|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Radical_logic vs. preacher Jerry McDonald: Did God raise jesus from the dead?
Posted on: July 4, 2009 - 9:07pm
 Offline
Radical_logic vs. preacher Jerry McDonald: Did God raise jesus from the dead?
I thought people might be interested in reading this debate. There are a total of five rounds, and two of them have been completed. I curious to know what people think.
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
I think it is an impossible subject to accurately discuss (someone coming back to life) as people at that time were not even sure what dead was.
I mean, look up the origins of wakes that we hold for dead people today.
Any type of observation made by anyone in that time period would have to be taken with extremely huge grains of salt.
Not to mention that this kind of thing (people coming back from death) was apparently a commonly claimed thing by many people. Add to this the sheer number of prophets in that area at that time, and you have thousands of Jesus-stories that their supporters all claimed were real and performed real miracles.
Basically, I don't consider that kind of debate compelling in any way. It is an argument over "historical fact" and trying to determine who is a trusted source or not. Christians will claim the bible, or other biased sources are ideal "historical documents" while historians usually say that there is simply not enough information. The only apparent observation is that no one thought anything about a man named Jesus until a long time after his supposed death, because there are no records of him beyond what the people that founded the church have claimed.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
As the skeptic arguing the negative in this debate, I take a completely different approach. Perhaps I can quote a few paragraphs from my first rebuttal in which I explain my approach.
-----------------------------
Like Jerry McDonald, I begin with my expression of gratitude for the opportunity to debate a highly engaging and interesting topic that carries such deep significance in the minds of many believers, and especially to my opponent, both for agreeing to participate in this exchange and the courteous tone in which he has conducted himself throughout his opening statement. I am also grateful to George Hathaway for his role in setting up and moderating this debate.
Introductory Remarks on the Overall Argument
The resolution, which McDonald has affirmed, raises two logically distinct questions: (i) Was Jesus raised from the dead?, and (ii) If Jesus was raised from the dead, would it have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising? An affirmative answer to (i) does not logically entail an affirmative answer to (ii), and conversely, an affirmative answer to (ii) does not logically entail an affirmative answer to (i); it could be the case that Jesus was raised from the dead but advanced extraterrestrials were causally responsible for the raising, or it could be that God would have been the causal agent responsible for the raising if Jesus was raised from the dead, but Jesus was not in fact raised. The way this topic has been traditionally debated by nontheists and skeptics is to argue for a negative answer to (i), that Jesus was probably not raised, while accepting – often even endorsing – an affirmative answer to (ii). However, in this debate, I will approach the resolution by giving a skeptical answer to (ii), specifically that even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we would still have no good grounds for concluding that God – or some supernatural process – was causally responsible for the raising. If McDonald cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), then the dialectical battle is over: it would be unnecessary for me to defend a negative answer to (i), something which many others have done. In other words, even if my opponent can successfully defend the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead, if he cannot successfully defend an affirmative answer to (ii), that it would have been God – or some supernatural process – who did the raising, then he will not have established what he has set out to prove: that it is a historical fact that God raised Jesus from the dead. He would have established, at most, the more modest claim that Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, which is emphatically not the resolution under debate. Thus, my Overall Argument (henceforth OA) can be stated as follows:
As argued above, premise (1) is true and I assume my opponent concurs. Hence the only contentious, disputable proposition of OA is premise (2), which I intend to demonstrate by defending a skeptical answer to (ii). My skeptical answer will consist of two assertions, one modest claim and one bolder claim: respectfully, (M) even if Jesus was raised from the dead, we nevertheless have no good grounds for concluding that God – or some supernatural process – was causally responsible for the raising, and (B) if Jesus was in fact raised from the dead, natural explanations would be far more preferable than the supernatural one. I, of course, only need to give a successful defense of Claim M in order to prevent my opponent from successfully defending an affirmative answer to (ii)—this alone is sufficient to establish premise (2) of OA. However, since I believe I can go a step further, I will. A successful defense of Claim B is dialectically unnecessary but nevertheless effective at pounding home the point that premise (2) is true. McDonald will therefore have to successfully rebut my arguments for both claims in order to refute premise (2); if he cannot, then he would be forced to concede the soundness of OA, as well as the debate.
People can also read the ongoing debate at Jerry McDonald's website, which might be easier: http://www.challenge2.org/coverres.pdf
Third Rebuttal up: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?p=6011236#post6011236
Readers can go here to comment: http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=270412
I don't think this is at all true. Relatively speaking, houses are a new thing, farming, building, weapons, etc - and we understand these things. But in the history of our species and our ancestors, death has been present since the beginning. Countless times our ancestors would have killed others and seen the consequences of this action. In fact, they would kill *precisely* because they understood the consequences of such an action.
In the ancient world, tribes or nations would attack and kill members of other tribes or nations, and would also see loved ones die, both old and young. To say that they weren't even sure they knew what dead was (such that they could, eg, tell a dead person from a living one), is just absurd. You must think them truly stupid.
In the cultural milieu of Jewish society at that time, this is false. You're completely ignoring what the people of that time would have a tendency to believe. For the Jewish people, no-one would rise before the general resurrection, so this was completely unexpected. Far from such reports being common, the Jews (and those who reported Jesus' resurrection) would have a predisposition to reject such reports themselves.
I challenge you to back up this claim of yours that reports of people rising from the dead were common. Perhaps such reports existed in other countries, or other non-Jewish cultures (I don't know) - but here what's relevant is what the disciples and eye-witnesses would have a predisposition to believe. And given the culture, they would be predisposed to believe that such a resurrection did not take place.
Um...not stupid. Ignorant. They couldn't tell that a person was dead even until very recently, historically speaking. There were a great number of people buried alive because of this, that woke under the ground..and when the coffins were pulled up they found clawmarks on the inside.
K, I'll start by saying that the Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body, and at the time it wasn't considered too far fetched a tale by most people as they were very superstitious. I'll go get the information to explain this later, I'm not really in the mood to hunt for a fulfillment of your lack of knowledge regarding that time period and the large number of messiahs that were on every streetcorner to appeal to the unhappy masses under Rome's rule.
So just hang on to your hat until I feel like satisfying your request.
I'll get around to it, if someone else doesn't first.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Such mistakes can be made even today - you missed my point. If I see someone's head severed, I can be confident in believing they're dead. If I see someone walking around and having a conversation with their friend, I can be confident in believing they're alive. Just because there's some dubious cases in the middle doesn't give us reason to doubt testimony in the general case.
We know about how a Roman crucifiction was performed, and we also have the Biblical reports of his death. Note, for example:
"But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe." - John 19:33-35
Not only did they observe him to be dead, but they also put a spear in his side, so that what appeared to be blood and water flowed out. What would you think about such an eyewitness report? Jesus underwent torture prior to his crucifiction, had to have someone help him carry the cross up the hill, nailed through hands and feet and hung up to die, struggled to breathe, and was reported dead. Further to this, he was struck in the side by the spear. From what I recall, the water pouring is a significant sign that the victim has actually died.
See: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf
If these eyewitnesses are being honest, then Jesus was in fact dead.
I suspect that you're just making things up, or guessing. I never denied that the Pharisees believed in a literal resurrection of the body. I said that their understanding was that this resurrection takes place in the general resurrection all at once, at a future date. Some individual being resurrected prior to that date was not part of their understanding, and contrary to what they believed.
This bit about "it wasn't considered too far fetched" is just a guess on your part. I am rebuking your claim - the idea of an individual being resurrected *was* far fetched for the Jew in that period of Israel.
I didn't deny that there were a number of people claiming to be messiahs during that period. While I look forward to you finally entering a mood where you're willing to educate me, I have serious doubts that you actually know what you're talking about.
You are mistaken in two ways:
1. The witnesses can be trusted to report that Jesus was dead
2. They had reasons to believe that he would not, and did not, rise from the dead
Regarding the second mistake, there are additional reasons beyond the fact that the Jewish understanding had no resurrections prior to the general resurrection. The Jews at that time also had no concept of a dying Messiah - they believed the Messiah would be a conquering hero, who would rule over Israel and overthrow their empires. They had no concept of a Messiah that also subsequently rose from the dead.
This idea that the Messiah would die is contrary even today to the expectation of Jews regarding the Messiah. So again, you are wrong to suppose that within this Israeli milieu they would have been tempted to believe he rose from the dead.