DEBUNKING THE CONSPIRACY THEORY

[Homeless Nutter]

I agree with Randy. Robin Hood was totally real, since all the Merry Men attested to that fact, as well as the Sheriff of Nottingham.

[Randy Carson]

Oh, give it a rest. To be dead one has to be alive before. Not even that is proven.

Randy likes to pull what he calls facts out of brother anus. So the whole OP is the expected product of it's source.

Bbbbbut NT scholars Abaris! What's YOUR theory??

When even atheists acknowledge that Jesus existed, that he was crucified, that his disciples believed they saw him alive again, etc...then you might want to slow down and consider these points.

Have you?

If so, what conclusion (however tentative) have you come to about them, Nemo?

[Randy Carson]

I think it's sad that Randy pulls out atheist scholars to show how reliable they are when they believe in all the "facts" he wants to establish, and then quickly shoves them under the bus before any of us notice that all this understanding still doesn't cause them to believe in the resurrection. This second part validates our position, using his own chosen historians.

Because before I can argue with some of members of this forum about the resurrection, I first have to establish that Jesus even lived to begin with.

Why are Ehrman and O'Neil still atheists, if you respect their historical study so much?

Because they err LATER in the overall narrative. Mythicists err from the get-go.

[robvalue]

Oh really. So they are unreliable sources in your estimation. They make big mistakes, but only where you say so?

Since you're only calling them as authorities, this is a problem. Your own authorities agree with us.

[Randy Carson]

The apostles began to preach the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and buried.

If the tomb wasn't empty, why didn't the authorities simply take the body from the tomb, parade it through the streets, and silence the Apostles?

Since the Gospels were written years and decades after the alleged events by unknown authors who were almost certainly not eyewitnesses, there is no reason to believe in their literal truth.

That's a common claim, Chas, but it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny.

Without repeating the entire explanation of how we can know the gospels were written earlier than you care to admit (and by eyewitnesses whose identities we do know), I'll just point to 1 Corinthians 15 which most scholars acknowledge as a proto-creed of the Church which Paul is repeating from memory as learned from Peter, James and John in Jerusalem as early as AD 35.

IOW, the Church had already formulated this creed within five years of the resurrection.

This by itself doesn't PROVE anything concerning the resurrectin, but it is a stake through the heart of your legend theory, Chas.

[Randy Carson]

Oh really. So they are unreliable sources in your estimation. They make big mistakes, but only where you say so?

Since you're only calling them as authorities, this is a problem. Your own authorities agree with us.

Right back at you, rob.

They also agree, in part, with me. And that sucks for you, doesn't it?

It would be soooooooo much easier if you could simply not have to think about Jesus because he never existed.

But he did.

So, what are you going to make of him? If he's NOT legend, that leaves

• Lunatic
  
• Liar
  
• Lord
  

What is your fall back position?

[robvalue]

False trichotomy, stolen from CS Lewis no less.

You have no grasp of basic logic. Or if you do, you refuse to apply it to Jesus.

Do you care that you continually use logical fallacies?

My "fall back position" is that if he existed, he was some guy who caused a ruck and got executed. He may have been delusional.

[Randy Carson]

The fact that you can no longer see a six mile high bean stalk is evidence that it was cut down, therefore jack and the bean stalk is true.

Odins defeat of the ice giants is proved by the continued non-existence of ice giants.

An empty tomb (that on one can find) somewhere in the middle east is evidence for a series of improbable events as mention ad nauseum by our favourite whatever Randy is.

The apostles began to preach in Jerusalem...the very city where Jesus was tried, convicted of blasphemy for claiming to be God, crucified by the Roman, died, and was buried.

If the tomb WAS not empty, then why didn't the Sanhedrin or Pontius Pilate simply order the tomb to be opened for examination?

If there were skeptics like you in Jerusalem, do you think they might have walked to the cemetery just to see the stone and the tomb for themselves?

But even the empty tomb does not account for the transformation of the apostles or the conversions of Paul and James. These were brought about NOT by an empty tomb but by the appearances of Jesus.

[Randy Carson]

False trichotomy, stolen from CS Lewis no less.

Stolen? Really? Are you so frustrated that you now resort to that level of silliness?

You have no grasp of basic logic. Or if you do, you refuse to apply it to Jesus.

Do you care that you continually use logical fallacies?

Rob, I have read many of your posts over the past few months. I've read your own website from front to back. I know you're proud of your "Logical fallacies" page. But the fact that you erroneously claim again and again and again that I (and other theists) are employing logical fallacies does not mean that we actually are.

The problem is that you are not a very clear thinker, and you're emotional. You would benefit from reading some good books because the tripe you are gulping down here in this forum is not feeding you anything of value. Specifically, your knowledge of basic theology and scripture is practically non-existent. IOW, you don't even know what you don't know, and that makes your posts truly cringe-worthy. You're arguing (poorly) against straw-men because you don't understand what it is that Christians actually believe or why.

My "fall back position" is that if he existed, he was some guy who caused a ruck and got executed. He may have been delusional.

"If" is not much a fall-back position, rob. Either Jesus was a real person or he wasn't.

Which is it? And why?

And if he did exist, you think he was a delusional lunatic.

Why? What are the reasons you think this?

[robvalue]

It's a false trichotomy Randy. Either you know that, in which case you're dishonest, or you don't know it, in which case you don't know logic.

Option 4: he simply believed he was the son of God, managed to get some other people to believe him and got killed for causing trouble. That's not covered by your 3 options, hence false trichotomy.

I don't know if he existed, neither do you. I'm happy admitting the limits of my ability to interpret history. But if he existed, your 3 options are not the only ones.

Your refusal to admit that someone can believe something but be wrong is at the heart of your faulty thinking.