MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Minimalist]

Um...yes there is.

Really?

Not a single ancient writer prior to the early 5th century, either xtian or pagan knows anything about Nero "persecuting xtians" because of the Great Fire. Even that noted liar, Eusebius, is silent on the matter. Forgive me for not typing this all out again.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-15366-p...#pid353103

YOu might click on the link for Carrington's research.


Archaeologically, there are no first century xtian catacombs in Rome. There are jewish catacombs....but the xtians show up later....in the 2d century.

[Jenny A]

Reading comprehension, people. Geez, it's like you people are so damn quick to attack that you don't even read the shit. This is clearly PART 1 as it say in the freakin' title.

I read the shit. And I get that part I is merely to prove the existence of Jesus. But it doesn't do that.

Unlike some others here, I think Jesus in the form of a man who claimed to be a prophet probably existed and he was probably executed. But that's based entirely on the Gospels and hardly proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Your sources don't aide your argument because the are too late and don't say enough.

Again, you've shown there were early Christians, nothing more. You haven't even shown there were Christians before 60 AD.

[Foxaèr]

Anything from the non majesty needs to be taken under guidance of not being true.

[His_Majesty]

H-M,
Your problem here is the same problem the Bible has with regard to Jesus, and that is that none of your sources had contemporary knowledge of Jesus.

Actually, you are the one with the problem..Josephus mentioned Pilate and Tacitus mentioned Tiberius...now, if you are basing your critique on the fact that those two weren't contemporary sources to Jesus, then you will have to acknowledge the fact that they weren't contemporary sources to Pilate and Tiberius either...so based on your logic, Tiberius and Pilate can't be historical either.

Either your logic must be consistent, or there is a double standard here.

As you say, Josephus reached adulthood well after the date ascribed to Jesus' death. He wrote Antiquities of the Jews in the early 90s AD a full two generations later.

Um, Jenny...Josephus was a historian. Virtually ever historian that is alive today write about events that happened not only decades, but CENTURIES before they were born..second, he was born shortly after Jesus' death which would make him an adult before the first Gospel was even written...so in other words, he lived in the geographic location and time during which the Christian religion was spreading and Christians were being persecuted...so he would know about the Jews, the Christians, and Roman authorities.

Additionally, Josephus wrote about a number of Jews named Jesus for the simple reason that Joshua (the Hebrew form of Jesus) was the most common Jewish name during the time period.

Um, Jenny, he said that this particular Jesus was crucified by Pilate, and his followers were called "Christians". It is plain as day as to who he is referring to here.

Born a quarter century after the date ascribed to Jesus' death Tacitus only describes Christians, not Jesus. There is no controversy that people calling themselves Christians existed at during Nero's reign and that Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome. But that says nothing about whether the Christians worshiped a real man.

Um, Jenny. He specifically said that the group being persecuted were called "Christians" by the population...and someone named "Christus" was from whom the title "Christians" came from....and he stated that this "Christus" guy was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius...and a "mischievous" superstition resulted after this "Christus" guy's death. Again, this harmonizes perfectly with the Gospel accounts.

So please, stop making it so obvious that you are deliberately trying your best to explain away why these accounts are NOT saying what they are clearly saying. I mean, DAMN.

Lucian is later yet and again only shows that Christians existed which is not in question.

Actually he is saying that the Christians are living according to the laws of a man that was crucified. All accounts, whether the later sources or earlier sources testify about the Christians following, worshiping, and living their lives according to someone that was crucified.

There is no getting out of this, Jenny.

Once again, Mar bar Serapion has no personal knowledge of Jesus and writes a generation after his death.

Nonsense. In history classes every day across America, students are being taught history by teachers that are basing their material off of things that happened generations before they were born...so what is the difference, Jenny?

What you have shown is:
1. A generation or two after his purported life there were people other than Christians believed that there had once been a wise man named Jesus but no one felt he merited more than a sentence or two.

So what? They wrote about him, that is the point...if they are mentioning Jesus in a historical context, then obviously, he existed, which is the only thing I am establishing with this thread.

2. Some people called this wise man the King of the Jews and some blamed Jews for his death.
3. By the 60s Christianity had spread widely enough to be persecuted by Nero and noticed by others.

No arguments there.

None of the authors mention what ought to have been a big deal if it had happened and that is the resurrection. In fact Mar bar Serapion specifically says Jesus is remembered because of what he said, not because of living on after death. What you have proven is the existence of Christians. Congratulations.

If Jesus is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist. So you acknowledge after all that based on the external biblical accounts, he existed...that was the only point that I am making with this thread.

[Foxaèr]

Too many "um jenny's" there.

[Zen Badger]

The OP appears to be ignoring my posts about the resurrection.
I wonder why that is.

[His_Majesty]

One thing you also seemed to have overlooked. On top of those accounts not being by eye witnesses

Ok, so where you an eye witness account to the Presidency of Martin Van Buren? The answer is no. So how do you know that he was ever the President? How can you be sure of anything in history if you were never a direct eyewitness to anything??

, none of them mention any of the miracles or the resurrection.

Tacitus mentioned a mischievous superstition which arose after Jesus' death. That is the Resurrection, the greatest miracle of them all.

So while there remains the slim possibility that JC might have been a real person, without the miracles and the resurrection any claims to him being the son of god are out the window. Along with your religions claim to possession of the "TRUTH".

The possibility is high, actually. If Jesus was never a real person, then how the hell could Christianity ever get off the ground from the belief of a man that never even existed? And why would non-Christian sources put a man that never existed in the same context of men that actually existed, like Roman politicians and emperors? Makes no sense.

[Ravenshire]

This is like someone watching a 5 hour highlight session of Michael Jordan and saying "This same old fadeaway jumpshot: For fucks sake, you'd think that asshole would create a new move."

Sorry charlie, he will continue to shoot the same old fadeaway until the defense can learn to stop it.

See where I'm going with this?

You're going nowhere, fast, because your analogy fails. People didn't get tired of watching Jordan make his fade-away shots for the same reason they haven't tired of watching Manning throw touchdowns. They helped their respective teams win games. You, on the other hand, are re-hashing bullshit arguments based on tenuous (at best) historical arguments to "prove" something that cannot be proven to a bunch of people who don't give a fuck what you have to say about the subject.

You want to claim that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a real person, maybe you could start be proving (you know, using testable, verifiable evidence) that Nazareth was an extant community during your god-boy's alleged lfe (good luck). Then you need to prove that your god-boy was actually born, factual, not fictive. Again with testable, verifiable evidence.

Once you've managed that, then you get to try to prove the magic. That should be entertaining. Walking on water, feeding the multitudes, etc...

You have no physical evidence and no contemporary accounts, though I'm sure you'll try to throw shit at the wall in the vain hope that some will stick.

Something else to keep in mind before you start with the "no one's sure what happened that long ago" argument (something that frequently happens in these shit-fests), the first century CE is the best documented century in antiquity.

Have fun attempting the impossible. I'm sure many here will be amused by your lame attempts.

[His_Majesty]

So what we have here is a man who apparently spent three years travelling Judea, making earth-shattering claims and pronouncements and performing reality-bending miracles up to and including raising himself and others from the dead, and yet not a SINGLE word was written about him until around 50 years after his death...

There probably wasn't anything written about Jesus during his life because the vast majority of people during that time and location couldn't read or write...that may have had something to do with it. Second, the first epistle of Paul was written in the early to mid 50's AD, which would be around 20-25 years after the cross...so where you got this "50 years after" stuff from...dont know.

[Foxaèr]

Ok, so where you an eye witness account to

Okay, that's rich you piece of shit.

Were you an eye witness account to the creation of everything that your god supposedly created?

See how that works?

If not, your a dumbass as we all know.