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

[Crossless2.0]

A nail gun might be more to the point.

[His_Majesty]

If most of the historians involved in this discussion aren't christians, doesn't that give you a little hint as to the parts of the Jesus story they don't accept as true?

No.

And since you keep prattling on about the vast majority of historians accepting something, as though an argument from popularity is a legitimate point, then doesn't that simple fact alone completely scuttle any future arguments for the resurrection of Jesus you care to make?

Oh, I am not saying that because the popular vote gives Jesus' existence the nod, that therefore it is true. I am saying that guys that are actually historians, who are on both sides of the coin, all believe that Jesus' existence is most plausible based on the evidence as a whole.

Don't blame me

Or is this another one of those double standards things, where anything you can spin to fit what you want to be true is an effective argument, but it becomes a fallacy again the moment it supports something you disagree with, because you said so?

I am just stating facts, my man. Facts

---

lets see why history and historians are not fond of the Christ myth. If there was historical evidence of a Christ and a god where would it go why would it disappear.

It didn't disappear, it is there.

but we live in a real world looking for real truth. Not to mention the horrible things Christians did for god and pretty much said science is evil.

Is the genetic fallacy poking its ugly head in there???

If there was a record of a person named jesus out there then maybe just maybe its not the biblical jesus but some ordinary guy doing bronze age parlor tricks.

Cool theory. The only problem is, history tells us that this guys name is Jesus.

---

Evidence considered.

Case dismissed

I said the same thing for evolution

---

What you seem to miss is that most of the scholars you keep trumpeting do not accept the miracle-worker that is so precious to shitheads like you.

That is an irrelevant point based on what the thread was meant for.

They are continually trying to shrink the story down to something that they personally find 'believable.' And a dead jew coming back to life to atone for the sins of the fucking world does not cut it.

Inanimate matter suddenly coming to life and began thinking and talking to each other...that doesn't cut it either.

Why is it so important to you?

Um, if it is true, then how is it not important?? About as dumb of a question as I've heard.

What do you think it proves?

Well, if the Resurrection is true, then Jesus is obviously who he said he is and the buck stops with him. Come to think of it, it also STARTS with him.

Why are you so fucking obsessed?

Because I base my entire human life and possible afterlife on it. Look, Christian theism isn't for everyone....it obviously isn't for you...but hey, naturalism isn't for me, so we will see what happens in the end

[Cyberman]

Evidence considered.

Case dismissed

I said the same thing for evolution

What's realy cute is that you think the two are equivalent in some way.

[His_Majesty]

Here's the thing, though. We are not dealing with "the vast majority of historians", we're dealing with you and your assertions of a "vast majority".

Actually it isn't just mines. I already provided my references. No one is making shit up...it is a fact, the vast majority of historians that have looked in to this have concluded that Jesus, "the man" existed, plain and simple.

The two or three names you've cited have been examined and found sorely wanting, for reasons that have been explained to you at length.

And I've also did a lot of "explaining at length". So what? The explanation of your counterparts doesn't have any more virtue than I have...and if you think so, you are sadly mistaken.

These people are not unknown to many of us and their 'work' dissected many times over the years - peer review, if you like.

There are arguments that can be made on both sides of the equation..no one is denying that...but when it is all said and done, what do most historians believe? That Jesus, the man, existed.

---

For fuck's sake . . . let's just get on with it: "Jesus' resurrection is historically factual because the Bible says so." And maybe a "why would believers die for a lie?" thrown in for good measure. When all the strutting and posturing is over, this is all he has.

I don't recall using the Bible as historical proof in the OP. Yet another straw man.

This place is crawling with logical fallacies.

---

And when they're asked about all those willing to die for Islam they then claim that THOSE people are deluded . . .

Actually, in Christianity, we are talking about the martyrdom of the original disciples...if any.

---

This might be a little overdue:

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

You are obviously late to the scene.

---

Yes, but I doubt he'll read it.

Good prediction...because I already read it when I posted it the first time, pages ago...so no further reading is necessary.

I wouldnt' exactly call you a prophet, but that was one good prediction.

[Cyberman]

Hey, there's only room in this henhouse for one prophet - and the job is taken.

[His_Majesty]

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?

How do you know that the sources are contemporary??? Going RIGHT back to what you were told, right? No way out of that one.

[The Valkyrie]

I said the same thing for evolution

What's realy cute is that you think the two are equivalent in some way.

Especially since one is testable, observable, and holds up well to criticism. Whereas, the other is religion.

[pocaracas]

Oh boy... guys... let's just let him have one tiny piece of the chicken.
OK, Majesty, I agree it is possible that there was a person, let's call him Jesus, who existed and was a sort of spiritual leader.
It is possible that there were several such men and the stories surrounding them got mingled/mangled into one person... errr... for simplicity.
It is possible there was some real person behind the original myth. A person who went against the established power and who pointed out the details of how the jewish clergy was behaving badly or misrepresenting the scriptures. A person who preached peace and simplicity in the face of all the complexity and rules that jewish rituals were acquiring.
A likable person... a people person.
It is possible such a person would gather a crowd around him.
It is possible such a person would become misrepresented, in time.
It is possible such misrepresentation would lead to attribution of extraordinary feats to that person... such as dying and coming back to life... I believe that would be called a resurrection, right?

[Jenny A]

Yes, but I doubt he'll read it.

Good prediction...because I already read it when I posted it the first time, pages ago...so no further reading is necessary.

I wouldnt' exactly call you a prophet, but that was one good prediction.

OK I've through this whole god-forsaking (literally) thread and I can't find anywhere you posted this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method HINT: It's not about Jesus, It's about historical method. Read it.

---

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?

How do you know that the sources are contemporary??? Going RIGHT back to what you were told, right? No way out of that one.

Actually, there are a number of ways to figure out if a writer is writing in the period he says he is. Language changes over time and so does technology. Writers fibbing about the time they are writing tend to leave a trail of anachronisms.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I'm going to ask you again for your source for this claim. Who asked what question of which historians to determine that "the vast majority" of them accept the historicity of Christ?

Link up, or shut up.

---

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.

In other words, you're not just scientifically illiterate, you're historically uneducated as well.

There's a methodology to historical investigation that you clearly are unacquainted with.