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

[Jenny A]

You guys didn't demolish anything. If the majority of historians believe that Jesus existed...what are they basing this conclusion on?? The Gospels?? Why would they believe that Jesus existed...what sources are they using?? If they aren't using the sources that I provided as supplementary evidence that Jesus existed, then what makes them all convinced? The Gospels are the next best thing as far as documentary evidence...so do they draw the conclusion based on the Gospels? What is it?

The sources that I provide in the OP is clear evidence that a man named Jesus existed...and it is very fortunate that historians aren't foolish enough to believe that the Christian religion originated based on a man that never actually existed in the first place.

No, you didn't provide any such thing. You provided a group of texts, some forged and all non-contemporary.

The appeal to authority would only be the case if I said "Such and such said it, and they are historians, therefore, it is true". But that isn't what I am saying. You people attacked the sources, and I merely said that the majority of historians that already agree that Jesus existed uses these same sources as evidence...and also not every historian that is included in this majority bunch is a Christian...which says a lot, because it shows that there are no biases there, they are letting the evidence speak for itself.

Saying these texts are good evidence because a majority of people/historians/martians/PHDs say so is a fallacy. A majority of doctors once believed disease was called by bad smells. They were experts. So?

Your second point is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter if they are theologians or apologists, because the evidence that they use is independent of their personal beliefs, which is why non-Christians are also included in that majority bunch, because the evidence is independent of one's personal beliefs.

Uh uh. A man with preconceived and dearly held beliefs about an issue is unlikely to objectively analyze that issue. Theologians and apologists (is that one catagory or two?) are definitionaly believers. They look at the texts within the context of belief and objectively.

[quote='Jenny A' pid='806317' dateline='1417287627']
Sometimes this bias is extraordinary clear as in the case of William Lane Craig who when asked:

Common Sense Atheismhttp://www.atheistmissionary.com/2010/10...craig.html

Replied that ibid

That kind of thinking is NOT the thinking of a historian it's theology pure and exceedingly simple.

So? Back to the actual evidence?

If you are going to quote me, quote me. Don't remove the substance of what I said. I said that a man who is so wrapped up in believing in Jesus that he would believe in the resurrection even if he went back in time and saw that it did not happen, is not a historian with regard to Jesus. William Lane Craig is not a historian. He is an apologist of the most absurd form, nothing more.

Irrelevant. Even if Christianity was proven to be false, that still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

How did the question of God's existence creep in here. We are talking about whether a man who would still believe in the resurrection even if he had absolute proof of the contrary is fit to make a scholarly determination about the existence of Jesus. He is not.

If everyone SHUT UP about this one then maybe we can move on..but if not, lets keep at it...because I can go all night long.

Go on if you're going to. But if you think you will win by shear volume of posts you're mistaken. Substance is the only way to win. You don't seem to be very good at substance.