How to answer a challenge to "Jesus Christ rising from the d

[steven84]

Disclaimer to atheists: This is not intended to be an extremely robust argument...I would consider this to be along the lines of conversational talk that you would have on the street.

  If you are a Christian and others know it...it won't be long before you are challenged by somebody on the possibility of miracles. Most likely they will try and argue with you on a naturalistic level...basically they will presuppose there is no God in their challenge and then they will simply point to improbability and absurdity of the possibility of somebody rising from the dead.

   This quick video clip arms us believers with a tactic that is very applicable and quick on delivery as well. The author of the clip calls this tactic the "One, Two...Switcha-rooh" LOL, I think it is a bit tongue-in-cheek. Regardless though...this tactic is great...it is a quick way to respond and "switch" the question back onto the questioner and causes them to show their cards and open up their real reasons for asking the question (Whether it is a challenge strictly meant to trip you up...or an honest question).

   From this point on...after the "One, Two..Switcha-rooh" has been launched into action the conversation (if its worth carrying on) can begin to become fruitful. You can establish:
- If the questioner is really seeking an answer...or just asking for the sake of trying to trip you up
-You can figure out where precisely their objection is (such as a belief in God? Historical reliability of the bible? ect.) and from that point carry the conversation into that particular and specific direction.

   Chance are folks...more times than not...the question is a disingenuous one and the questioner is only looking to trip you up...This tactic "One, Two..Switcha-rooh" is great for defusing the dishonest challenger.

Check it out here: http://bit.ly/6RD4tG

[Tanker]

He said in his video "you presupose that there is no god" right there is a failure in logic. He is actualy making the presupisition that god does exist. Presuposeing that without evidence (and the Bible isn't") is starting the argument on a false premise. You don't presupose something when there is no repeatable verifyable evidence, scientific or otherwise. You are simply keeping a neutral position. Since his "switch-a-roo" argument is based on a false premise it fails.

[steven84]

Nope...

The point is that in order to even ask the proper question about the classical Jesus' resurrection account...you must include all the pieces in the resurrection story.

In short...if you don't presuppose God you are not really challenging the traditional resurrection story (its a disingenuous question that should never even be asked...what the skeptic should really be asking is "How do I know that God exists?" BEFORE the conversation can even progress to the next question of an act that GOD BY NECESSITY WOULD BE INVOLVED ...to not even establish God's existence or even be open to presupposing it for the sake of argument leaves you in no place to challenge Christ's resurrection based on what the argument of Scripture is. MY POINT IS...

p.s. NEUTRALITY is fine...it allows for the "possibility of God's existence" which could be plugged into the question. So then it would be as follows "If God does not exist then it is improbable by all means and I would be a full-blown skeptic" If God does exist "Then I need good reasons why God could not have been capable of manipulating His creation:)"

[LoneMateria]

The video was an epic straw man argument.

Tankers argument still stands.  Knowing the story isn't the problem here.  In order for that story to be true there has to be a God.  Your argument is that the story is true because God would be able to resurrect someone from the dead.  Which means in that you have to presuppose a God exists.  Yes, that is the story, but you are saying that the story is true.  When you say that this story is true then you have to make all sorts of assumptions each of which are as unfounded as the veracity of this story.  You first have to presuppose that there is a God, then that it's a he, that its the Abrahamic God, that it's capable of preforming such miracles, that this story is aligned with reality, that this is something the God is willing to do, etc etc.  We could care less about the story, we care if there is any truth behind this.  I don't see the last page of Revelations say that God won't perform these miracles in the future.  Or the Last page of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John saying that this can't happen anymore or that God is not willing to do this anymore.  Tell me where are the people now in days that have risen after being clinically dead for 3 days?  Or if for some reason a whale eats a person I don't hear of a rescue party being sent for that sailor.  Where are these stories today?

They don't exist because they are not aligned with realty.  If this stuff doesn't happen today what makes you think it happened 2000+ years ago?

[coltcat]

The Miracles Tactic vid
oh...no...
my straw man! you killed him!, you will pay for this.
come on, that vid was just dumb.

here's the story.
the man is one of the first carriers of the dangerous virus that stimulating cells rapidly with unknow side effect causing unstable physiological function. and in the worst scenario it could be fatal.
knowing this situation, the man was despaired and fall into a psychic illness,
he then start to spread the virus intantionally.
therefore he was hunted down by the government at the time for national sercurity reason.
spit the contaminated body fluid of the carrier on infected body parts such as eyes will increase the body's fuction of healing, (might cause side effect)
exchanging body fluid by biting a recently dead body will force the organs to reactivate, and
possibly regain consciousness. while the victim might feel thirsty and hungry.
and anything that made contact with the carrier's body fluid were contaminated.like some cup the carrier used, or the edged weapon that have injured the carrier himself.
during WW2 , rumors tells that by taking the sample from those item. there's possibility to reactivate the virus for military perpose.

see, we dont need the god to resurrected the dead man. we just need biology, and scientist are working on it today.

[Whitney]

I haven't watched the video yet but thought I'd just comment that anyone who claims Jesus didn't rise from the dead because it's not possible is not very bright.  We can't talk about what is naturally possible when discussing miracles; they either happened or they didn't.  What the person should say is that there is no reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead because eye witness testimony is not only unreliable but also because the so called eye witness testimony was recorded well after the event and mostly not by eye witnesses.

[G-Roll]

I haven't watched the video yet but thought I'd just comment that anyone who claims Jesus didn't rise from the dead because it's not possible is not very bright.  We can't talk about what is naturally possible when discussing miracles; they either happened or they didn't.  What the person should say is that there is no reason to believe that Jesus rose from the dead because eye witness testimony is not only unreliable but also because the so called eye witness testimony was recorded well after the event and mostly not by eye witnesses.

Lol where is the +1 button.

why does everyone get so caught up in the resurrection of jesus? that story was told and everyone knows what happened in the story.
what about the other saints that rose from the dead in the book of matthew?
 50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;

 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
what happened with them? did they eat brains? or where they weirdos who were actually just sleeping in tombs? WTF?? what is this? people rise from the dead and shamble about and no one cares? and this happened before jesus re-lifeafied. so they did it first, and the only thing more entertaining than zombies was an earthquake. no one cared about jesus back then. thats why he died on the cross, so zombies where far more interesting than his death at the time. but we cant even get half an explanation about that.

[Sophus]

why does everyone get so caught up in the resurrection of jesus? that story was told and everyone knows what happened in the story.
what about the other saints that rose from the dead in the book of matthew?
 50And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.

 51And behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth shook and the rocks were split.

 52The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised;

 53and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and appeared to many.
what happened with them? did they eat brains? or where they weirdos who were actually just sleeping in tombs? WTF?? what is this? people rise from the dead and shamble about and no one cares? and this happened before jesus re-lifeafied. so they did it first, and the only thing more entertaining than zombies was an earthquake. no one cared about jesus back then. thats why he died on the cross, so zombies where far more interesting than his death at the time. but we cant even get half an explanation about that.

[SuperPhunThyme]

I would define "miracle" as something that can't possibly happen, happening. The word miracle is an oxymoron. Nothing happens without cause and effect. something very real causes everything in this universe. If you believe something happened for no reason, you are a fool. If you believe something happened for a reason you don't understand, you are sane.