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

[Minimalist]

there really isn't much evidence is there?

There is no evidence, other than the self-serving blather of believers. Oddly, we have the same type of pleading for mohammed and I'll bet that h-m doesn't buy a word of that shit.

[FatAndFaithless]

When it comes to baldly asserted theological claims, this is my favorite.

[His_Majesty]

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

Name ten.

Name five.

Sod it - name one.

I know it is a sad fact lol. I know

1. John Dominic Crossan
2. Bart Ehrman
3. Gerd Ludeman
4. James Tabor
5. E.P Sanders

That is at least five. So you asked for a minimum of one, and maximum of ten...well, I split it right down the middle...with five.

[Cyberman]

Great, now we have something to work with. I know you think it's funny that you have to be dragged over burning coals just to supply supporting evidence and citations for your assertions, but see how much time we've wasted just on this. Get a little integrity, why don't you.

[His_Majesty]

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?

"Extraordinary" is a subjective term, anyway.

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.

Use the scientific, probabilistic approach to demonstrate life from nonlife, then.

Oh, and by the way, did god come from life? Did his consciousness come from consciousness?

No and no.

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.

Wait a minute, what???

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

Dude, I just told the freakin truth. Is the truth a foreign concept to you or something?

[Thumpalumpacus]

As for citing Ehrman,

By the way, as much as Ehrman has become the posterboy for the historists, he is not a historian but a theologian. His doctorate is in "divinity".

As far as I'm concerned, his doctorate may as well be in voodoo magic.

But he is clearly an expert in the Bible. I'm always happy to read his research on the development of scripture and the history of Christianity. But when it comes to "refuting" the mythicists, all he seems to be able to say (paraphrased for brevity) is STOOOPID MYTHERZZZZ!

I've read one book of his, Misquoting Jesus, and I learnt a bit on the subject. And that book was in itself a refutation of sorts for the mythicists.

[His_Majesty]

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

Supported is supported, and to historians, it is supported.

but I consider an historical Jesus more likely than not...but not based on anything that you have presented.

Then welcome to the "majority" party I can move to part 2 with you.

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.

Ahhh, yes. Stay tuned.

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.

Stay freakin tuned.

---

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

Supported is supported, and to historians, it is supported.

but I consider an historical Jesus more likely than not...but not based on anything that you have presented.

Then welcome to the "majority" party I can move to part 2 with you.

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.

Ahhh, yes. Stay tuned.

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.

Stay freakin tuned.

---

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 am of the religious type, so I believe that if God exists, you can have lunch with your deceased father the same way Jesus rose from the dead and broke bread with his disciples.

Now, whether or not I am to believe that actually HAPPENED in your case...I would need more evidence. The point is not to believe EVERYTHING, but take everything on a case by case basis...and being open minded.

Why is this an extraordinary claim?

The same reason a man rising from the dead is.

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.

You are talking a good game...the problem is, no freakin' evidence. Go in a lab, prove it. Until then, kill the noise.

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.

SMH

---

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?

You say it has been trashed, yet even non-Christians still believe the shit?

---

What's the evidence that convinces them?

The Gospels, Paul's epistles, the non-Christian accounts, Jewish history, the spread of Christianity...stuff like that...it isn't just one thing, it is the totality of it all that gives historians reasons to believe that at BEST, Jesus of Nazareth existed. They reason that at the very least, the man existed...at least that much.

I mean of course, there are skeptics...hell, there are some that don't believe that Socrates ever existed...these things can't be proved with 100% accuracy...but based on all of the evidence, it seems most likely than not that Jesus existed.

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?

Stay tuned.

---

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?

I don't recall claiming that "god's life coming from non-life". Can someone sayyy, straw man?

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.

Hey man, just open your heart...be open minded. I am not trying to deceive anyone...I just think we have good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. That is my opinion, and yeah, a lot of historians share that belief with me. Just open your heart & mind.

---

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.

That is a true statement right there.

[DeistPaladin]

Great, now we have something to work with. I know you think it's funny that you have to be dragged over burning coals just to supply supporting evidence and citations for your assertions, but see how much time we've wasted just on this. Get a little integrity, why don't you.

That's the typical tactic. It usually takes at least seven posts of "...but what's the evidence that convinces these scholars?" before they answer.

This is why I'm a Jesus Mooter. It's not because I've been impressed by the evidence but that I'm worn down by the tactics of the "historists". It's a predictable formula. The evidence is paper thin so they pad the debate with lots of ad hominems, appeals to authority and other run-arounds.

[Jenny A]

I know it is a sad fact lol. I know

1. John Dominic Crossan
2. Bart Ehrman
3. Gerd Ludeman
4. James Tabor
5. E.P Sanders

That is at least five. So you asked for a minimum of one, and maximum of ten...well, I split it right down the middle...with five.

If this is supposed to be a list of non Christians historians you are either a liar, or you don't read.

John Dominic Crossan is ex priest with a degree in divinity. He has remained remained a Roman Catholic. He is not an atheist or an agnostic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

Bart Ehrman is an ex Christian with a degree in divinity.

E.P Sanders is another guy with a degree in divinity. "Sanders identifies himself as a "liberal, modern, secularized Protestant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Sanders He does not identify himself as an atheist.

I can't pin down Gerd Ludmann's degree with certainty, but it appears to have been theological. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerd_L%C3%BCdemann

Jame Tabor has a degree in Biblical literature. It's not clear whether he thinks Jesus is historical or not:

Richard Wightman Fox, professor of history, the University of Southern California, writing in Slate (April 2006) said, "Ultimately Tabor leaves the reader confused about whether he thinks the Jesus dynasty is a historical fact or merely an intriguing conjecture" and that "Tabor seems stuck in an endless loop, squinting across the sands of time as much as the terrain of Galilee and Judea, holding out for some imagined "real" contact with the historical Jesus"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tabor It's not clear whether he would call himself a Christian.

There isn't a man educated as a historian on your list. One of them may not believe in a historical Jesus, and another couple remain Christian.

[His_Majesty]

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?

Well, that is for you to decide, Stimbo. I am convinced by all of it, but hey, who am I?

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.

This subject is far bigger than one guy on the internet...this subject has had books written about it, and publicized debates conducted to discuss it.

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

So you really think that these people on here have "shown" why Josephus isn't a reliable source?? As if there is so much virtue in what they say???

Mannn please. Get out of here with that nonsense

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

Bullshit. I already gave two independent sources which stated that to be the case. Navigate through the pages and find them.

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

Never mind then.

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

Divine revelation.

---

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?

Like pulling teeth...