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

[Jenny A]

The story of the Gospels were told by eyewitnesses, how whether those eyewitnesses were the actual authors (which I believe at least one was), or the authors were friends of the eyewitnesses, either way, an eyewitness had its hand in it.

Just setting aside for the moment that the Gospels were written too late for any eyewitnesses to have had anything to do with them, they could possibly have involved eyewitnesses. Take Mary's virginity. Who besides Mary could possibly be sure of that, let alone witness it? Then there is the temptation of Jesus by the Devil. That was just Jesus and the Devil, there were no witnesses. What about the "take the cup away from me" dialogue with god? The disciples were asleep. Who were the witnesses? How about the thieves on the crosses? Who could have heard that conversation? Jesus and the thieves all died. What about the women who found the empty tomb and told no one. That, in case you didn't get it is one one. It's legend. It tells what no eyewitness would no because there was no eyewitness.

The central belief in Christianity was already viral well before it was written about. It doesn't matter how much you cling on to the whole "written decades later" factor, I will continue to point out to you that it doesn't matter how long it took for the story to go on paper, as long as the belief was already spread.

There was a belief certainly. There was also a belief in a number of other gods and other impossible things. So? We tell legend from fact in part by how long it takes to show up in writing and how it is told. The Gospels look like legend not fact by that standard. Or do you believe in Romulus and Remus. I don't.

Again, as I pointed out to you...a point that you conveniently ignored..I mean, it would have been nice for you to have at least address the point that I made....the fact that you continue to say that the reports are not in "the style of history...which is nonsense considering the fact that we have Matt 2:1 stating shit like "After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the TIME OF King Herod".....do you see that? "During the time".

Time = history.

Luke 2:1 "In those days...."

In those days = periods of time...which = history.

No. It happened pre-revolution when George cut down the cherry tree. Mentioning time or even era does not make it the work of a historian. Historians evaluate sources and don't conclude all sources are equally valid. Herodotus the Greek ( 484–425 BC), perhaps the very first historian, recognized the difference between hearsay and fact and that some sources are better than others. History has never looked back (pun intended).

If your critique is the fact that nothing was written down about an event, and the explanation to why it wasn't written down was because people COULDN'T WRITE...I would think that is a good reason why it wasn't written down.

I don't agree that there weren't people who probably would have written it down. But that doesn't matter. The point is that they didn't and so we don't have that evidence. Explaining why we don't have it isn't evidence that anything happened. It does not make the thing itself more likely.
If people can't write, it doesn't make it anymore likely that they would have seen something they couldn't have written about. It doesn't make it less likely. It's irrelevant to whether the thing happened.

What does that have to do with how fast Christianity spread? You claimed it spread rapidly, I present evidence that we don't know that it did. You respond, well Jerusalem was still Jewish. WTF?

WTF? Your quote was "Had there been that many converts in Jerusalem, it would have been the first Christian city, since there probably were no more than twenty thousand inhabitants at this time"

And I said JERUSALEM WAS STILL PREDOMINATELY A JEWISH POPULATION.

And you are right, we are talking about how fast Christianity spread...and as I said previously, a point that you still didn't address yet: Paul was writing to the Church in Corinth around 20 years after the cross...and Corinth is almost 2,000 miles from Jerusalem by road, where the belief originated. That is the equivalent to traveling from Phoenix, AZ to Detroit, MI...long before cars and airplanes...and long before the internet, television, and social media to spread the word.

So it traveled fast, far, and wide.

http://www.distance-cities.com/search?fr...%2C+Israel

The events that are supposed to have caused all the talk and belief were supposed to have happened in Jerusalem. Yet it remained as you say, Jewish. Damning that.

BTW Good job lying about distance. Corinth is less than nine hundred miles from Jerusalem. By road it was about 1,200 miles. Exaggerate much? And Paul traveled there from Jerusalem on foot according to your bible. So? He established churches. How many Christians were there? And why do distant churches prove anything about what happened in Jerusalem?

[Jackalope]

Your sample size is too small.

Then more people should start posting.

I'm sure they'll get right on it.

Ah, so by your very own logic, there are more than 5 billion people who *don't* agree with you.

Wait a minute, there are 5 billion atheists in the world? After all, that is what I was comparing Christianity too.

I'm sorry, what? That isn't what this thread is about. This is about whether or not your precious Jesus was resurrected or not ("The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)", is your thread title, is it not?) The question is related to the number of people who believe THAT claim, versus those who do not - and that *is* in fact what you original question was.

Quit moving the goalposts.

And you're still wrong about the facts on that.

No I am not...there are more Christians in this world than atheists.

...after you moved the goalposts.

(not that argument ad populum isn't a logical fallacy or anything)

If it is so much of a fallacy, why would you ask me how many people in this thread were convinced of my argument?

The question was related to the effectiveness of your argument. You claimed that it was successful. If it were, you ought to be able to point to at least one reader who was convinced. Yet, you can't.

Is that argument ad populum? You know, a logical fallacy. I wasn't using it as an initial point, I was only saying that IF you wanted to play that game, then I can play it too.

See my above point, and try for some reading comprehension, Einstein. You might try a measure of intellectual honesty while you're at it.

In addition, you also claimed you could present data which supported your claim that most historians believe in a historic Jesus, and I not that you utterly failed to support that claim.

Which I did. I gave a video of Bart Ehrman...a video of Richard Dawkins..and a citation of Robert Price...plus a few quotes from historians...and they all said the same thing...and the interesting thing is, why would Bart, Richard, or Robert make the statement if it wasn't true...after all, they are unbelievers...yet they acknowledge that the con-Historical Jesus view is the minority view.

No, you presented evidence that a few people repeated the same claim. What you didn't do is present evidence that the claim was *in fact true*.

Do you even know what evidence is? You should, several people told you what would be required to prove that claim in that thread.

Your case is weak, kid. But please, do continue knocking over the pieces, shitting on the board, and strutting around victorious.

[Jackalope]

Our word is the law. You have no say here.

This site is not a democracy and never has been. We write and enforce the rules as we see fit.

Right on, Saddam.

Keep digging.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

When you find a successful forum that operates as a democracy let me know. You signed up, you agree with our enforcement of the rules by default.

You don't like it? You know where the door is. This thread will be merged with the other one because basically they're the same thread. There was no convincing case presented or defended in part 1. And as such continuing with the delusion that there was is spam. And that's the end of the conversation.

[robvalue]

My friend said something interesting, which I heard again on an atheist video.

If religion had anything to do with what is true, if it dealt with facts about reality, then over time you would expect some sort of consensus to be made. This is our experience with everything else that deals with facts and reality. There may be some disagreements, or areas where no one yet knows for sure and are making hypotheses, but those educated on the subject all converge rather than diverge about what is actually true.

However, religious "facts" couldn't be much more diverse. The fact that there's several different religions which are entirely contradictory is evidence enough, but even within the most popular religion, you have thousands of different opinions on the same issues.

So the most logical thing to conclude is that religion does not deal with facts and reality. There is no convergence, even when the only actual sources in reality (bible and such) have remained exactly the same for a long time. The very fact that believers are asked to accept things "on faith", that is, without evidence, shows that facts and reality are not involved. You can "have faith" in anything, anything at all. That in no way demonstrates that it is true.

Consider this. Say I could go back in time, and alter a passage in the bible. If you have faith that bible is true no matter what, you'd have to believe what I wrote in it. And I could write anything. So, unless you are using some filter to decide what is actually true and what isn't, you are literally prepared to believe anything.

[abaris]

At least my belief is conceivable. I can't even conceive the thought of infinity being traversed, inanimate matter coming to life, and consciousness coming from unconsciousness.

You can't even conceive of those things, and if you can, you can't conceive of it occurring NATURALLY.

Any yet that only works if you switch off reason and replace it with your version of Harry Potter and his magic wand. There's nothing conceivable about it, only the good old fallacy of filling the gaps with supernatural superstition.

[robvalue]

Where did God come from again? I guess he popped out of nowhere.

[Tonus]

Where did God come from again? I guess he popped out of nowhere.

[DeistPaladin]

You said in post #75 "He (God) actually doesn't do anything at all, because he is a figment of your imagination."

That is a claim of knowledge...

No, it is a rejection of your claim.

If I told you about an invisible dragon living in my garage and you told me that dragon is just in my imagination, this is not a claim of knowledge but a rejection of my claim of the dragon's existence. This is a reasonable statement given the lack of reason to believe the dragon exists.

This is why we can lock away people who "hear voices" in their heads. We can't prove the voices aren't really unseen spirits that somehow only the locked away person can hear. It is not necessary to prove that the voices do no exist outside his imagination. Simply the fact that the claim of hearing voices lacks any evidence to support any source outside his imagination is enough.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative. It is therefore absurd (and an appeal to ignorance) to demand anyone prove a negative even if they claim a negative. The proper response is to prove the positive. Otherwise, the statement of the negative remains within the bounds of rational skepticism.

Your god does not exist.

Now prove me wrong by proving he does.

Anytime now.

[robvalue]

It's like a wrestler who would actually rather die than tap out to an unbreakable choke hold.