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

[Natachan]

It's clear what he intended. He wanted to establish a historical Jesus in part one, which he failed to do. He then wanted to establish that the gospels were reliable sources in part two, which he failed to do, especially since this is impossible to do. Part three would have built on that to say that since the gospels are reliable accounts we should trust them when they talk of the resurrection.

Awww, aren't you a bright one?? First off, I could CARE LESS whether or not you people are convinced by the arguments..the point of me even joining this wonderful forum is not to get converts (although that would be fine), but to be able to answer objections to my faith, especially regarding something like the Resurrection which is admittedly difficult to prove due to the fact that the arguments that are given is based on historicity, which can be quite subjective.

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics...keeping the sword sharp...now whether or not you are convinced, I could care less, because it is obvious that you people don't give a shit about salvation OR Jesus Christ anyway.

Even if we had authentic letters from Pilate or ten more people that LIVED during the time and in that location that testified to Jesus, would you be a Christian then??? Can you honestly say that you would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior if that was the case? The probability of that happening is on the low scale, huh.

Honestly? Yes. I would be. The ENTIRETY of my deconversion was that there was nothing to differentiate Jesus from any other apocalyptic preacher with messianic presumptions at the time. I have yet to hear anything that changes that.

So it isn't about "compelling" evidence...it is about our jobs...my job is to present to you the best evidence for my case, and your job is to object to that case...plain and simple, and if that is the way it has to be, then let it be.

I have theological training. And you, sir, are a piss poor apologist. I understand fully the claim I am rejecting, probably better than you do. If you want to be a better apologist you do have to understand that it is important to put forth a good argument and strong evidence. I would still be a catholic if I had been able to find one shred of evidence that Jesus was divinely inspired, that he was unique, that he was in some way different from all the other claimants. Hell, this is in top of knowing that the gospels aren't historically accurate, I would still be catholic.

If you want to be a good apologist you still have to acknowledge that existence exists. That facts are facts. And that no book is infallible simply because it says it is.

But we are all responsible for our own eternal destiny, and the eternal afterlife destination that each of us will have is a lot longer than the finite amount of time we lived on earth denying the existence of God.

smiley removed for the sake if sanity think about that.

I see no reason to believe in an eternal afterlife, and I would not want it if it were offered. Eternity is a very long time. But even still, I see no reason to believe there is one.

As he has failed to provide compelling evidence of part one, and made no attempt at part two, I think that the matter should be closed out and this thread devoted to pictures of kittens.

I think the matter should continue, which will allow for more intellectual spankings of both you, and your counterparts on here.

You have failed to answer any valid point put to you, dodged and yammered, and made no significant contribution. If you have a valid piece of evidence that you can point to that would support your case, present it.

If you can present me with one reason that you might have some validity, I will listen. But so far you have not. And made it hard to read the posts you put up with those irritating smiley things. So until you have something valid to say: