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

[Minimalist]

There is no new material. Even the old material is horseshit.


I have to go walk the dogs. We'll see if this moron shows up again to try to defend his nonsense.

[Jenny A]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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

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

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.
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.

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.

[Zen Badger]

One thing you also seemed to have overlooked. On top of those accounts not being by eye witnesses, none of them mention any of the miracles or the resurrection.
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".

[MitchBenn]

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...

[Ravenshire]

There is no new material. Even the old material is horseshit.

Fair point. So, less beaten to death material then?

[His_Majesty]

I'm sorry, the OP said you were making the case for the resurrection of some "jesus christ" - where is that case? Am I to suppose that it will be coming "soon™ ", ala armageddon? Meanwhile, You left out some fairly crucial elements of Pliny (my fav) - if I were you, I wouldn't have included it, and the majority of those statements only attest to -what people believed-....not the factual accuracy of their beliefs. All of it is hearsay, of course, as to some "jesus" - and not even the second or third party kind of hearsay, the "good stuff".

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.

[Ryantology]

This thread is like insisting you can prove that Earth's second moon is purple.

[His_Majesty]

I take it then that you decided against debating the evidence for the Christian god.

I'm unsurprised.

You shouldn't be. I decided to be Bruce Lee...in other word's, I decided that taking on just one person isn't fun enough...I would rather take on the whole damn school..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeZbwWUEQ9Y

[Minimalist]

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.

Um...yes there is.

[His_Majesty]

Jesus was most probably a real person, as was Socrates (neither of them wrote anything down personally). From what I understand the historical records do seem to suggest Jesus was crucified by the Romans. We also know that Socrates was sentenced to death by poisoning.

The difference is you believe in some unsubstantiated magical re-appearing act pulled off by one of them, which is not exta-biblically supported. That would be like me saying we have historical records the Socrates took the hemlock and died but there is one book by the Bloo-loon society who believe he came back from the dead with a giant hole through his middle clearly indicating he wanted us all to worship donuts. That's how fucking silly your religion sounds to me.

Stop conflating fact with your fictions in an effort to prop them up, it's painfully transparent and frankly juvenile.

MM

Now now now, no need to take any personal jabs here. The thread is only to establish the existence of Jesus, we haven't got to the heavy stuff yet. If you agree that Jesus existed as a person in human history in even the slightest way, then we at least agree on that part...so therefore I don't expect to hear from you any more in this thread since you agree with me. There just simply isn't any more to discuss at this time.