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

[Minimalist]

I agree. You are ignorant. And apparently willfully so.

Much like your fucking godboy, 'paul' was a 2d century literary construction. Someday...maybe in 20-30 years if you are ready to grow up ask and I'll direct you to some real scholarship instead of that WLC horseshit you are apparently so enamored of.

Meanwhile....go blow jesus out your ass.

[KUSA]

His Majesty has some foul language for a Xtian. Fuck, fuck, fuck. I'm sure your sky daddy and god boy would be proud of you.

[Esquilax]

Richard Carrier? Who is Richard Carrier? Ohhhh, that is the guy that got his ass handed to him by William Lane Craig in a debate on the very subject at hand...the Resurrection.

I remember now...

So, you remember how earlier in another thread you were squawking about the genetic fallacy? Well, "Richard Carrier got beaten in a debate by WLC, therefore his current argument is invalid" is the genetic fallacy, even if your interpretation of the debate was remotely accurate, which I seriously doubt.

And if what's in my quotation marks wasn't what you were going for, then it was simply a deflection, and entirely irrelevant.

[Zen Badger]

To your first, we have eye witness accounts of Van Buren, but none of Jesus, so you fail there.

We have eyewitness accounts of Jesus too..Paul claimed to not only see the Resurrected Jesus, but he meet with the original disciples who WERE eyewitnesses. But that doesn't count, does it...well, neither does the Van Buren accounts. I am not playing the double standard game.

For your second one, Tacticus mentions a michevious superstition therefore the resurrection?!?! Fuck, you really are grasping at straws now laddie.

Yeah, I can totally see why the story of a man being crucified and rising from the dead would be seen as a mischievous superstition to a unbeliever. In fact, Tacitus feels the same way that most of you people on here feel.

And lastly, this only attests to people's gullibility, nothing else.
Now if Christianity had appeared simultaneously at different places around the world you would have a case.

If you move the goal posts back any further I might not be able to see it at all. Simultaneously at difference places around the world? You sound like a damn fool

Well, right now, it is in all places around the world...simultaneously...over 2 billion followers...starting from one wise guy and 12 of his idiot followers....

Quoting the bible(Paul) to support the bible will get you nowhere lad, so don't bother.

The term "Michevious superstition"is not evidence of the resurrection. You'll have to much better than that.

Don't you believe that your omnipotent god is capable of starting Christianity in different places at the same time? Are you some sort of doubter? Shame on you.

And lastly, the success of Christianity owes more to the quantity of its violence and very little to the quality of its truth.

[Minimalist]

His Majesty has some foul language for a Xtian. Fuck, fuck, fuck. I'm sure your sky daddy and god boy would be proud of you.

That's his only redeeming feature.

[Exian]

I really have no problem accepting that Jesus may have existed as a man who claimed to have some messianic agenda and walked around tricking people into believing healings and miracles. I also have no problem accepting that he never existed given the lack of evidence. It makes no difference to atheism.

Jesus existing as a man making those claims lends zero credence to the claims he made, if he did exist. And that's the real point of contention here. Although, I will admit that the question of his existence is far more interesting a topic to me than the credibility of the miracles he performed, or his resurrection. Those last two are just outright silly to me; too silly to even question or carry on about.

When looking at the supposed times leading up to and during the life of Jesus, the messianic claims were very popular with leaders of pockets of rebellion. Similarly, holy men performing miracles and healings were a common, and probably accepted, part of, at least, the fringes of the culture. I read an observation by Reza Aslan (I think it was) that said something to the effect of- healings and miracle works were so common that even the detractors and critics of Christianity left out any criticism of these things in their writings. Almost everybody believed in some form of magical horseshit.

[Thumpalumpacus]

WLC couldn't beat his meat in a debate.

Okay, I loled.

---

Also:

[GrandizerII]

I believe Jesus may have existed, but I don't agree at all that what you posted is good evidence for his existence. Like Jenny said, all you did was show that Christians did exist in the first century.

Dude, every single source either mentions Jesus by name, title, or made implications regarding him. Yeah, they mentioned Christians, but every single time the Christians were mentioned, it was in the context of the man that they followed...every single one.

So what the heck are you talking about?? EIther you people are just not reading, or there is a major reading comprehension problem going on here...because I don't see how you can say that the source only mentions Christians when within the context either "Jesus", "Christ", "Christus", "Crucified sophist" "Wise King/new law"...those are freakin' names and titles that is as clear as day in the context, yet it is being bypassed for some f'ed up reason due to poor reading comprehension skills or just flat out denial.

Yeah, but just because he's referred to doesn't mean that he must've existed. Atheists may call you a follower of God. Does this mean they believe God exists?

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Nobody has ever come back to life after being clinically dead.

It's impossible until proven otherwise.

The end.

[His_Majesty]

That's just a hair insane. Josephus isn't the only mention of Pilate and Tacitus isn't the only mention of Tiberius.

And Josephus also isn't the only mention of Jesus.

It they were, yes there would be reason to doubt Pilate and Tiberius. Actually, there isn't much for Pilate, and maybe, but for a contemporary inscription we'd have to count him unproven. But there is that inscription. For Tiberius there's plenty of contemporary evidence.

Right, and you have a Roman senator that mentions Jesus as a man that lived during the time of someone that we have "plenty" of contemporary evidence for.

Sure, he was a Jew and a historian. But he didn't have contempary sources (certainly didn't say he had) and wasn't a contemporary.

First off, you don't know what kind of sources Josephus had. He was an adult within 20 years after Jesus crucifixion', during a time when Christianity was still new and spreading throughout the empire and the original disciples of Jesus were still alive.

Just because he choose to write his historical work much later in his life doesn't change the fact that he was a young adult within 20 years of the cross, which could be traced right back to the time of a specific procurator and a specific Roman emperor.

There are plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during the time period, but not Jesus. So? Not proven.

Nonsense. The average person during the time of Jesus, in that location, could not read or write. They were illiterate....and Jesus' travels took him to just religious cities, towns, and villages. The only people that could read and write were probably the Jewish authorities, and they were obviously not fans of Jesus to be writing about him.

Information was passed through word of mouth...and what I find amazing is the fact that you claim that there is plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during that time, yet the legacy that Jesus left behind far better exceeds anyone in history.

Sorry, but the Pontius Pilate part of Josephus is actually in dispute and Christos means anointed or chosen. It's not a name and many men were called that.

Actually, the Pilate part isn't in dispute. The only parts that are in dispute is the obvious theological stuff. The rest is generally considered to be authentic. And the "Christus" part...again...Tacitus said that this was the title of a man whose followers is called "Christians" by the population, and a man that was crucified during the reign of Tiberius...and he also mentioned Pilate in this context as well.

Now, there could have been a thousand men named Jesus during that time or a thousand men called "Christos/Christus"....but there was only one that was crucified by Pilate, and started a new religious movement with its followers called "Christians", and a mischievous superstitious resulting after this guy's death.

It is clear as to who is being referred to, but there is an obvious double standard going on here.

Yes, he says Christians believed that, not that he did that or that he believed Jesus existed.

Nonsense. In the context he is saying that the Christians were chanting verses in honor of Christ as if to a god." If Trajan didn't know who the hell Christ was, then obviously Pliny would have briefed him on who exactly Christ was. Apparently it was common knowledge that Christ existed because Pliny mentioned him briefly, and in passing, without even elaborating on who they were talking about.

They do have contemporary sources on which to rely.

What makes you think that those 5 sources didn't?

Not really. We remember Homer because of what is attributed to him, but there's much depute over his existence.

But unlike Homer, the existence of Jesus can be traced back to eyewitness accounts...now of course, these sources would be internal, but sources nevertheless...by either eyewitnesses...or friends of the eyewitnesses.