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

[The Grand Nudger]

Good for him...still no closer to why - on any of these counts - though, eh? Perhaps you'd take that banner up, HM could use a little help?

[LastPoet]

Oh, wow. I could make a better quote mine than you. Unless there were gliches on the matrix.

[atheism is illogical]

Hello folks,

I will cut to the chase.

You did not, and you provided crap. So fuck you.

When atheists get angry it always makes me giggle a little.
Hit a nerve fo sho

[LastPoet]

When athesits get angry atheists make me giggle alittle.
Hit a nerve fo sho

Simply because you aren't discussing anything, just shitting stupidity all over the place. I guess people get angry at that when someone jumped in, and started to provoke others. Without the simple politeness of saying "hi"

[atheism is illogical]

Richard Carrier? haha. The guy who is so insecure in his belief that he continuously sent letters to Antony Flew begging him to get off his path from atheism to deism (and some say theism) based on his review of scientific evidence.

To this day Carrier retaliates agaisnt being dismissed by Flew.

Just bitter atheist bully.

You may as well talk to a stone wall. This guy is a fucking asshole.


From Richard Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus:'

Jesus was born around the time of either Herod the Great's death (4 acE) or the Roman annexation of Judea (6 CE), then preached in Galilee and was crucified under Pontius Pilate (26-36 CE) during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14-37 CE). Right? Well, we're not really sure. Because Christians weren't really sure. Some Christians bel ieved Jesus died during the reign of Emperor Claudius (41-54 cE). Others believed he was executed by a Herod, not Pilate. And still others were certain he was born and died in the reign of King Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BeE). That's right. Some Christians believed Jesus had lived and died a hundred years earlier than our Gospels claim.

In the late fourth century the Christian scholar Epiphanius compiled an extensive dossier on all the 'heresies' he knew of, calling it the Panarion, 'Medicine Chest'. One of these 'heresies' he covers is that of the 'Nazorians', who were still practicing Jews; as Epiphanius says, these 'Nazorians confess that Christ Jesus is the Son of God, but all their customs are in accordance with the Law'. 1 This would mean a sect that descended directly from the original Christian sect founded by Peter, John and James (the 'pillars' of Galatians 2), before Paul's innovation eliminated Torah observance (Element 20). These Nazorians were still Torah observant, and still called themselves by their original name (Acts 24.5; Jerome, Letters 1 1 2.13), the name they held before the sects we are more familiar with came to be called Christians (Acts 1 1 .26).2

Epiphanius then says a curious thing: these Christians say Jesus had lived and died in the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

pg. 281

[Cyberman]

As I said earlier, now the names have been put on the table we can begin to assess the claims made by them. It's a difficult concept, I know, but the person making a claim is nowhere near as important as the validity of what is being claimed. Whether it's Richard Dawkins or William Lane Craig, if what they're saying is ridiculous it's ridiculous regardless.

[Lemonvariable72]

Richard Carrier? haha. The guy who is so insecure in his belief that he continuously sent letters to Antony Flew begging him to get off his path from atheism to deism (and some say theism) based on his review of scientific evidence.

To this day Carrier retaliates agaisnt being dismissed by Flew.

Just bitter atheist bully.

You may as well talk to a stone wall. This guy is a fucking asshole.


From Richard Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus:'

Disparaging a persons character whilst not presenting a argument is a logical fallacy. Please address the text quoted from Richard Carrier

[Smaug]

Just bitter atheist bully.

You don't call people bullies when you're breaking simple conduct rules on their territory.

The notion that all non-religious and atheistic people are at large snarky and bitter is a product of self-deception by those who can't imagine happy life without religion (here I must note that I myself don't put deists and agnostics into religious category, for me they don't principally differ from atheists). In reality the problem is that more religious people tend to over-react when they see their sacred texts and dogmas discussed and addressed in a 'blasphemous' and 'improper' ways. Since dogmatic arguements in religion are reduced to faith pretty rapidly (no matter how complex the apologetics may look) steadfast believers are left stranded and either pull off out of the discussion or refrain to improper arguements. Of course there are accounts of backslash against zealous believers but that isn't a problem of non-religious in most cases. And if you want to know why non-religious like to discuss religion so much than the answer is trivial: although it's not Middle Ages now religion still heavily affects the world and may affect everyone's life so for both philosophical and practical reasons it's good to have a detailed knowledge and position regarding religion.

[Minimalist]

How about the reliability of the texts?

How about how to resolve the inner contradictions between the parts of the texts? Step 1 is to tell me an internally consistent story. Step 2 is convincing me the story is a true story.

The bible is a pile of shit. I thought these asswipes wanted to discuss historical texts?

[abaris]

The bible is a pile of shit.

Au contraire!

The bible serves a very real purpose.