down a notch or two:p.

PDN · 27-10-2009 02:01AM

Malty_T wrote: »

I always just assumed the resurrection was implausible merely because it defied common sense - a grave error.

Probably unintentional - but a terrible pun nonetheless.

Turtwig · 27-10-2009 02:03AM

PDN wrote: »

Probably unintentional - but a terrible pun nonetheless.

*Needs Sleep*

Morbert · 27-10-2009 02:07AM

We're used to the natural laws being invariant. This assumption not only allows us to make sense of the world, but it has great efficacy: The assumption actually tells us what to expect, and has been affirmed by countless scientific tests. It is a trustworthy assumption (call it faith if you must. It makes no difference to me), even though we cannot be certain it is true.

The resurrection clearly violates this assumption. This doesn't mean we declare the resurrection to be "impossible", but it does mean we are very suspicious of the resurrection, and while the Biblical account certainly demands attention, we will ask for strong evidence before we relax the assumption mentioned above, which is perfectly sensible.

When I discuss the issue of the resurrection directly with Christians, they (normally) tend to take one of two attitudes. The first is to claim that historical evidence clearly points to the resurrection, and that to deny it is unreasonable. The second is to claim that it would have been "too easy" if Jesus had left clear evidence that he rose from the dead. There would be no need to take a "leap of faith" which would be bad. Both viewpoints confuse me. But this is ultimately beside the point.

I think the main problem most atheists have with Christianity is the lack of Christ in their lives. Christianity makes claims about a personal God, and if that God does not get personal with us then there is some predictable skepticism. The response to this concern is usually along the lines of "You're not looking hard enough." or "God is absent because you have sinned against Him." or "Keep searching with your heart and you will eventually find Him.", which doesn't really help with the concern. It is one thing if we are dealing with an atheist who doesn't want to believe (an anti-theist like Hitchens, for example). But if someone is genuinely open (even enthusiastic) about the idea of a merciful, loving, personal God, but sees no sign of that God, then Christianity will be lost to them, and no amount of apologetics will change that.

Apologetics Thread!!!

Comments