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

[FatAndFaithless]

Is "bias" the new christian buzzword?

[The Grand Nudger]

Hahaha, you're telling other people to do their own research in your "case for christ" HM - that's the laziest fucking thing I've ever seen. You do realize that you can't actually make a case for anything that way....right?

[Jackalope]

You tell us. Why do you find them convincing, apart from the dubious fact that other people do as well?

Because the sources seem honest, and modest....and not just a little modest, but VERY modest.

Even Josephus, which is widely regarded as later interpolation (i.e. forgery) - and the only one that actually mentions Jesus. That kind of "honest, and modest"?

It's hearsay, *at best*.

[His_Majesty]

Hehehe, I wouldn't use Bart E. either....

But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...49544.html

Yeah, Bart...you might be on to something...now turn that statement inward....

HM...tell us, please, -why- the evidence suggests this, and what evidence it is that suggests this? You don't have to speak volumes...a couple of sentences will be sufficient.

I couldn't make out what your question is, exactly...BUT, lets just remove all doubt...

Here is a video of Bart Ehrman himself stating what he, as a non-Christian, believe about the historical Jesus...

And the good thing about this video is the fact that the question is asked and answered IMMEDIATELY...right when the video begins to play, he dives right into it....quite the claim for a non-Christian, I think.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqJyk-dtLs

[abaris]

What basics did he get right?

The basics that most historians nowadays believe there was some character upon which christianity is built. Nothing more, nothing less.

Based on that I consider the bible as a collection of campfire tales, growing bigger and bigger with everyone telling the story. And then someone decided to write that shit down, imbuing it with his own legends collected from much older myths and making some divine being of a figure that was anything but that. The point is, we can argue from here to eternity if this Jesus bloke was real or not. But what we can't argue about, since we're entering serious bullshit territory, is the divine nature of the guy in question. All the miracles he supposedly performed up to the resurrection trick he pulled have been there before he supposedly lived. There are countless preexisting myths claiming the same kind of wonders.

So what I'm saying is, this is getting us nowhere. Let him embark on his real suicide mission. To prove the resurrection.

And I'm sorry to say, I know next to nothing about the meso-american pantheon other than there has been a certain god, who's risen from the dead too. I know a lot more about European and christian mythology, since I studied history. Again, most historian believe there has been a real being on which Jesus has been built. Might be a person, might be a collection of persons. On that the jury is still out and will be for the foreseeable future, since many self proclaimed Messiahs walked Palestine at the time in question.

[Jackalope]

So? I frankly couldn't care less what they believe, I care about *why* they believe it.

Historians aren't trying to sell us a supernatural bill of goods, this joker is. I'll undermine his argument wherever it's weak - and it's weak down to it's very foundation.

Ok well how about this..you do your own research to figure out why...but the fact of the matter is, they do.

It's not my argument. The burden is yours if you're seeking to convince anyone.

Transparent attempt to shift the burden of proof noted, by the way.

There's not even any credible record of that.

Obviously..."evidences" are subjective...but again, the record is credible enough for even non-Christians to believe it.

How so? Because they believe it, QED?

You're back to an implicit appeal to authority and popularity now.

This isn't going to fly, and I sure as hell wouldn't allow such sloppy logic to pass in part 2, so I fail to see why I should here.

[dyresand]

So? I frankly couldn't care less what they believe, I care about *why* they believe it.

Historians aren't trying to sell us a supernatural bill of goods, this joker is. I'll undermine his argument wherever it's weak - and it's weak down to it's very foundation.

Ok well how about this..you do your own research to figure out why...but the fact of the matter is, they do.

There's not even any credible record of that.

Obviously..."evidences" are subjective...but again, the record is credible enough for even non-Christians to believe it. Now whether or not this includes you, I don't really give a damn...because one could play the role of a "super skeptic" about any event or person in history...but if we are all honest with ourselves and willing to put our biases aside for just a second, then this wouldn't happen.

i don't know why your trying to pull historical evidence for jesus when history does not play well with religious and religion as fact.

http://www.bandoli.no/whyjesus.htm

http://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reason...r_existed/

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/





http://www.irishcentral.com/news/america...82671.html

[His_Majesty]

Even Josephus, which is widely regarded as later interpolation (i.e. forgery) - and the only one that actually mentions Jesus. That kind of "honest, and modest"?

It's hearsay, *at best*.

Dude, you have to look at the entire freakin' context. Yeah, Josephus is the only one that mentioned the name "Jesus", but so what? It is clear based on the context of the other sources that they are talking about Jesus.

Serious, be foreal.

[dyresand]

Even Josephus, which is widely regarded as later interpolation (i.e. forgery) - and the only one that actually mentions Jesus. That kind of "honest, and modest"?

It's hearsay, *at best*.

Dude, you have to look at the entire freakin' context. Yeah, Josephus is the only one that mentioned the name "Jesus", but so what? It is clear based on the context of the other sources that they are talking about Jesus.

Serious, be foreal.

126 writers, all of whom should have heard of Jesus but did not - and Paul and Marcion and Athenagoras and Matthew with a tetralogy of opposing Christs, the silence from Qumram and Nazareth and Bethlehem, conflicting Bible stories

[The Grand Nudger]

Um, no, the sources you offered..in addition to being riddled with questions of authenticity, talk about people -who believe- in jesus....maybe.

-and don't play dumb. Bart believes, but I don't give a shit..and neither should you, at least not if you're maintaining the fiction of attempting a case for christ. If you posted "A case for people who might have believed in a christ figure in the past and those who believe in a Jesus today" I wouldn't be giving you any shit whatsoever - I don't even think that such a case would be required....but that's not what you're attempting to do, now is it?

Tell me why, point to some evidence? Even evidence for a man - I'm already halfway there, after all...I accept that men exist.

@abaris, :hangs head: Well, you know, if most people believe it...I guess it must be true.....