One of the common arguments for Christianity's main miracles is that it would be irrational for a sect to risk being killed for basing itself on miracle stories its creators collectively knew were fabricated. And not only that, but it would be even harder to find multiple witnesses to fabricate a story like this.
The argument says that the women at the tomb and the 11 apostles must have been honest when they claimed that they saw Jesus physically resurrected. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all specify physical details about Jesus' appearances, like the women touching Jesus' feet. They would not rationally have agreed to each other to promote a religion whose main miracles they knew they had invented if it meant they would probably be killed for it.
I understand that this argument rests on several premises, such as these witnesses being coherent and not delusional, the story being an accurate reflection of what those witnesses actually claimed, and the apostles bearing a strong risk of being killed. However, assuming that the premises for this argument are true, does the conclusion follow?
Can you think of other sects that were: (A) severely persecuted, (B) actually had multiple witnesses claiming to have witnessed physical miracles together, and (C) whose witnesses would very likely have known if the miracles were fake or not?
One that came close to meeting this criterion was Joseph Smith who led the Mormons claimed an angel gave him the Book of Mormon, but no one else was there to corroborate whether this happened.
Thank you.
The argument says that the women at the tomb and the 11 apostles must have been honest when they claimed that they saw Jesus physically resurrected. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John all specify physical details about Jesus' appearances, like the women touching Jesus' feet. They would not rationally have agreed to each other to promote a religion whose main miracles they knew they had invented if it meant they would probably be killed for it.
I understand that this argument rests on several premises, such as these witnesses being coherent and not delusional, the story being an accurate reflection of what those witnesses actually claimed, and the apostles bearing a strong risk of being killed. However, assuming that the premises for this argument are true, does the conclusion follow?
Can you think of other sects that were: (A) severely persecuted, (B) actually had multiple witnesses claiming to have witnessed physical miracles together, and (C) whose witnesses would very likely have known if the miracles were fake or not?
One that came close to meeting this criterion was Joseph Smith who led the Mormons claimed an angel gave him the Book of Mormon, but no one else was there to corroborate whether this happened.
Thank you.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1dJBb6X
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire