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

[Jenny A]

With the exception of your trip to Seattle, all of those are events that were reported contemporaneously. IF those events had not been discussed at the time and now, years later one or two guys started talking about it, it would lend much credence would we give to the events? Not much if we're bright.

Now now now Jenny, don't try to change it now. You were SPECIFICALLY talking about whether it is more likely than not that someone would remember something 20 years later...now you are changing it back to the contemporary realm.

Don't use my name again in that condescending way --doing that is a concession you have no real argument, it's like leaving your trousers unzipped.

The question is not if you can remember 20 years ago, but if it were important to the world would you wait 20 years to say so.

And the fact that people have vivid memories about the past does not make those memories anywhere near as accurate as they were at the time. If you think they are, you just aren't thinking.

It depends on how significant the memory is...I don't remember the first candy bar I ever bought...but I damn sure remember my first bike. See how that works?? The candy bar isn't significant, but the bike is.

And besides, creeds were formulated to be easy to remember.

Actually no. The more emphasis you put on a memory the less reliable your memory is. We are story tellers and we humans.

Once again the point is not how well you remember 20 years ago but how likely it is that you are making it up if you suddenly refer to things twenty years ago that you never mentioned before.

And there was considerable literacy. Probably about 1 to 2 percent. Given the phenomenon described, you'd expect some writing at the time. The events described in the Gospels are huge. Philo of Alexandria(13-20BC-54AD) was there and writing about the Jews. But he didn't mention Jesus in The age of Pilate or any of his other books. But he was there. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html

Bullshit. What contemporary evidence do you have that Philo of Alexandria existed? Remember, your logic is that in order for someone to exist, someone that lived during the time had to write about him...after all, that is the same crap you are pulling with Jesus...so give me the names of people that can validate Philo's existence...someone that lived during his time, to have met him and wrote about him? Give me a name of anyone that WROTE about him during his life? And how do we know that he actually wrote anything that is contributed to him?

oooooh Bullshit. Scary cuss word!. Philoactually wrote things himself. And Josephus, knows of him and discusses him in an unforged paragraph.

"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

Now you are being ever more childish. The question is not whether someone like a newspaper reporter would follow Jesus around writing down what he said (this is why if he did exist we can be quite certain that the Gospels don't accurately record what he said). The question is why no historian, letter writer of note, temple scribe, new and educated convert, or anyone else even mentioned his existence in writing for 20 years.

Well, give me a list of historians that were living at that particular time, in that particular location. You mentioned Philo of Alexandria, but you would also have to use independent CONTEMPORARY sources that would validate him as well. So go ahead...you seem to be good at doing research...so that is something for you to do.

Here are 25 historians we know of in the first century AD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:1s...historians

But the really important one for this discussion is Justis of Tiberius because he was living and writing in Galilee during the purported lifetime of Jesus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justus_of_Tiberias Yet he never mentions Jesus. None of his histories is extant, but they were available in the 9th century and a Christian historian is disappointed to notice that Jesus is not mentioned.

This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: 'He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearances of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did' (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

http://This work has perished, but Photi...code 33).

And what is even more hilarious is that you gave the link to http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/philo.html, and in that link, the author is citing Josephus' work which mentions Philo, but Josephus was not a contemporary to Philo...Josephus was around 13 at the time of Philo's death...yet Josephus' work is being used as a source for Philo's life??? So where did Josephus get his information from regarding Philo when he WROTE his Antiquities , which is the same book he used when he mentioned Jesus, which you reject because Jospehus never met Jesus...but when he mentions Philo, whom he also never met...that is ok??

The biggest double freakin' standard I've ever witnessed.

Again. Philo, like Josephus actually wrote things.

Again, that's foolish. It matters very much. Particularly when it isn't even written down by those eyewitnesses, just by folks who might have discussed it with them.

How do you know that the Apostle's Matthew and John didn't write the Gospels that bears their names

Because they weren't signed and the traditional authors weren't added until later. Duh.

And then waited 20 years to write it down? That's a big problem.

It is a problem for YOU. Who are you to tell someone when to write something down? You are not the "write it down" police. And again, he was writing to the Church in Corinth, which means that Christianity had already spread from Jerusalem to Corinth, which is about 1890 miles http://www.distancebetweencities.net/jer...ia_greece/

And this was WITHOUT the Gospels....so no wonder Christianity took off even further after that.

If no one writes a thing till twenty years later, especially if it is of general importance, it probably didn't happen. What more needs to be said?

Mormonism for example is pretty unbelievable as is, but imagine who much more unbelievable if Smith waited twenty years to write down what was in the golden tablets.

Jenny, regardless of how you think it should have gone, it is still the world's largest religion. So again, what you are proposing SHOULD have happened just wasn't needed.

It is like a music artist going platinum just by selling cd's from the trunk...with no radio promotion...no music videos...no magazine covers or articles...and STILL going platinum...it is rather amazing.

Christianity didn't need any of that special treatment, because as long as God was behind the wheel, it was gonna happen regardless of what anyone thought, said, or did.

oooooh Now wer'e adding god behind the wheel. Once again we're begging the question. If there's no evidence because of god then it doesn't follow that there's Jesus unless there is god.

Sorry, a man talking after death is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

I feel that inanimate matter coming to life is also a extraordinary claim.

Good for you. Explain dust becoming man. Seriously. I don't know how life came about. WTF has that got to do with proof of the historical Jesus?

It can hardly be taken for evidence of the resurrected man's life if the "witness" never knew the man when he was alive.

Well, Paul said that he appeared to Peter and the other apostles, and they knew him when he was alive...but that doesn't count tho, right? Or are you gonna move the goal post again?

And not that it matters whether or not Paul knew Jesus anyway...as God can appear to anyone he wants to whether the person knows him or not.

Third, Paul may have not known Jesus, but he certainly knew OF Jesus, which is actually better than knowing him...I would rather someone know OF me that know me...because if they know OF me, then that would mean word got out about me...and I find that...BETTER.

Stories of the supernatural need a great deal more than that to believable. Want to talk about the evidence for Nessy? There's more of that.

Read his post.

Still stands. Read his first post about Peter v Peter.