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

[Cyberman]

and practically all of them accept Jesus as a historical figure.

Name ten.

Name five.

Sod it - name one.

[His_Majesty]

Thank you. You just help me underscore how we evaluate claims and why, when Christians keep saying "how do you know [X person] of history existed" doesn't help their case.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mundane claims are often accepted with testimony and the lack of contrary evidence.

First off, the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an outdate quip used by atheists...it is outdated and played out. Hell, I think life from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness is an extraordinary claim...

And I haven't seen any extraordinary evidence for it yet...so we can both play that game.

So, Washington existed: Mundane claim more than adequately supported.
The folklore about the Cherry Tree: Not accepted as it's a pretty unusual claim, not supported by anything but a story.
That he threw a silver dollar across the Potomac: Extraordinary claim not accepted.

By the way, my dad came back to life today. He was cremated but his ashes reconstituted themselves into a body and he's feeling much better now. I'm sure I can find four "witnesses" who can write about what they saw. So tell me HM, would you accept that claim? If not, why not?

I didn't know that saying a man existed in 1st century Judea named "Jesus" who had followers called "Christians" was an extraordinary claim

[DeistPaladin]

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.

Everyone, read along with me in your Bibles and turn to...

1John 4:1-3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Now turn to...

2John verse 7
For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

These verses refer to the "Docetic" Christians, an early group of Christians for whom Jesus was an apparition. They believe the material world was evil and so thus God, a being that could not be evil, could only assume a spiritual form.

As an aside, one would think that John, supposedly a disciple of Jesus writing about Christians that lived within his lifetime, would have dismissed the Docetics as crazy and in denial of obvious recent events. One would think he could refer the Docetics to relatives and neighbors of Jesus who could attest that he was a real person, whatever they may have thought of his claims of divinity. But no, John uses the language of faith ("believe" and "confess") and condemns the Docetics not as crazy but as blasphemers.

Back to the main point, an examination of the REAL history of Christianity indicates a messy theology with differences between the Docetic, Marcionite and Ebionite sects making the distinction between modern Christianity and Islam look like petty hair-splitting. Protestants, much like Muslims, love to believe in the dreamscape of a "pure" and simple church led by Jesus, one that was corrupted in later years. In reality, there were so many Christianities that the "true orthodox" teachings that Christians take for granted today only came about by Roman authority post Nicaea (325 CE).

So apparently Jesus not only wrote nothing down, unlike Moses*, Paul* and other religious figures in Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, but apparently he made nothing clear in his teachings.

* Yeah, I know, half of "Paul's" letters are considered "inauthentic" and Moses is a dubious character of history but at least we have attributed writings to these people.

[Minimalist]

I didn't know that saying a man existed in 1st century Judea named "Jesus" who had followers called "Christians" was an extraordinary claim

Except there is no evidence except the bullshit you assholes tell yourselves.

And that makes it extraordinary. And quite unbelievable to sane people.

[Esquilax]

First off, the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an outdate quip used by atheists...it is outdated and played out.

So because you don't like it, presumably because of how inconvenient it is for your argument, it's not true, based solely on that assertion from you alone?

Hell, I think life from nonlife and consciousness from unconsciousness is an extraordinary claim...

That's why we aren't taking the simplistic, binary path you want us to, with those claims. We're using a scientific, probabilistic approach. Oh, and by the way, did god come from life? Did his consciousness come from consciousness?

Your answer to both of those questions is probably no, and if that's the case then how dare you pretend that what you just said doesn't also apply to you? And if the answer is yes to both of those, then all that blathering you do about infinite regressions was either a lie, or is a problem for you.

And I haven't seen any extraordinary evidence for it yet...so we can both play that game.

You really are a dishonest little git, aren't you?

[Mister Agenda]

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.

I'm happy to go with the normal accepted standards of historicity, utter certainty isn't needed to reasonably establish an historical figure. Jesus is less well-supported than many, but I consider an historical Jesus more likely than not...but not based on anything that you have presented.

Bullshit.

I'm sure that settles it in your mind.

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.

Based on the teachings of someone (or more likely, multiples someones), certainly. Since it was an oral tradition, even if there was an historical Jesus, we can't be sure what in the Gospels were his words and what were someone else's. A compilation of stories about and sayings of various mendicant rabbis fits the bill as well...maybe better, considering some of the inconsistencies in the Jesus stories.

Know your history.

I know what's history and what's speculation. If Jesus was historical, the most certain things about him are his baptism and crucifixion...everything else is clear as mud. Since I'm not a Christian, I'm not obliged to swallow the whole thing: I prefer the Jesus who was a compassionate moral reformer to the Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher. I suspect they're not the same person.

[His_Majesty]

But you haven't been demonstrating that; merely asserting it. I and others here have been leadiing you by the hand, step by step

Since when does the blind lead a person with 20/20 vision?

through the reasons why your evidence isn't actually evidence for what you're claiming it is. Clearly it's not all that compelling, or there'd be more historians who would accept it

Dude, please. First off, if by "more", you mean the minority that don't believe? Well, there is still the majority that do believe. Apparently it is that compelling to that majority...so where you get this "or there'd be mroe historians who accept it" shit...I don't know. But apparently you don't know the facts....so it would help if you actually knew what you were talking about...like where does the community within the field of history stand...and the majority are on my side.

I'm not a historian

Noooo?

but I am a reasonable man. I'll accept a good reason. I'll accept a bad reason. I'll accept any damn reason at all, only at least meet me halfway and give me something to get my teeth into.

I can do that...I just would like to talk on a different platform..an IM platform, where we can really get to the issue.

I predict you will reject the offer, though

[Minimalist]

First off, the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an outdate quip used by atheists...it is outdated and played out.

I'll take Carl Sagan over some deluded religious fuckwit like you any day of the week.

[FatAndFaithless]

Can we go one post from HM without "A NUMBER OF NON-CHRISTIAN HISTORIANS THINK HE EXISTED" please?

[DeistPaladin]

First off, the whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is an outdate quip used by atheists...

I'm sorry, do you not play by those rules in every area of life outside your favorite religion?

If I tell you "I had lunch with my wife today", are you not more likely to believe that than "I had lunch with my deceased father who's back from the dead and feeling much better today".

I'm guessing you play by these rules in every area of life outside of Christian claims. Otherwise, you'd wear yourself out considering all manner of fanciful claims, including many other religions.

it is outdated and played out. Hell, I think life from nonlife ... is an extraordinary claim...

Why is this an extraordinary claim?

Life exists on this planet now. It didn't five billion years ago. Even you believe in "life from non life" but while science tries to understand the process, you just quip GodDidIt. That's the only difference.

I didn't know that saying a man existed in 1st century Judea named "Jesus" who had followers called "Christians" was an extraordinary claim

I'm sorry, was that the claim of the OP?

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)

Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.