How good are our arguments for the resurrection?

[xdisciplex]

Yesterday I listened to a debate between Todd from wayofthemaster radio and the infidel guy, an atheist who also has his own radio broadcast. Actually it was very frustrating listening to this debate and I think that debating with atheists is absolutely futile.
Todd seemed to me like he wanted to push it through and convince the infidel guy that the resurrection is true but the infidel guy laughed about all his arguments. I ask myself wether these typical christian arguments are really that good. Would they have convinced you as an atheist? Arey they enough to build your faith on them? Or are they rather circular reasoning?

It was basically like:
infidel guy: Why do you believe in the resurrection?
Todd :Because the bible says it.
infidel guy: lol, do you also believe that Mohammed flew on the back of a dragon because the quran says it?

I isn't it circular reasoning if you want to prove the bible with the bible? The bible says that many people saw Jesus after the resurrection and so on. But other books also say many things. If the quran said that Mohammed was raised and 1000 people saw him then you still wouldn't believe it. You'd be sceptical of it. But you believe the bible. So where is the difference between the bible which says something and other books which say something?
I don't think that the argument with the eyewitnesses is that strong because it's also in the bible. All these arguments are IN the bible and if you for example think that the bible has been doctored then all these arguments aren't convincing at all.
And then Todd said that the disciples were willing to die for their faith but the other guy replied that muslims also die for their faith and that this doesn't prove anything and actually this is right. People die for a lot of things and people are also willing to believe a lot of things. Many people also believe that Elvis is alive. So I'm asking myself wether you can even convince a person with these kinds of arguments. Maybe people are simply too insecure to put their trust in the bible. If you talk to unbelievers on the internet then you will always hear the same things. The bible has been changed and so on. If they really believe this then it's pretty logical that they won't believe in it anymore.
I mean once you've heard that the bible has been changed you cannot believe in it anymore, how could you? Maybe there are many unbelievers out there which would like to believe but they simply can't believe because of all the stuff they have heard.

 

[J. Jump]

If a person does not accept the Bible as the inerrant Scriptures of God then there really is no reason is discussing anything with them.

Although I would be interested in listening to this if you have a link.

God's Scriptures need no defense. A day is coming when ALL will see that what God has said is True. For some that is a wonderful day we await. For others it will be bad news because their mistakes will be made manifest.

But rest assured that one day (coming very soon) EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord!! And to steal a line from a movie, "and you can take that to the bank."

 

[xdisciplex]

But you won't find many non-christians which accept the bible.
I don't know if this is realistic in times of the DaVinci code.

http://www.infidelguy.com/

scroll down to The Infidel Guy Podcast

it's the debate "Todd Friel vs. The Infidel Guy"

 

[BD17]

The problem with the infedel guys arguments is that the bible can be supported and the Quran cannot. We know that there were people still alive that witnessed the things written in the New Testament when they were written. The miracles and stuff attributed to Mohammed were not attributed to him until roughly 300 years after his death, so there was no one living that could verify those things.

The New Testament and the Bible for that matter are very reliable and stand up to the toughest scrutiny.

 

[xdisciplex]

We know that there were people still alive that witnessed the things written in the New Testament when they were written.

Good argument. But how exactly do we know it? Because the bible says that eyewitnesses were still alive? Or where do we know it? Because of the bible says it then this is once again trying to prove the bible with the bible.

 

[BD17]

Good argument. But how exactly do we know it? Because the bible says that eyewitnesses were still alive? Or where do we know it? Because of the bible says it then this is once again trying to prove the bible with the bible.

Has nothing to do with the Bible we know when the manuscripts that the Bible comes from was written, I think the earliest date is somwhere between 80-100 AD. Since we KNOW this it is safe and accurate to say that many people who witnessed Christ personally were still alive to refute What the Gospels say Christ did and who he was. Christ died in what 35 AD so that mean there were only forty to fifty years that had passed. Not enough time for legends to develop, especially because there were people to correct the inaccuracies.


The Quran cannot claim this.

 

[Hope of Glory]

It's an excercise in futility to argue the truth of the Bible with someone who doesn't believe in God at all. I will never debate to try to prove something from Scriptures with an atheist. (Now, if you accept the Scriptures as true, I'll debate you...) FWIW, I know a couple of atheists that are much better versed in Scripture than most Christians, and I think that's sad.

 

[xdisciplex]

This infidel guy claimed that legends could also develope in decades. I don't know where he wants to know this, but he claimed it.
I wonder why do so many claim such things? The guy from the Jesus seminary claims the same stuff. It's really sad when you see what kind of books are out there which try to make Jesus look like a myth. I think this affects the unbelievers. They see this and maybe even read such a book and then they're immune to the bible because they think it's nonsense. How can you help such a person? I think there are people which have read so much stuff that they're so messed up that you cannot help them anymore, at least not with words. This is really sad. Imagine you lead somebody to Jesus and he converts and has faith and then stumbles into all these things and loses his faith because of it? What do you do then? Or what do you do if somebody wants to believe but he has read all these claims like the DaVinci code and all this stuff and he simply cannot believe unless he gets all these questions answered but you cannot answer all of his questions? What do you do then? This has to be a real nightmare. How is my family supposed to get saved? Shall it simply miraculously happen? Or do I have to debate with them which is totally futile? But if I put myself in the position of an unbeliever and then I watch TV and see this stuff about the DaVinci code or if I read in the news that they found a missing link then I would also believe that the bible is junk just like the quran and other religious books, isn't this a normal reaction? And then the people are so messed up that you cannot even reach them with words anymore. :tear:

But on the other hand the bible also tells us that we have to be able to give a reason for our faith, does this mean that we have to know all these arguments which christian apologists use?
I really don't know if faith is an intellectual thing. Like I said I don't know if these arguments would convince me if I didn't also want to believe or if I simply did not have this feeling. When somebody asks me why I believe then I couldn't even really describe it because it's an individual thing. What if you either have faith or you haven't and nothing can be done about that? When I hear such debates then it really seems to me like either somebody can believe this or he cannot.

 

[BD17]

That's why you need to know facts so you can show how the Bible is reliable compared to the other unreliable reads, such as the Davinci Code, if you do not know your facts then you cannot compare where the Bible is right and the others are wrong.

 

[BobRyan]

The facts are very impressive and atheists HAVE been convinced to accept Christ on the grounds of proof of the resurrection.

But is the proof so powerful that ALL fools who say "there is no God" would recant?

In Romans 1 GOD claims that the invisible attributes of God are "CLEARLY SEEN IN WHAT HAS BEEN MADE". If God knows what He is talking about (and some people here think He does) then ALL ATHEISTS are seeing IN NATURE irrefutable proof that God exists and information about HIS "Invisible attributes".

But we KNOW from the claims of atheists today that they willingly turn a blind eye to what "disconfirms their man-made traditions" and claim NOT TO SEE what God says is CLEARLY SEEN by pagans - by unblievers.

You can not measure the merrit of the proof or argument by the degree of blindness that a truly motivated objecter can "imagine".

As for the resurrection - in all of history when a great leader is publically executed - you will find loyal followers that may STILL cling to that leader as a great "martyr for the cause."

But the fact that the Romans had him - and the Jews put him to death would have made the "claim" very difficult to hold that "They no longer had the body of their victim".

Neither the Jews nor the Romans claimed that the followers of Christ were more powerful than the Romans or fought with the Romans to take the body of Christ. Neither of them claimed to "still have the body of Christ".

 

[rbell]

We KNOW that there was a historical Jesus, and that He was put to death.

We also KNOW that the Roman Empire viewed this movement called the Way (Christianity) as a threat.

We know both of those things through extra-biblical sources.

So, then, why did the Romans not disprove the "resurrection myth?" It would have been to their advantage to debunk it. Yet they didn't.

 

[xdisciplex]

But the argument that all they had to do was find the body and then christianity would have been destroyed is also somehow not so convincing. I mean when you believe that the disciples stole the body then they could have hid it or burried it somewhere and it would never have been found again.

Does anybody know that the romans officially said about the body?
I mean what did they say to the people? Did they say that it was stolen and that their soldiers were overpowered by the disciples or which story did they use? Why didn't they simply say that the disciples stole it? This way the only ones which would have looked like fools were the soldiers which guarded the tomb.

 

[BobRyan]

The had a 100 Roman soldiers that were "not claiming" that they had been "overpowered".

The Jews did NOT claim that the 12 disciples overpowered the Romans.

The Disciples did NOT claim that Jesus was a Martyr.

The Jews did NOT claim that they "still had the body of the victim" and neither do the Romans.

All the expected "solutions" for a non-resurrection are missing.

The "penalty" for sleeping at their post "was death". There is no indication at all that the Jews were angry with the Romans over the missing body and there is no indication that the Roman soldiers were ever disciplined as would be "the expected result" from the Roman Empire for sleeping.

Further the Jews make up the story given to the soldiers the "the disciples came and stole the body while we slept" - but all agree that there was a huge stone at the tomb - hard to quietly removed. And all agree that the soldiers could not KNOW WHO stole the body "while they slept" IF they were "asleep".

The "convincing argument" is that ALL the disciples except John gave up their lives willingly to promote the resurrection story INSTEAD of the "Jesus is my hero - the great martyr for God" story that would be EXPECTED based on all previous examples of killing one of God's prophets!

 

[genesis12]

They're great. Nothing could be more sound.