Quote: 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.
MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)
|
Quote: 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.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson (November 25, 2014 at 3:46 pm)Stimbo Wrote:(November 25, 2014 at 3:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: and practically all of them accept Jesus as a historical figure. 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.
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.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(November 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Oh, and by the way, did god come from life? Did his consciousness come from consciousness? No and no. (November 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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??? (November 25, 2014 at 3:52 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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? (November 25, 2014 at 8:26 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(November 25, 2014 at 8:13 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: As for citing Ehrman, 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. RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
November 25, 2014 at 11:20 pm
(This post was last modified: November 25, 2014 at 11:44 pm by His_Majesty.)
(November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:53 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm sorry, do you not play by those rules in every area of life outside your favorite religion? 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: Why is this an extraordinary claim? The same reason a man rising from the dead is. (November 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 3:58 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I'm sorry, was that the claim of the OP? SMH (November 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: 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. You say it has been trashed, yet even non-Christians still believe the shit? (November 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 4:06 pm)Esquilax Wrote: 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? (November 25, 2014 at 4:02 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 4:07 pm)Jenny A Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 11:10 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too." ... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept "(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question" ... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
November 25, 2014 at 11:57 pm
(This post was last modified: November 26, 2014 at 12:00 am by Jenny A.)
(November 25, 2014 at 11:04 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: I know it is a sad fact lol. I know 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: Quote: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.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
November 25, 2014 at 11:59 pm
(This post was last modified: November 26, 2014 at 12:07 am by His_Majesty.)
(November 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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? (November 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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 (November 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: 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. (November 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: What would that achieve? Why can't you get to the issue right here? Never mind then. (November 25, 2014 at 4:22 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That offer, yes. I don't do IM with anyone outside my personal circle. Now you may crow. Divine revelation. (November 25, 2014 at 7:23 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Oh boy... guys... let's just let him have one tiny piece of the chicken. Like pulling teeth... |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|