Skeptic argument about the apostles motive
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 9:45 pm
Hey guys. When presenting the case for the resurrection to skeptics I typically see something like this pointed out. These are the common three possible scenarios regarding the apostles willingness to die for the claim that Christ rose from the dead.
1. They died for a lie and knew it (unsustainable do to lack of any reasonable motive).
2. They were all delusional and crazy (but this would take more faith than any option since you would have to explain how they all had the same delusion and craziness many being at different places and different times).
3. What they said was true. Christ did rise from the grave and is who He said He was.
Well this skeptic whom I've been talking to at a chatroom wanted to focus on the first option. Hey particularly zeroed in on the phrase "unsustainable do to lack of any reasonable motive". He claims he found a good reasonable motive. I want to know what you all here think. This skeptic claims that the apostles all died for the claim that Christ rose again, they knew it was a lie, but they did so anyway so that each of them and their whole group could be "remembered" for ages to come for their courage, faith, zeal or just to be remembered or have a legacy. He went on to say that it's important to note that in order for any of them to be remembered all of them had to keep silent about the fact that it was all a lie. But if all of them kept true to their tale and seriously tried to convince others that it was true it would keep their memories or their legacy alive. That is his argument, now this is what I'm wondering, was it a common thing for 1st. century Jews to desire to be remembered for generations? Did they commonly make a big deal out of having a legacy? What is a good way to respond to this? I look forward to what you all know, thanks.
1. They died for a lie and knew it (unsustainable do to lack of any reasonable motive).
2. They were all delusional and crazy (but this would take more faith than any option since you would have to explain how they all had the same delusion and craziness many being at different places and different times).
3. What they said was true. Christ did rise from the grave and is who He said He was.
Well this skeptic whom I've been talking to at a chatroom wanted to focus on the first option. Hey particularly zeroed in on the phrase "unsustainable do to lack of any reasonable motive". He claims he found a good reasonable motive. I want to know what you all here think. This skeptic claims that the apostles all died for the claim that Christ rose again, they knew it was a lie, but they did so anyway so that each of them and their whole group could be "remembered" for ages to come for their courage, faith, zeal or just to be remembered or have a legacy. He went on to say that it's important to note that in order for any of them to be remembered all of them had to keep silent about the fact that it was all a lie. But if all of them kept true to their tale and seriously tried to convince others that it was true it would keep their memories or their legacy alive. That is his argument, now this is what I'm wondering, was it a common thing for 1st. century Jews to desire to be remembered for generations? Did they commonly make a big deal out of having a legacy? What is a good way to respond to this? I look forward to what you all know, thanks.