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

[His_Majesty]

If most of the historians involved in this discussion aren't christians, doesn't that give you a little hint as to the parts of the Jesus story they don't accept as true?

No.

And since you keep prattling on about the vast majority of historians accepting something, as though an argument from popularity is a legitimate point, then doesn't that simple fact alone completely scuttle any future arguments for the resurrection of Jesus you care to make?

Oh, I am not saying that because the popular vote gives Jesus' existence the nod, that therefore it is true. I am saying that guys that are actually historians, who are on both sides of the coin, all believe that Jesus' existence is most plausible based on the evidence as a whole.

Don't blame me

Or is this another one of those double standards things, where anything you can spin to fit what you want to be true is an effective argument, but it becomes a fallacy again the moment it supports something you disagree with, because you said so?

I am just stating facts, my man. Facts

---

lets see why history and historians are not fond of the Christ myth. If there was historical evidence of a Christ and a god where would it go why would it disappear.

It didn't disappear, it is there.

but we live in a real world looking for real truth. Not to mention the horrible things Christians did for god and pretty much said science is evil.

Is the genetic fallacy poking its ugly head in there???

If there was a record of a person named jesus out there then maybe just maybe its not the biblical jesus but some ordinary guy doing bronze age parlor tricks.

Cool theory. The only problem is, history tells us that this guys name is Jesus.

---

Evidence considered.

Case dismissed

I said the same thing for evolution

---

What you seem to miss is that most of the scholars you keep trumpeting do not accept the miracle-worker that is so precious to shitheads like you.

That is an irrelevant point based on what the thread was meant for.

They are continually trying to shrink the story down to something that they personally find 'believable.' And a dead jew coming back to life to atone for the sins of the fucking world does not cut it.

Inanimate matter suddenly coming to life and began thinking and talking to each other...that doesn't cut it either.

Why is it so important to you?

Um, if it is true, then how is it not important?? About as dumb of a question as I've heard.

What do you think it proves?

Well, if the Resurrection is true, then Jesus is obviously who he said he is and the buck stops with him. Come to think of it, it also STARTS with him.

Why are you so fucking obsessed?

Because I base my entire human life and possible afterlife on it. Look, Christian theism isn't for everyone....it obviously isn't for you...but hey, naturalism isn't for me, so we will see what happens in the end