Open debate: What does Jesus teach?

[SteveII]

If you think the historical Jesus was a myth, then you do not agree with the vast majority of scholars.

Appeals to authority are useless. Show us the evidence that "the vast majority of scholars" have used to reach their conclusion.

And, as I am constantly reminded in my evolution discussions, shouldn't we be trusting professional judgements in these matters?

No, we "trust" the evidence.

It is very likely that most of the important events described in the gospels and Acts really happened. There was insufficient time for legendary influences to exaggerate the historical facts before they were written down. There were still people alive that would know that x, y, or z happened or did not happen.

There are people alive who went to the moon. Nevertheless..........there are moon landing hoaxers in this world.

People and places were named. Their children would still be around. The fact that Christianity spread so quickly indicates that these early converts believed these events happened--many of these people that could actually talk to an eyewitness or someone close to an eyewitness.

Mormonism has grown faster (goggle the math...it exists, and actually accepts the bullshit numbers given in acts) - and we're still running afoul of my comment above.

The Jews had a highly developed tradition of written and oral transmission and were quite used to preserving content and meaning of teachings.

And?

If they were all made up, they would have made up a better story. As it was mentioned earlier, crucifixion was a disgraceful way to go.

The criterion of embarrassment doesn't have much power in the face of theology, and I don;t want to hear you talking about scholars and experts and then invoking this trash...because scholars and experts are the ones who've decided that the criterion of embarrassment doesn't apply (though, hilariously, it doesn't stop those inclined from using it here).

If stories about greek gods were faked they would have made up better stories. Their gods acts are disgraceful.

The owner and location of the tomb was known so people could confirm that at least the burial took place.

How could they confirm that - without the presence of a body. If I told you that my basement had a troll in it...and then showed you my basement -sans troll- as evidence -of- the troll....you'd call shenanigans, wouldn't you?

The first witnesses of the resurrected Jesus were women--who's testimony in court was useless.

How convenient.

Jesus appeared to hundreds of people over the next 40 days--many who would have been around through the first rounds of written accounts. It is an undeniable fact that the original disciples believed, proclaimed, and most going to their deaths for the fact of Jesus' resurrection.

and zombies walked the earth, and the ground trembled, and the skies darkened, and stone was split asunder.......

I love the "die for a lie" ending. Really, really persuasive stuff...because, I mean...it's not like people -would- "die for a lie", right? This whole "going to their deaths for their beliefs" bit...btw, also legendary.

Rhythm, regardless of your personal skepticism, the truth is that it is more likely that the key events described in the gospels and in Acts actually happened than not.

Regarding the criterion of embarrassment, why is that a bad argument when used with other arguments? Are you saying that the crucifixion actually happened but it was not sufficiently embarrassing or that it never happened and someone came up with "I know...let's have the Romans kill our mythological savior via crucifixion".

I made the point about the tomb because people could continue to ask Joseph of Arimathea, his associates and descendants for quite some time if the burial ever happened. I did not mention the tome as evidence that he resurrected from the dead (although an empty tomb would be a necessary precondition).