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

[His_Majesty]

Not contemporary and not a witness, but if you'd actually present Paul, we might discuss him.

He lived during a time at which the ORIGINAL disciples were still going around town saying that Jesus rose from the dead...the belief in the Resurrection began with the original disciples...and Paul met Peter, and James, brother of Jesus.

Paul would have known about both Pilate and Tiberius, and he certainly got his information from a DIRECT contemporary source in Peter and James.

Remember when I was asking you and others "How do you know that George Washington existed?" when no one alive today ever saw him, and you and others response to this was "we have contemporary accounts of him"...well, Paul spoke to those that WERE contemporary accounts.

And not only that, but he also claimed to have witnesses the Resurrected Jesus himself.

Why yes I do. ---Not to mention the first couple generations of biblical archeologists whose findings the new crop of trained archeologists on the ground now are disproving right and left. The controversy about Jesus is just beginning, but it's beginning because actual historians are looking at the evidence rather than just assuming.

To bad the vast majority of historians already believe that he existed...it is only the few mythers here and there that says otherwise...and it is almost as if the myth is that he DIDN'T exist rather than he did.

And I have no problem with believing in a historical Jesus. But Craig, says that even if presented with personal uncontroversial eyewitness evidence that Jesus wasn't resurrected that he would still have faith and believe he was resurrected. That's bias in the extreme.

That's his problem, not mines.

So no I wouldn't trust him to evaluate evidence about Jesus. Obviously he isn't interested in evidence. And that intellectually dishonest bias towards the NT is why theologically trained scholars aren't that good at assessing evidence, though few are as extremely biased as Craig.

You keep talking about Craig as if I appealed to WLC or something

I'm looking at that evidence, and no I don't see the proof. I do see that the existence of a man named Josiah who preached is more likely than not though I don't see proof I'd bet my life on or even proof I'd bet my net worth on. I strongly suspect that the Jesus in the Bible is an amalgamation of at least two prophets one a moral philosopher and the other an apocalyptic preacher. That's more likely than a single man. But I still wouldn't bet my life on it.

Then you disregard all of the positive evidence in favor of Jesus...got it.

I don't know about that. We have Christians here who I'd like to be much nicer to and am in non-debate threads. But H-M doesn't even notice it when his butt gets kicked. And he doesn't appear to have any niceness of his own.

The day I lose is the day Malcolm X resurrect from the dead and remake the song "We are the World" with the Grand Wizard of the KKK..

And I don't think that is happening any time soon, my dear.