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

[His_Majesty]

I'm happy to go with the normal accepted standards of historicity, utter certainty isn't needed to reasonably establish an historical figure. Jesus is less well-supported than many

Supported is supported, and to historians, it is supported.

but I consider an historical Jesus more likely than not...but not based on anything that you have presented.

Then welcome to the "majority" party I can move to part 2 with you.

Based on the teachings of someone (or more likely, multiples someones), certainly. Since it was an oral tradition, even if there was an historical Jesus, we can't be sure what in the Gospels were his words and what were someone else's. A compilation of stories about and sayings of various mendicant rabbis fits the bill as well...maybe better, considering some of the inconsistencies in the Jesus stories.

Ahhh, yes. Stay tuned.

I know what's history and what's speculation. If Jesus was historical, the most certain things about him are his baptism and crucifixion...everything else is clear as mud. Since I'm not a Christian, I'm not obliged to swallow the whole thing: I prefer the Jesus who was a compassionate moral reformer to the Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher. I suspect they're not the same person.

Stay freakin tuned.

---

I'm happy to go with the normal accepted standards of historicity, utter certainty isn't needed to reasonably establish an historical figure. Jesus is less well-supported than many

Supported is supported, and to historians, it is supported.

but I consider an historical Jesus more likely than not...but not based on anything that you have presented.

Then welcome to the "majority" party I can move to part 2 with you.

Based on the teachings of someone (or more likely, multiples someones), certainly. Since it was an oral tradition, even if there was an historical Jesus, we can't be sure what in the Gospels were his words and what were someone else's. A compilation of stories about and sayings of various mendicant rabbis fits the bill as well...maybe better, considering some of the inconsistencies in the Jesus stories.

Ahhh, yes. Stay tuned.

I know what's history and what's speculation. If Jesus was historical, the most certain things about him are his baptism and crucifixion...everything else is clear as mud. Since I'm not a Christian, I'm not obliged to swallow the whole thing: I prefer the Jesus who was a compassionate moral reformer to the Jesus who was an apocalyptic preacher. I suspect they're not the same person.

Stay freakin tuned.

---

I'm sorry, do you not play by those rules in every area of life outside your favorite religion?

If I tell you "I had lunch with my wife today", are you not more likely to believe that than "I had lunch with my deceased father who's back from the dead and feeling much better today".

I am of the religious type, so I believe that if God exists, you can have lunch with your deceased father the same way Jesus rose from the dead and broke bread with his disciples.

Now, whether or not I am to believe that actually HAPPENED in your case...I would need more evidence. The point is not to believe EVERYTHING, but take everything on a case by case basis...and being open minded.

Why is this an extraordinary claim?

The same reason a man rising from the dead is.

Life exists on this planet now. It didn't five billion years ago. Even you believe in "life from non life" but while science tries to understand the process, you just quip GodDidIt. That's the only difference.

You are talking a good game...the problem is, no freakin' evidence. Go in a lab, prove it. Until then, kill the noise.

I'm sorry, was that the claim of the OP?

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)

Sounds like an extraordinary claim to me.

SMH

---

Nope, sorry. Nobody here cares how many time you repeat it. The evidence you've provided has been so thoroughly trashed that it's no wonder you keep saying the same thing over and over.

Point blank, period? Wtf?

You say it has been trashed, yet even non-Christians still believe the shit?

---

What's the evidence that convinces them?

The Gospels, Paul's epistles, the non-Christian accounts, Jewish history, the spread of Christianity...stuff like that...it isn't just one thing, it is the totality of it all that gives historians reasons to believe that at BEST, Jesus of Nazareth existed. They reason that at the very least, the man existed...at least that much.

I mean of course, there are skeptics...hell, there are some that don't believe that Socrates ever existed...these things can't be proved with 100% accuracy...but based on all of the evidence, it seems most likely than not that Jesus existed.

More importantly, if we're talking about more than "some guy named Yehsua who was a religious leader of some kind", what, if anything, can we know about Jesus?

Stay tuned.

---

If I were partial to making the exact same deflectionary arguments you do, I would here dismiss your entire case, scoffing that you don't have a solution to the problem of your god's life coming from non-life, and therefore all the things you say about his supposed son are irrelevant and necessarily untrue until you come up with that solution. After all, how can we accept your answers here when you haven't dealt with the very basis of your god?

I don't recall claiming that "god's life coming from non-life". Can someone sayyy, straw man?

Of course, I'm not making that claim because I'm not a dishonest moron seeking to delay the conversation until my opponent gets bored so I can claim an unearned victory. I just think it's interesting that a good majority of the arguments you've used since coming here also apply to you yourself. But then, we already know and understand your entire position rests on a deep well of hypocrisy that you will never acknowledge, and may not even understand exists.

Hey man, just open your heart...be open minded. I am not trying to deceive anyone...I just think we have good historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. That is my opinion, and yeah, a lot of historians share that belief with me. Just open your heart & mind.

---

You began with the evidence on which historians must rely one way or the other and there isn't much of it. Reasonable minds can be unconvinced. And indeed there are historians who remain unconvinced.

That is a true statement right there.