Firmly Planting the Goal Posts

It is most popular to give other religions preferential treatment over Christianity.

Christianity rules out all the other ways of receiving eternal life, so that is sort of a given.

Still, giving preferential treatment to any other religion at all, is a person's choice.

Being a True Christian is like being a True Trump supporter, verifiable facts and evidence are not required, just believe what you are told and don’t question. After all, millions of followers couldn’t possibly be wrong.

Nihilist Virus said:

So here are my criteria. There must be at least ONE person in history who satisfies both of the following:

1.) This person is attested to have seen Christ after the resurrection but before Christ ascended to heaven. This makes Paul irrelevant. Please do not mention him.

The attestation need not be firsthand.

2.) This person was given the opportunity to recant his faith and go free, but refused to do so and suffered torture/execution. Actual dialogue is required.

Click to expand...

Without trying to descend the rabbit-hole of your source requirements, I would just say that Christianity holds that Jesus appeared to his 11 remaining apostles in the upper room after his resurrection and 10 of them were martyred. The obvious fact that they were in danger of suffering the same death as their master did not deter them from preaching openly (e.g. Acts 4).

You are free to explore the source traditions of the particular martyrdoms if you so desire.

We have less than 1% of documents from that long ago. Even major historians, like Tacitus, are only known from 8 or so manuscripts. It simply is not possible to give you what you want, but you wouldn't be able to give such detail even for well-known things like Piso's trial before the Senate.

A better analogy than Abraham Lincoln in the 19th, would be a minor African tribe or a subgroup of Pathans on the Northwest frontier of colonial India. The early Christians simply did not matter until much later. We wouldn't, or would be very unlikely to be able to, give something similar. This is not how historical methodology works, so basically this is just trying to assume an argument from Silence.

Nihilist Virus said:

If we were to discover that every last miracle attributed to Christ was a lie, except that he did rise from the dead, then Christianity would be proven true. Evolution and deep time, contradictions in the Bible, falsehoods throughout it, nonsensical theology - none of that would matter. Conversely, if Christ were proven to have not risen from the dead, it wouldn't matter if every other miracle attributed to him was absolutely true. If the earth were 6000 years old, Genesis was 100% literally true, and Jehovah actually existed, Christianity would still be proven false.

In this thread I would like to establish the criteria that I find necessary for belief in the resurrection. There is no physical evidence whatsoever. All we have is testimony.

So here are my criteria. There must be at least ONE person in history who satisfies both of the following:

1.) This person is attested to have seen Christ after the resurrection but before Christ ascended to heaven. This makes Paul irrelevant. Please do not mention him.

The attestation need not be firsthand.

2.) This person was given the opportunity to recant his faith and go free, but refused to do so and suffered torture/execution. Actual dialogue is required.

I will accept ANY source that is within 200 years of the resurrection. While a secular source would be ideal, I will happily accept Christian documents - even ones which were rejected from the canon for heresy.

I am flexible on the 200 years, but it has to be before Constantine.

I've made several posts about the "Why die for a lie?" argument and not really gotten much in the way of answers. I've since found that the best way to get answers on the internet is to simply rewrite a question as an assertion and then see if someone can correct it. So...

There is no person in history who meets these criteria.

Furthermore, these criteria are generous and quite minimal. For example, if a legend started today that Abraham Lincoln rose from the dead, it would fit my time requirements laid out here. I assume that attestation for Lincoln's resurrection without physical evidence would not be compelling. If documents showed that the government was rounding up and executing people who claimed to witness Lincoln's resurrection, that wouldn't show how committed they were to their claims unless they were actually given the opportunity to recant and go free. If these people were executed no matter what they said, then that does not actually demonstrate any level of conviction on their part.

Quick question: Is it true that Peter was going to flee his crucifixion, but was visited by Christ and persuaded to "face the music"? If so, is there a written source dated within 200 years of the resurrection?

Quick note: Although I am asking for a minimum of one person meeting these criteria, I would prefer two or three. One is the absolute bare minimum and will get an atheist to stop and reconsider, but two or three might cause us to reverse course. The dating of the source and the historical merit will of course be analyzed but until there is at least the bare minimum of one (potentially biased) source, I've got nothing to work with and I can't afford to be picky.

Final note: I brought this up to a Christian a while ago and they responded, "So you're telling God what the terms are now?" I interpreted that as an intellectual betrayal. I was being objective, honest, and reasonable. I cannot just give Christianity preferential treatment over other religions. If this is your expectation, then the apologetics forum is not for you.

Click to expand...

To me, this whole exercise smacks of subjectivity (as well as poisoning of the well through your choices of "criteria"), and while I as an existential type Christian can appreciate some level of Subjectivity, yours seems to be of a more morbid kind, at least in this thread anyway.

For me, in my perception of what you're supposedly asking here, the "objective quality" of your little exercise can be incised by asking the following questions: how many eggs does a person have to see cracked before he realizes he can make an omelette, or how many Christian maidens (or deaconesses) have to be tortured before it "means something"? [see Pliny the Younger for additional details.]

I mean, you're whole epistemic endeavor in this OP, as it seems to me, is one that befits a 1970s Tootsie Pop commercial:

Nihilist Virus said:

Yes, it is. But have you found a way to objectively prove that Christ rose from the dead?

Click to expand...

So, it seems you're saying that your choice of criteria that is to become your "goal-post" by which you'll make further evaluations is subjective, right? I guess that would we alright if there wasn't already epistemological various indices within the bible that, at minimum, disqualify just how either subjective OR EVEN objective our own personal cognitive preferences can be when dealing with the theological/spiritual truths surrounding Jesus of Nazareth.

As for finding a 'way' to objectively 'prove' that Christ rose from the dead, I find that whole conceptual arc you're asking for here to be made of a flimsy conceptual material and not suitable for service as a goal-post. One reason is that proof is a slippery word, and two, as Kierkegaard pointed out, the simple act that anyone of us might undertake by asserting that we are objective in our thinking or acting objectively doesn't guarantee that we are thereby 'sane.' The simple claim of being desirous of "Objectivity" doesn't tell us if the person so choosing his form of goal-post, as you're choosing here, is a person who won't manipulate the constructs of his own evaluation regarding his goal post for the sake of having personal advantage over others.

How so?

Click to expand...

By implying that any Christian who won't 'play' by your rules is dishonest or illogical, and so on and so forth. By contrast, I'd simply assert that any skeptic who won't play by God's rules (or Will, really) isn't honest, even if he may be logical (...I mean, if the bible is true, it can't be, then, that human logic will be utterly efficacious in enabling us to know or understand everything we might deign to want to know and understand ...)

Uh... what? And if subjectivity is so unappealing, then why are you subjectively analyzing my level of subjectivity?

Click to expand...

Well, there is more than one kind of subjectivity, especially if a God is out there and able to invisibly affect our minds when He so chooses to do so. This isn't a secret.

I already answered that. The answer is one. Although two or three would be nice.

Click to expand...

I'd think that in the case of the Christian faith, simply knowing that some Christians were tortured or put to death for their identities as Christians, whether offered a chance to recant or not, would be more than ample evidence by which to consider the other possible testimonial evidences of Christianity. But again, as Kierkegaard (and Pascal), among some others would aver, since the process of faith is a Subjective phenomenon, then each person will have his own proclivities and penchants for wanting God to have done things this way or that way.

I listed two criteria. Can no one here count to two?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that counting is relevant, especially where the torturing of two Christian women (among some others) in secular history is to be considered. One can wonder when enough is enough ....

Nihilist Virus said:

1.) This person is attested to have seen Christ after the resurrection but before Christ ascended to heaven.

The attestation need not be firsthand.

2.) This person was given the opportunity to recant his faith and go free, but refused to do so and suffered torture/execution. Actual dialogue is required.

Click to expand...

Jesus.
1)Attested to have seen himself after the resurrection and before His ascension
2)Had the opportunity to recant his faith and go free, but refused to do so and suffered execution. Dialogue included.

Nihilist Virus said:

Item 2) occurred before the resurrection. Christ was given the chance to recant his claim that he was God. Could you clarify what it is that I'm missing?

Click to expand...

#2 doesn't lay down such a restriction. So we seem to be here.

Sanoy said:

#2 doesn't lay down such a restriction. So we seem to be here.

Click to expand...

That's one way to look at his argument about the nature of his goalpost. Mine would look more like this:

Nihilist Virus said:

As a Christian I was under the strong impression that the disciples were given the opportunity to recant and go free, but refused and faced a tortuous execution. My belief in this lie bolstered my faith.

Click to expand...

Don't know about the Apostles specifically, but we have good evidence this was the case from the early 2nd century. Pliny's letters to Trajan contain a correspondence on Christians (letter 96 and 97) that confirm this, and these letters were used as basically a reference on good governance. They were given three times to repent of being Christian, and simply denouncing Christ and offering a sacrifice to the Roman gods was sufficient to be let free.

The early Church was primarily persecuted by the Jewish Authorities prior to Nero, and Nero used them as ascapegoat with an accusation of Arson, so I doubt he had been as lenient. Still, difficult to differentiate Christians from just other people if they don't affirm themselves to be such.

From Pliny's Epistulae:

Letter 96

"In the meanwhile, the method I have observed towards those who have been denounced to me as Christians is this: I interrogated them whether they were Christians; if they confessed it I repeated the question twice again, adding the threat of capital punishment; if they still persevered, I ordered them to be executed. For whatever the nature of their creed might be, I could at least feel no doubt that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy deserved chastisement. There were others also possessed with the same infatuation, but being citizens of Rome, I directed them to be carried thither.

These accusations spread (as is usually the case) from the mere fact of the matter being investigated and several forms of the mischief came to light. A placard was put up, without any signature, accusing a large number of persons by name. Those who denied they were, or had ever been, Christians, who repeated after me an invocation to the Gods, and offered adoration, with wine and frankincense, to your image, which I had ordered to be brought for that purpose, together with those of the Gods, and who finally cursed Christ; none of which acts, it is said, those who are really Christians can be forced into performing; these I thought it proper to discharge. Others who were named by that informer at first confessed themselves Christians, and then denied it; true, they had been of that persuasion but they had quitted it, some three years, others many years, and a few as much as twentyfive years ago. They all worshipped your statue and the images of the Gods, and cursed Christ.

They affirmed, however, the whole of their guilt, or their error, was, that they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food; but food of an ordinary and innocent kind. Even this practice, however, they had abandoned after the publication of my edict, by which, according to your orders, I had forbidden political associations. I judged it so much the more necessary to extract the real truth, with the assistance of torture, from two female slaves, who were styled deaconesses: but I could discover nothing more than depraved and excessive superstition.

I therefore adjourned the proceedings, and betook myself at once to your counsel. For the matter seemed to me well worth referring to you, especially considering the numbers endangered. Persons of all ranks and ages, and of both sexes are, and will be, involved in the prosecution. For this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread through the villages and rural districts; it seems possible, however, to check and cure it. 'Tis certain at least that the temples, which had been almost deserted, begin now to be frequented; and the sacred festivals, after a long intermission, are again revived; while there is a general demand for sacrificial animals, which for some time past have met with but few purchasers. From hence it is easy to imagine what multitudes may be reclaimed from this error, if a door be left open to repentance."

Letter 97

"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."

Nihilist Virus said:

If we were to discover that every last miracle attributed to Christ was a lie, except that he did rise from the dead, then Christianity would be proven true. Evolution and deep time, contradictions in the Bible, falsehoods throughout it, nonsensical theology - none of that would matter. Conversely, if Christ were proven to have not risen from the dead, it wouldn't matter if every other miracle attributed to him was absolutely true. If the earth were 6000 years old, Genesis was 100% literally true, and Jehovah actually existed, Christianity would still be proven false.

Click to expand...

This sort of dualistic, black-and-white thinking is common among many atheists here, I have noticed.

William James had it right, the truth about religion isn't about metaphysics, but the ways it impacts peoples lives. As long as we keep speculating about the past, what we have no direct access to, we are just running around in circles chasing phantoms and shadows, to a certain extent.

Nihilist Virus said:

You're being ridiculous. He was not asked to recant his attestation that he rose from the dead because he hadn't done so yet. He was asked to recant his attestation that he was king of the Jews. Please stop acting like this on my thread. Either answer the question sincerely or don't bother. It would be much appreciated.

Click to expand...

He believed he was God, and that He would rise from the dead and that he would be condemned to die. He could have avoided all that if He recanted. I get this is an unexpected inconvenience for you, but you are moving your goal posts as every Christian here knew you would, and now you are hand waving it away and saying 'Leave'. You set your goal posts wherever your heart wants, that is all there is to this game.

Nihilist Virus said:

If we were to discover that every last miracle attributed to Christ was a lie, except that he did rise from the dead, then Christianity would be proven true. Evolution and deep time, contradictions in the Bible, falsehoods throughout it, nonsensical theology - none of that would matter. Conversely, if Christ were proven to have not risen from the dead, it wouldn't matter if every other miracle attributed to him was absolutely true. If the earth were 6000 years old, Genesis was 100% literally true, and Jehovah actually existed, Christianity would still be proven false.

Click to expand...

This is a nit-pick I suppose, but I disagree that Christianity's truth or falsehood hinges on whether Jesus literally rose from the dead.

What was accomplished theologically by Jesus rising from the dead?
- The Father affirmed Jesus, but the Father affirmed Jesus at other times such as the Transfiguration and the Baptism in the Jordan and the miracles (which were not merely random acts of charity but signs of the identity of Jesus).
- Jesus became the First Fruits of the promised general resurrection of all humans which is nice but not essential IMO.
- Jesus went to sit at the right hand of the Father until the Second Coming (rather than ceasing to exist or resting until the general resurrection). Many Christians believe that they immediately go to heaven upon death without the need to leave an empty tomb, so Jesus didn't need to leave an empty tomb either.

So that's my nit-pick FWIW