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

[His_Majesty]

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

One was forged...and as far as contemporary, Paul was contemporary...and those "texts" confirm what the contemporary source in Paul said...that Jesus existed.

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?

You just realized you've just shot the entire genre of history in the ass with that statement, right?

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.

Nonsense. I have no desire to be a Muslim and I think the entire Islamic religion is one big bootleg version of Christianity. I don't believe in the Muslim God Allah at all.

But I have no problem believing that Mohammed, the "prophet", existed. I am not a Muslim and I don't give two shits about Islam, so you can't say that I have any preconceived notions or biases in favor of Islam or Mohammed. The question is, where does the historical evidence point??

The point is, whether Christian or non-Christian, if you look at the evidence for Jesus OVERALL, you should be able to, at the very least, determine that Jesus the man existed.

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.

Point?

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.

Because, even if Jesus' existence was proven to be false, the traditional arguments theists use for God would still stand. That is the only point I was making.

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.

I was going to say the same thing about you.