Reasonable belief in the resurrection?

[juvenissun]

The problem is the logic is plain wrong. And I think you know it. I hope so, anyway.
Do I need to explain?

Please explain.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not the same. All people on the list were treated as human who has some connection to a god. Never had any one of them claimed that he/she IS god.

Don't waste your time. Admit my logic is valid.

This is completely untrue...pharaohs, Chinese and Japanese emperors, and definitely some Roman emperors were considered gods on earth. Some of Roman nobility even fictionalized their own family histories to connect their family trees to gods...I think Julius Gaius Caesar claimed to be descended from Jupiter. Japanese emperors were so divine you weren't even allowed to look at them.

These men weren't simply considered gods by their people...they claimed to be gods in human form.

Jesus isn't unique in that aspect no matter how much you'd like him to be.

 

[juvenissun]

These men weren't simply considered gods by their people...they claimed to be gods in human form.

Jesus isn't unique in that aspect no matter how much you'd like him to be.

No, they did not.
Show me ONE.

 

[durangodawood]

...Don't waste your time. Admit my logic is valid.

Please explain.

Here is your logic, again:

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

Not valid. Why?
1. "able to" does not necessarily mean 'does'.
2. "says" does not necessarily mean 'is'.

Note that I am not objecting to your major nor minor premises, as they stand. We can stipulate they are both factual, yet the logic fails to get us to your conclusion.

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, they did not.
Show me ONE.

Caligula

http://m.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-emperors/caligula.htm

 

[Sketcher]

Let me make this perfectly clear to you. I haven't presented any evidence for my claim because there isn't any. There isn't any evidence for your claims either. You are saying that the eyewitness disciples were tortured and that the inquirers demanded that they recant? Your evidence is this "pattern" where the behavior is said to have started decades later under a different ruler?

I didn't say it started under a later ruler. Where is your evidence that it started under a later ruler?

...they were prosecuted for not paying respect to Roman gods (done by burning incense...a small gesture of respect) so no amount of recanting their faith would change anything about their situation....let alone save them from execution.

I could be wrong of course...that's just how I remember reading it.

Is he wrong? Do we need to justify the claim that the Romans allowed worship of non-Roman gods on condition that one also honored Roman gods?

If they would have done the minimal amounts of sacrifices to satisfy the Roman authorities, they wouldn't have had a problem. Much of the time, this was just at the emperor's altar, toss some salt in, and you're good. There was pressure to do that, the Christians refused.

And why would the Romans allow all of this if they were so intent on stamping out Christianity? Give the letter to the trusted individual and follow him to the church, or else seize him and interrogate him. Will you please at least casually scrutinize your own position before positing claims like this?

So your conclusion after looking at all of the evidence is that Rome so badly wanted to end Christianity that they arrested disciples and tortured them to try to force them to recant, and yet all the while they allowed Paul to write letters to churches to unify doctrine and keep churches from going astray? Are you making a mockery of these forums?

I would think that if the Romans were somehow stupid enough to deliver this mail then they would at least figure out that they can insert forgeries into Paul's writings to subvert the Christian cult to their own liking.

Roman aggression against the church ebbed and flowed, if the same pressure that happened under Domitian happened in the first century, we might not have the letters. If we take a broader look at dictatorial regimes that persecuted Christianity though, the Soviets did their share of infiltrating churches before closing them down.

Will you at least admit that this pattern-based conclusion cannot be factually supported, and that there are no trial documents or transcripts to show that they were given the chance to recant and go free?

Will you admit that it is less reasonable to make a counter-claim without ANY evidence of any sort than to go by the pattern of history?

 

[juvenissun]

Here is your logic, again:

God is able to resurrect.
Jesus says He is God,
So Jesus resurrected.

Not valid. Why?
1. "able to" does not necessarily mean 'does'.
2. "says" does not necessarily mean 'is'.

Note that I am not objecting to your major nor minor premises, as they stand. We can stipulate they are both factual, yet the logic fails to get us to your conclusion.

Thank you very much. I think you are right. But I have to keep those words in the syllogism.
I would still be valid, only I don't know how to fix the problem and yet keep it simple.

Good thinking.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I didn't say it started under a later ruler. Where is your evidence that it started under a later ruler?


If they would have done the minimal amounts of sacrifices to satisfy the Roman authorities, they wouldn't have had a problem. Much of the time, this was just at the emperor's altar, toss some salt in, and you're good. There was pressure to do that, the Christians refused.


Roman aggression against the church ebbed and flowed, if the same pressure that happened under Domitian happened in the first century, we might not have the letters. If we take a broader look at dictatorial regimes that persecuted Christianity though, the Soviets did their share of infiltrating churches before closing them down.


Will you admit that it is less reasonable to make a counter-claim without ANY evidence of any sort than to go by the pattern of history?

With regards to your response to me, it wasn't a religious crime they were being charged with...it was a political crime. Christian defiance made them guilty of some crime that was tantamount to undermining the authority of Roman rule.

At that point, I don't think it matters what any of them could have done to recant. They were to be made examples of. Still, we're talking about something that still has considerable debate regarding how often it happened...

On top of that, you have very few scholars who consider christian accounts of martyrdom to be reputable. Many of them appear to be wholly made up.

 

[juvenissun]

Caligula

http://m.tribunesandtriumphs.org/roman-emperors/caligula.htm

It still does not count. He claimed that he is "one of the gods", not "the god".
In polytheism, many varieties may exist. But they should not be used in the argument of this issue.

 

[durangodawood]

Thank you very much. I think you are right. But I have to keep those words in the syllogism.
I would still be valid, only I don't know how to fix the problem and yet keep it simple.

Good thinking.

Thanks.
But....
There is no logical proof for the statement "so Jesus resurrected" that doesnt rely on a statement of faith as one of the premises.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you very much. I think you are right. But I have to keep those words in the syllogism.
I would still be valid, only I don't know how to fix the problem and yet keep it simple.

Good thinking.

How about

1. God resurrects
2. Jesus is God
3. Therefore, Jesus resurrects

-OR-

• God can resurrect
• Jesus is God
• Therefore, Jesus can resurrect

 

[juvenissun]

Thanks.
But....
There is no logical proof for the statement "so Jesus resurrected" that doesnt rely on a statement of faith as one of the premises.

Yes, ultimately, there will be a factor of faith used in the logic.
However, my point is, the logic can emphasize on arguments that are unique in Christianity. So, no other cases, as listed in the OP could be used to logically disprove the resurrection.

 

[juvenissun]

How about

1. God resurrects
2. Jesus is God
3. Therefore, Jesus resurrects

-OR-

• God can resurrect
• Jesus is God
• Therefore, Jesus can resurrect

Not so.
1. God does not have to resurrect. In fact, God should not resurrect. God never dies.
2. Jesus is a man. That is what the resurrection is about.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Resurrect, as a verb, can be transitive; as in, Jesus resurrected Lazarus.

If you want a syllogism that Jesus must be resurrected himself, then I'd have to agree that a simple syllogism cannot be constructed. Well, I suppose you could do: A) If God exists, he would resurrect Jesus; B) God Exists, ergo C) God resurrected Jesus.

I think, though, that you'd find it difficult to find any non-believers that would accept those premises.

 

[Sketcher]

With regards to your response to me, it wasn't a religious crime they were being charged with...it was a political crime. Christian defiance made them guilty of some crime that was tantamount to undermining the authority of Roman rule.

There was no separation of church and state back then. Sacrifice to the right gods, especially the emperor, and you were in the clear. If you didn't do that, then you could rightly expect persecution. Many were given a final chance to do this, many who did not take it died. Some did take it, but I know of no account that says they were killed anyway.

 

[Holoman]

I cant really be bothered to read through 7 pages so not sure if this has been said, but the disciples and martyrs were not suddenly arrested and executed for preaching the gospel without any forewarning. Many of them had been repeatedly imprisoned and beaten for preaching it. They knew exactly what the consequences of their preaching would be yet they continued regardless.

Take St Paul for example, he was stoned, given hundreds of lashes and imprisoned numerous times for preaching the Gospel. He had ample opportunity to just pack it all in when he had almost been flogged to death numerous times, yet he still went on and eventually was executed.

And the disciples knew exactly what happened to Jesus himself for preaching the truth, he was crucified.

Honestly they were under no delusions about where their efforts would land them. Whether they may or may not have been spared their lives at the last moment for proclaiming it was all lies is irrelevant, they had ample opportunity over the years to stop and live a quiet life free of imprisonment and torture but they didn't.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I didn't say it started under a later ruler. Where is your evidence that it started under a later ruler?

For the 50th time, I have no evidence and neither do you. Neither of us actually know what happened. I'm simply proposing something as possible. It seems as though you're responding with: "You can't prove you're right, therefore I'm right by default." Sorry but no, it doesn't work that way.

If they would have done the minimal amounts of sacrifices to satisfy the Roman authorities, they wouldn't have had a problem. Much of the time, this was just at the emperor's altar, toss some salt in, and you're good. There was pressure to do that, the Christians refused.

Right, which has nothing to do with whether or not they recanted their faith in Christ. Which suggests, but does not prove, that recanting their faith was irrelevant and would not have been part of the line of questioning.

Are you surrendering the "Why die for a lie?" debate?

Roman aggression against the church ebbed and flowed, if the same pressure that happened under Domitian happened in the first century, we might not have the letters. If we take a broader look at dictatorial regimes that persecuted Christianity though, the Soviets did their share of infiltrating churches before closing them down.

So how is it that you are arguing that the Christians were forced to recant or face further torture during the same time period when the Romans were allowing Paul to freely write to the churches? Or, once again, have you surrendered the "Why die for a lie?" debate?

Will you admit that it is less reasonable to make a counter-claim without ANY evidence of any sort than to go by the pattern of history?

For the one millionth time, I am not making a claim, nor am I citing any evidence. I am proposing something as a feasible scenario.

You have contributed nothing to this thread.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I cant really be bothered to read through 7 pages so not sure if this has been said, but the disciples and martyrs were not suddenly arrested and executed for preaching the gospel without any forewarning. Many of them had been repeatedly imprisoned and beaten for preaching it. They knew exactly what the consequences of their preaching would be yet they continued regardless.

It seems to be uncontested that Christian persecution resulted not from their preaching of the gospel but rather because they refused to honor Roman deities.

Take St Paul for example, he was stoned, given hundreds of lashes and imprisoned numerous times for preaching the Gospel. He had ample opportunity to just pack it all in when he had almost been flogged to death numerous times, yet he still went on and eventually was executed.

They did all of that to him, and yet they delivered his mail for free?

And the disciples knew exactly what happened to Jesus himself for preaching the truth, he was crucified.

And they also knew that the Romans did not want to crucify Jesus. In fact Pilate did everything he could to get out of it. So how does that jive with your assertion that the Romans were persecuting Christians?

Honestly they were under no delusions about where their efforts would land them. Whether they may or may not have been spared their lives at the last moment for proclaiming it was all lies is irrelevant, they had ample opportunity over the years to stop and live a quiet life free of imprisonment and torture but they didn't.

Of the disciples, who do you actually know to have been martyred aside from James and Peter?

 

[Holoman]

It seems to be uncontested that Christian persecution resulted not from their preaching of the gospel but rather because they refused to honor Roman deities.

Firstly that's just untrue. Paul was persecuted by the Jews many times, why would Jews care about honoring Roman gods?

Secondly, so what? Even if it was true, it just further demonstrates that they believed in what they preached by refusing to honor other deities.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Firstly that's just untrue. Paul was persecuted by the Jews many times, why would Jews care about honoring Roman gods?

How is this relevant to Roman persecution? Also, you have not explained why the Romans were trying to stamp out Christianity and yet allowed Paul to direct, organize, and instruct the church by delivering his mail.

Secondly, so what? Even if it was true, it just further demonstrates that they believed in what they preached by refusing to honor other deities.

The "so what?" is that they were not being martyred for what they knew was a lie. They were being martyred for defiance. Thus there is no reason to believe that the line of questioning by the Roman inquirer included the opportunity to recant and go free, since faith in Christ was irrelevant to the actual crime committed.

This entire thread is about the "Why die for a lie?" argument, and you seem to have admitted that it is entirely debunked. Therefore you have not shown that the disciples' claim of the resurrection cannot be a lie.

The only evidence we have for the resurrection is second-hand, decades-old testimony that is biased and cannot be ruled out as a lie.