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

[His_Majesty]

That's your opinion.

And your opinion is contrary, right?

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 matter how many people are unconvinced by my arguments, my argument could still be true...so it isn't a matter of how many I convince...just like it isn't a matter of how many people in this world are Christians.

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.

Not taken seriously by who? You?

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.

Yeah, I failed...I only had quotes and videos from men that have dedicated most of their lives to this kind of work, and would know what the general consensus is on this subject...yeah, epic failure on my part.

So? I acknowledge that *a* man may have existed that the myths are based upon. So what?

What do you mean "So what?"...that is what the entire first part was about.

You claimed you could make a case for demonstrating it's truth. A historical Jesus is plausible, but not proven

It is proven to the vast majority of historians...it isn't proven to some ignorant secular folks in a atheist forum who don't have a clue on the consensus or the historical method.

, and it's wholly irrelevant, because you aren't arguing towards the historical Jesus, you're arguing for a *divine* Jesus

And that is precisely why you people won't readily accept the evidence for the existence of Jesus, because you know that it will eventually lead to the path of a divine Jesus. If the same evidence was presented for any other person in history, there wouldn't be this cold hard denial of the fact.

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

You are absolutely right.

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

Yeah, and I didn't mean literally either.

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.

You say I didn't, I say I did.

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").

No doubt...everyone won't be saved, obviously.

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).

Kinda remind me of a little segment I watched on pancreatic cancer, and the oncologist said something like (paraphrasing) "there hasn't been any progress on pancreatic cancer for the past 30 years".

That may be true, but the disease isn't any less deadly now, is it?

Compare that to what you said, and....you will get my point

---

And H_M: if you have a problem with the operational staff and the way we run this forum, please come right out and detail your concerns so they can be addressed. If you continue to post snide comments in the way you have been doing, it might be construed as flaming and/or similarly obstructive behaviour and dealt with accordingly.

To use one of your favourite arguments, the vast majority of the member base is perfectly happy with Staff decision making.

I aint trippin.