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

[Jackalope]

I'm sorry, what? That isn't what this thread is about. This is about whether or not your precious Jesus was resurrected or not

He was.

That's your opinion.

("The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)", is your thread title, is it not?) The question is related to the number of people who believe THAT claim, versus those who do not - and that *is* in fact what you original question was.

I'm lost.

We're aware of that.

The question was related to the effectiveness of your argument. You claimed that it was successful. If it were, you ought to be able to point to at least one reader who was convinced. Yet, you can't.

But there are over 2 billion people that are ALREADY convinced.

Appeal to popularity, and there are 5+ billion who are not, so you can't even claim any kind of a majority. I'm talking about the people who are convinced in THIS thread, by YOUR argument. Stop moving the goalposts.

No, you presented evidence that a few people repeated the same claim. What you didn't do is present evidence that the claim was *in fact true*.

So why would three non-Christians make such a claim??

Beats the hell out of me. But what I note, is that without exception, not a single one of them showed their work either - and so that claim is not taken seriously.

If you can *prove* that the majority of historians accept the claim, it just might be taken as more than certain people's opinion. You claimed you could. You failed.

It isn't as if they are Christians and WANT it to be true...they are NOT Christians, yet the are honest with themselves and acknowledging that the vast majority of historians believe in the historical Jesus....and you can acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth existed and still not be a Christian...acknowledging JC existed doesn't make you a Christian even more than me acknowledging that Mohammad existed (which I do) makes me a Muslim...or acknowledging that Joseph Smith existed makes me a Mormon.

So? I acknowledge that *a* man may have existed that the myths are based upon. So what? You claimed you could make a case for demonstrating it's truth. A historical Jesus is plausible, but not proven, and it's wholly irrelevant, because you aren't arguing towards the historical Jesus, you're arguing for a *divine* Jesus. IOW, you're moving the goalposts again, and hoping we won't notice. Nice try.

Do you even know what evidence is?

Do you?

Evasion noted.

You should, several people told you what would be required to prove that claim in that thread.

Several people? Man please...what these people say doesn't have any more virtue or credibility than what I say...I don't know who lied to you and told you that these people on here are "Team Credibility", or the "Virtue Bunch"...because they are clearly NOT in my eyes.

I'm pretty sure that a given person is an authority on what would be required to prove a particular claim to them.

Your case is weak, kid.

To who? To you? Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is my case is strong, and the objections against my case is weak. That is my opinion...you gave me yours, and I gave you mines, pimp.
[/quote]


"pimp"? Did you just call me pimp? LOL

Than stop claiming you proved what is merely your opinion, as you did in the OP of Part 2 before we merged it. It's intellectually dishonest, but we've come to expect that - as is refusing to consider material that is presented to them, as you did in this thread not long ago.

To be perfectly clear, I couldn't give a flying fuck whether a person existed who's life the gospels is based on (the so-called "historical Jesus"). I do care about honest epistemology and intellectual integrity. All I've seen from you is opinion, assertion, and the same old tired inconclusive bullshit that hasn't changed a whit in the nearly thirty years I've been doing this (obviously, not here).