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

[His_Majesty]

Once again, you can find "experts" on either side of this issue. You claimed that even a majority of atheist historians agreed that Jesus was historical. But you sure seem to have difficulties demonstrating that.

What I said was "the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus existed, and that would include atheists (nonbelievers) as well".

That is what I have continuously said in a nut shell.

Robert Van
Van Voorst man have said it, but that doesn't make him right. And Van Voorst is an pastor, not an atheist. His education is theological. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Van_Voorst And I just gave you a list of atheist historians who disagree.

You appear to be confused here, Jenny. I am posting the quotes only to prove my point of the MAJORITY consensus concerning Jesus' existence. When they say stuff like "virtually" all..or the "majority"...they mean believers and unbelievers alike...believers aren't the only ones that are concerned with this stuff...unbelievers are as well..hell, Robert Price and Bart Ehrman both acknowledge this "majority" and "virtually all" fact. If Robert and Bart can make such statements as unbelievers, then Robert Van Voorst can certainly say it as a believer. The facts are what they are...it is what it is.

Uh huh, but you didn't get to five, which is the point, huh?

1. Bart Erhman
2. Robert Price
3. Michael Grant
4. Will Durant
5. James Tabor

Citation please. I'm tired of Googling to find you can't read. If Durant counts, don't just quote LINK.

Um, Durant's quote was in the same LINK I gave you earlier.

No, let's stick to the point that you have a hard time finding those atheist historians who think the historicity of Jesus is proven fact.

I already told you I agree that the majority of biblical historians (who are majority Christian and who do not have historical training) believe in a historical Jesus.

We are not just talking about biblical historians here, we are talking about historians, PERIOD. In fact, what sense would it make for the majority of biblical scholars who are already Christians to say "The majority of us believe that Jesus existed"...which would be exactly what they are saying if the majority of them were just merely Christian "biblical historians"...that wouldn't make any sense at ALL...but what would make sense is if they are making the statements speaking for the larger population of HISTORIANS in general, which would include people of all different backgrounds, whether religion or otherwise, and that is exactly what they are doing.

I'm not arguing anything more that you won't find a vast majority of non-Christian historians who believe in a historical Jesus. That is my point. Unlike you, I won't argue beyond the actual facts.

I already gave the five..I met the minimum requirement. I challenge you to give me a source which state a historian consensus that is contrary to the position that I've argued. You can't.

[b]So, back to the texts you began with. Don't like that? That's because when we leave the rhetoric and appeals to authority and look at the actual evidence, it ain't so good, is it?

The actual evidence is this; the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and among these historians are unbelievers...and they all use the same sources that I've provided here on these very threads.

Those are the facts.

I won't argue that a mythical Jesus is proven, but the historicity is Jesus is not proven.

Then your opinion of the historical Jesus is within the minority..nothing wrong with that.

---

I think I'll have to borrow a phrase here; "What if you're wrong?" You wasted the only life you have worshipping something that isn't there, funding and supporting an institution of imaginary characters.

This is the euthyphro dilemma: atheist style