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

[His_Majesty]

Just setting aside for the moment that the Gospels were written too late for any eyewitnesses to have had anything to do with them

No they wasn't.

, they could possibly have involved eyewitnesses.

High possibility

Take Mary's virginity. Who besides Mary could possibly be sure of that, let alone witness it?

Suppose Mary told her own story?

Then there is the temptation of Jesus by the Devil. That was just Jesus and the Devil, there were no witnesses. What about the "take the cup away from me" dialogue with god? The disciples were asleep. Who were the witnesses?

According to Acts 1:3, Jesus appeared to the disciples over a period of 40 days, and during those 40 days they wasn't talking about football. He talked to them about the Kingdom and could have undoubtedly told him about praying to God while they were sleep.

How about the thieves on the crosses? Who could have heard that conversation?

Um, Jesus and the thieves weren't the only ones present, Jenny...there were other people there, in fact, Luke 23:48 tells us just that.

Jesus and the thieves all died.

Which is why the story could have been told by people that were there, and that would include Mary, as Luke 23:49 indicates.

What about the women who found the empty tomb and told no one.

They told no one at FIRST. Eventually they spilled the beans.

That, in case you didn't get it is one one. It's legend. It tells what no eyewitness would no because there was no eyewitness.

Nonsense. Jesus was an eyewitness, and as i'm sure you know the story, he appeared to the disciples...so he was his own eyewitness...and then you have the eyewitnesses of Mary and the other women and not to mention John...all of them were standing by the cross of Jesus.

But I wouldn't expect you to know shit like that, Jenny. You don't look in to this stuff without trying to find ways to attack...but that is ok...that's what I'm here for.

There was a belief certainly. There was also a belief in a number of other gods and other impossible things. So? We tell legend from fact in part by how long it takes to show up in writing and how it is told.

Oh, is that the criteria?

The Gospels look like legend not fact by that standard. Or do you believe in Romulus and Remus. I don't.

What standard? How long it takes to show up in writing and how it is told? So you have some kind of authority to tell someone when they should write something?

No. It happened pre-revolution when George cut down the cherry tree. Mentioning time or even era does not make it the work of a historian. Historians evaluate sources and don't conclude all sources are equally valid. Herodotus the Greek ( 484–425 BC), perhaps the very first historian, recognized the difference between hearsay and fact and that some sources are better than others. History has never looked back (pun intended).

Ok, so please enlighten me on why don't you think the Biblical narratives are recording history?

I don't agree that there weren't people who probably would have written it down. But that doesn't matter. The point is that they didn't and so we don't have that evidence.

You don't know whether they did or they didn't, Jenny.

Explaining why we don't have it isn't evidence that anything happened.

And explaining why we don't have it but SHOULD have it isn't evidence that it didn't happen.

It does not make the thing itself more likely.

It doesn't make it more unlikely either.

If people can't write, it doesn't make it anymore likely that they would have seen something they couldn't have written about. It doesn't make it less likely. It's irrelevant to whether the thing happened.

I completely agree...but if the people couldn't write, it should come as to no surprise as to why they didn't write things down...you are the one that keep bringing up this whole "they would have written it" thing up, not me. You are demanding a certain kind of evidence that seems improbable based on background knowledge.

The events that are supposed to have caused all the talk and belief were supposed to have happened in Jerusalem. Yet it remained as you say, Jewish. Damning that.

Yeah but the bulk of the original converts were previously Jewish

BTW Good job lying about distance. Corinth is less than nine hundred miles from Jerusalem. By road it was about 1,200 miles. Exaggerate much?

How am I lying when I gave the link from which I got the information. Did you even look at the damn thing?

Below is a direct quote from the link...so if you have beef with that, take that up with them.

There are 816.33 mi between Korinthos and Jerusalem and there are 1,913.45 by road.

And Paul traveled there from Jerusalem on foot according to your bible. So?

I don't know about the traveling on foot thing, but even if he did, so?

He established churches.

So?

How many Christians were there?

Were there where? In Corinth? Don't know.

And why do distant churches prove anything about what happened in Jerusalem?

Because it shows just how far the belief spread and in what amount of time it spread it, duh.