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

[His_Majesty]

The vast majority of historians, some who aren't friendly to Christianity at all, is willing to accept the sources that I provided as historical evidence that Jesus the man existed...the vast majority, and there are many out there.

You just keep repeating that over and over as if it's evidence for your point. You already agreed that the fact that a number of historians agree does not make it true, so stop using that statement as if it does.

Well, if included in that majority are individuals that are not Christians, I would think that would make there interpretations of the evidence legitmate...I know how you people like to say "those sources were by people that already believed in Christianity"....no, that isn't the case here. Notice when I say ''majority", I also point out that some are non-Christian as well.

The vast majority of all historians apply some historical methodology...the same methodology that they apply to any other historical person/historical claim in history, and they draw the conclusion that Jesus "the man", existed.

Point blank, period.

[FatAndFaithless]

Nope, sorry. Nobody here cares how many time you repeat it. The evidence you've provided has been so thoroughly trashed that it's no wonder you keep saying the same thing over and over.

Point blank, period? Wtf?

[DeistPaladin]

The vast majority of all historians apply some historical methodology...the same methodology that they apply to any other historical person/historical claim in history, and they draw the conclusion that Jesus "the man", existed.

What's the evidence that convinces them?

More importantly, if we're talking about more than "some guy named Yehsua who was a religious leader of some kind", what, if anything, can we know about Jesus?

[Esquilax]

Well, if included in that majority are individuals that are not Christians, I would think that would make there interpretations of the evidence legitmate...I know how you people like to say "those sources were by people that already believed in Christianity"....no, that isn't the case here. Notice when I say ''majority", I also point out that some are non-Christian as well.

The vast majority of all historians apply some historical methodology...the same methodology that they apply to any other historical person/historical claim in history, and they draw the conclusion that Jesus "the man", existed.

Point blank, period.

If I were partial to making the exact same deflectionary arguments you do, I would here dismiss your entire case, scoffing that you don't have a solution to the problem of your god's life coming from non-life, and therefore all the things you say about his supposed son are irrelevant and necessarily untrue until you come up with that solution. After all, how can we accept your answers here when you haven't dealt with the very basis of your god?

Of course, I'm not making that claim because I'm not a dishonest moron seeking to delay the conversation until my opponent gets bored so I can claim an unearned victory. I just think it's interesting that a good majority of the arguments you've used since coming here also apply to you yourself. But then, we already know and understand your entire position rests on a deep well of hypocrisy that you will never acknowledge, and may not even understand exists.

[Jenny A]

You just keep repeating that over and over as if it's evidence for your point. You already agreed that the fact that a number of historians agree does not make it true, so stop using that statement as if it does.

Well, if included in that majority are individuals that are not Christians, I would think that would make there interpretations of the evidence legitmate...I know how you people like to say "those sources were by people that already believed in Christianity"....no, that isn't the case here. Notice when I say ''majority", I also point out that some are non-Christian as well.

The vast majority of all historians apply some historical methodology...the same methodology that they apply to any other historical person/historical claim in history, and they draw the conclusion that Jesus "the man", existed.

Point blank, period.

You began with the evidence on which historians must rely one way or the other and there isn't much of it. Reasonable minds can be unconvinced. And indeed there are historians who remain unconvinced.

[KevinM1]

When do we get to zombie Jesus? And exactly how many brains did he eat?

[The Valkyrie]

When do we get to zombie Jesus? And exactly how many brains did he eat?

Zombie Jesus is already in the world - in spirit.

How many brains has he eaten? Billions. Just look at the antics of many of his followers . . .

[KevinM1]

When do we get to zombie Jesus? And exactly how many brains did he eat?

Zombie Jesus is already in the world - in spirit.

Aww... I was hoping my shotgun would see some action.

How many brains has he eaten? Billions. Just look at the antics of many of his followers . . .

[Cyberman]

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

Again with the arrogance? Your xtian brethren and sistren must be very proud, having you as their ambassador.

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.

I got that from you, actually. Even if 90% of historians believed in JC as an historical character, there would still be that 10% who didn't. Their objections still need to be evaluated, so we can determine why they don't accept it. It may be they have biases preventing their accepting the evidence, agendas to push. Or they may just have a point. But if you cut them out of the frame altogether without consideration, how are we ever to know?

This is all academic anyway, since - for the umpteenth time - we're not addressing a majority of evidence-believers, we're dealing with one guy on the internet talking about a majority. One guy, it has to be noted, with rather less than an unblemished track record pertaining to honesty and bias.

But apparently you don't know the facts....so it would help if you actually knew what you were talking about...

Interesting choice of phrase. Are you still citing Josephus as reliable testimony, after you've been shown repeatedly why it's not?

like where does the community within the field of history stand...and the majority are on my side.

Yet again, we only have your statement of that. I could say the majority of xtians are secretly scientologists, with just as much authority.

I'm not a historian

Noooo?

Yeah I know, I'm only one guy on an atheist forum who just happens to have a different view on this stuff to you. So?

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.

What would that achieve? Why can't you get to the issue right here?

I predict you will reject the offer, though

That offer, yes. I don't do IM with anyone outside my personal circle. Now you may crow.

[DeistPaladin]

Zombie Jesus is already in the world - in spirit.

Aww... I was hoping my shotgun would see some action.

It still might. Keep it loaded with salt pellets and let's look for the body of Christ so we can salt and burn it.