On this Monday after Easter are you sick and tired of all the Christian postings on Facbook about "resurrection day" or did the news sites posting apologetic material for easy Easter Sunday filler content get annoying?
Well then, watch the latest episode of the Faith and Skepticism Podcast where we had a wonderful debate on the supposed resurrection of Jesus. I think Matthew O'Neil and myself did a pretty good job debating Callum Miller and Jonathan McLeod. It was very civil and is definitely a good listen.
In retrospect, I really wish I had brought up the fact that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet, and the fact that Paul also believed that the end of the world would soon be on them. I think that's something that largely goes unsaid in debates like this, and frankly it's a great opportunity to watch apologists "re-interpret" those passages or explain why it was a metaphors for something else. I think contrasting that move with how say Jehovah's Witnesses rationalized how the world failed to end after repeated prophecies is a great way to show how ad-hoc and unbelievable such moves are. This is critical since such moves always seem perfectly normal to people already in a belief system, but similar moves done by apologists for other religions would be rejected out of hand.
Additionally, I've watched some of the the Licona-Cavin Debate on the resurrection (you can look at Cavin's slides and some analysis here) after the podcast and I think Cavin makes some absolutely killer points on the idea that a supernatural resurrection should count as any kind of an "explanation" for the supposed "facts" apologists bring out.