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

[His_Majesty]

But not all individuals referred to in historical sources must be historical figures.

Well then, certain historical figures that you have no problem believing existed: the contemporary sources that we allegely have for thoses guys doesn't mean that they actually existed... the contemporary sources could be lying.

And, no, my point is relevant because atheists are non-Christian "sources" as well. Yet, they'll mention God when referring to someone as a believer in God. This does not mean they are implying God exists.

Right, so the sources in question mentioned Tiberius and Pontius Pilate...so that would mean that those two guys didn't exist either.

[Jenny A]

This might be a little overdue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Yes, but I doubt he'll read it.

[FatAndFaithless]

The fact that HM is comparing historical accounts of Jesus to people that have their own written documents is rather absurd.

[Cyberman]

Indeed. Forrest Gump met JFK. We know JFK existed, so Gump must have existed. And if we object that he was merely fictional, then clearly JFK was fictional too.

[His_Majesty]

I see at 25 pages in, we've established that Jesus may or may not have really existed

Well yeah...but the same can be said for any historical figure, that he/she may or may not have really existed. You don't know what is an actual fact or what is actually fiction in history...all you can do is go by what you were told, by people that may or may not have been trying to push an agenda...the same thing you would probably accuse Christians of doing.

that the early Christian church may or may not have been based on his teachings

Bullshit. Paul was part of the early Church writing to the church in Corinth some 20 years after the cross..it was a church, so obviously a Christian Church would be based on the teachings of Jesus.

Know your history.

and that there were definitely early Christians.

No doubt about it.

[Esquilax]

Right, so the sources in question mentioned Tiberius and Pontius Pilate...so that would mean that those two guys didn't exist either.

We have other sources contemporary with their existence that mention them... something we don't have with Jesus. You think your equivocations are actually going to last more than a few seconds, you blithering moron?

[Minimalist]

This might be a little overdue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method

Yes, but I doubt he'll read it.

I doubt he reads much of anything that doesn't have the jesus freak seal of approval.

[Jenny A]

The question is, how do you know who was the first President?? Regardless of what answer you give, you are relying on what you were told from someone else.

Yes, but who, said George Washington was the first president? When did they say it? On what did they rely for their knowledge? Did they state it as a fact or as merely gossip or something others believe in? Did they have a reason to lie or exaggerate. Did others also say it, or is there just one person who said George Washington was the first president?

Should all references to George Washington begin twenty years after his death and only refer to what a certain political party believed about him, we might wonder if he had ever lived or if he were merely a national myth.

But, in the case of George Washington, many people and many documents attest to his presidency. There are not only contemporary writings about him, but also by him, and official documents carrying his signature. The references to George Washington are not only written by U.S. patriots but also by foreigners and not only by his proponents but by those few who opposed his government. And they include references to his military career, political career, children, and married life.

Now compare the cherry tree myth. The first mention of this rather odd tale in which a six year old George is naughty enough to cut down a cherry tree but truthful enough to admit it is in 1800, in a single book, published three years after the grown-up George's death by Parson Mason Weems. Biographies immediately following Weem's do not include the cherry tree. So, given the oddity of the story the vast majority of historians have dismissed it. I was all set to dismiss it too, but in looking I some more evidence.

Even the cherry tree story might be proven IF we look at who said what and when and what their sources were. Weems was both a contemporary and a friend of Washington's. Second, Weems didn't say that George chopped the tree down, he said that he barked it. We know that Weems lived near the Washingtons and had access to his friends, neighbors, and relatives. Weems says a cousin of George's told Weems the story, and yes George had nearby cousins of the appropriate age to know and tell such a story. On the other hand Weems said himself that he was writing his biography through a moral filter to educate other in morality so he might have embellished the story on accepted as true what another writer might not. Conclusion? Perhaps the cherry tree story is partially true. But it is certainly not true that Washington cut it down as so many grade school history texts have declared. http://carlanthonyonline.com/2012/02/20/...tree-tale/

Notice that in partially changing my mind about the cherry tree I paid attention to who said it, what he knew, and what he actually said. Given another witness, not interested in telling George Washington as a moral tale, and I'd believe the barking story absolutely.

Now in the case of Jesus, none of your references is to a contemporary of Jesus. None of them tells you what his sources are. All of the stories are obviously second hand. Three of them merely report what Christians believed. That, is much closer to the cherry tree and a long shot from the kind of proof backing George Washington's presidency.

[His_Majesty]

[Citation needed]

---

I want to know, who polled them, how large was the sample size, where it was located, exactly what questions were asked, and other such data, before I accept that claim, anyway.

Four out of five dentists prefer Trident, too ... if you ask the right dentists the right questions.

Citation needed? Check out the references in the wiki article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity...note-fox-6 in the wiki article.

And I already gave the video where agnostic Bart Ehrman confirmed this...he is an actual historian that is active in the field and has spent over 30 years in the field, running across many historians in the field over those years..and practically all of them accept Jesus as a historical figure.

It isn't as if Bart has anything to gain from this "common knowledge" in the field of history...he isn't even a Christian...but it is what it is...almost all agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

[Esquilax]

It isn't as if Bart has anything to gain from this "common knowledge" in the field of history...he isn't even a Christian...but it is what it is...almost all agree that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

"If I repeat the argument from popularity enough times, it'll stop being a fallacy!"