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

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, you didn't. You linked to one entry in a wikipedia bibliography, the information in which consisted of title, author, publisher, and ISBN. There was no indication that the book containted a study, and there was no information that I had asked for.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wa...real.shtml[/quote]

Citing a Christian site which lists a few quotes is not, you know, a study, which was my request.

You're not honest enough to admit that you just pulled that claim out of your ass. It's cool. I had you pegged right.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Hey, this isn't a poll of historians either, is it?

Nice to know you cannot support your claim. You said the "vast majority" of historians accept the historicity of Jesus, yet cannot produce a poll demonstrating such. Instead, you link to two sites, one obviously biased, with a total of twelve quotes, including some from theologians, who are irrelevant to my request.

Now, you and I both know that there are more than twenty-three (I'm in a generous mood) historians in America. So, where are you getting this "overwhelming majority" from?

You're new to critical thinking, clearly.

The same shit I gave Jenny. There are agnostics and atheists on the list, and if they are confirming that the historical weight is on the side of Jesus' existence, then we should listen to them.

"List", yes -- not study, nor poll.

And I've found one point of agreement with you: the links you've posted are shit.

I am already winning, so to lie WHILE I am winning would just be an overkill..not to mention the fact that I am not a liar, anyway...and I don't need to mislead anyone regarding anything on here...since I am on the winning side of things and when you are winning, there is no need to cheat.

I'm content letting the readership of this thread make that judgment. I'm very comfortable with my assessment of you as a typical dishonest apologist.

As I said before, do a freakin google search if you are not satisfied with what I am giving you, instead of just sitting on your ass and waiting to be hand fed information.

As for why I'm not Googling this, that's because my point is not to confirm your bullshit claim -- and that's what it is, bullshit. My aim here is to demonstrate that your claim is baseless, that you don't have any poll conducted by a reputable, unbiased source demonstrating your claim.

I once dated a lawyer who gave me the classic lawyerly advice: In an argument, never ask a question if you don't know the answer

Which I did, which convinces not only me, but the broader spectrum of actual historians.

You haven't done anything of the sort, Pigeon.

Yet, historians agree with me?

Some, I'm sure. But the overwhelming majority, which was your claim, has yet to be shown. In fact, you haven't mustered more than twelve, many of whom aren't historians, others of whom are clearly biased.

Were you there when George Washington became President of the United States? No? Then you accept by faith that he was. Do you believe historians when they tell you we have contemporary accounts of GW? No. Then you accept by faith that the accounts are true.

Oh, dear. Surely you're not equating the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for George, are you?

So, admit that your belief in GW is faith. You...were...not...there. All you know is what people told you, and they could have been lying.

All of them? Every last one of them?

Do you know how many independent corroborations of Washington's existence there are?

Are you honestly trying to say that your little Christ has that sort of support?

Wait, strike the word "honestly", for obvious reasons.

You used to be surprised? Well, I am currently surprised at how non-believers think that believers are the only ones playing the faith game...as if they are ignorant of the fact that the entire field of history is one big faith game. None of us were there...the only thing we can determine, or TRY to determine is what...based on the evidence, PROBABLY happened.

No one gives two shits rubbed together what you think of faith, because you clearly have no idea what critical rigor is, nor historiography.

And historians just aren't divided on this issue, Parkers. The majority of all historians believe that based on the evidence, Jesus Christ existed.

Firstly, I'm still awaiting support for this statement. Citing two links to twelve quotes isn't support.

Secondly, historians aren't divided on the issue of Washington's existence. I wonder why?

I've provided both quotes and videos to back up my side of things...and I challenge you to find me one video or otherwise of someone stating a "majority historical opinion" on the con side of the question of Jesus of Nazareth' existence. And guarandamntee you would be able to do so...because that it just isn't there.

In other words, you're admitting that your claim is baseless. Thanks. Game, set, match.

Whether or not I can convince you is questionable...but what isn't questionable is whether or not I will combat opposing views regarding Jesus Christ...that isn't questionable...and btw, I don't need to convince myself. I'm already convinced that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and I will die believing that.

That's nice, here's a cookie. Hope you feel proud.

I don't think you want to be convinced that Jesus or God exists. If you wanted to be convinced, you wouldn't be arguing the notion of whether life can come from nonlife, and whether consciousness can come from unconsciousness...and you also would not be in denial about something as so simple as the existence of a man whom the world's largest religion originated from.

Your irrelevancies aside, I've spent thirty-five years pursuing this question. I've seen better practitioners of apologetics, but I've not seen evidence. This isn't a matter of denial; this is a matter of education, particularly being ediucated in the discipline of critical thinking.

When you continue to argue against common sense, you are light years away from being convinced. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

Says the guy who believes in an invisible skyguy who dooms all humans to death because a ribgirl bit an apple at the behest of a talking snake.

Tell us what you know about common sense.

I never said I have statistical numbers, but I do a lot of research, a lot of reading, and time and time again I see the same thing from different people regarding Jesus...almost everyone is saying that the man existed. There is no historian (that I'm aware of) that speaks in broad terms to the left of this subject. All of these men, both believers and non-believers are saying that the vast majority of people within their fields of study believe that Jesus existed, and they wouldn't be making these kinds of statements if that isn't what the majority consensus is within the field.

Yeah, we've already established that your claim is bullshit. Twelve man aren't a "vast majority" of historians.

Again, I never said I have stats...I am going by what those that are in the field are saying. Again, this is not saying that just because the majority believes it, it is true...this is saying that the majority of those in the field are persuaded by the sources that I provided...since you guys were attacking the sources.

Well, words have meanings. When you claim that the "overwhelming majority" of historians support this or that position, you'd goddamned well better be able to support it with data.