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

[Whateverist]

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias.

None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.


Source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::

A long massive argument from silence is still not evidence. In fact, every last speculative/persuasive argument and argument from silence in here fails the test of reason, as not one of them is legitimate.

Have you overlooked the fact that it was written in red? Around here that is the color of Admin-hat-on speech. As such it could be considered authoritative. Just saying.

[Free]

Also, Jesus as a historical person who's fame was limited to his own vicinity

Oh, here we go again. The Great Xtian Paradox, trotted out for another whirl around the dance floor by desperate believer trying to do CPR on the corpse of their 'god.'

Fucking Jesus was SOOOOO important that the priests had to break every rule in their own book to hold a trial on Passover because thy couldn't wait ONE MORE FUCKING DAY to deal with this dangerous rabble-rouser but...at the same time... he was so insignificant that no one alive at that time even bothered to take note of him.

This bravado is hilarious. You Jesus Mythicists provide some of the most outstanding entertainment value currently available online.

But a moment of seriousness here, if I may, and allow me to point out how your position is flip-flopping:

If, as we agree, Jesus was pissing off the Jewish Sanhedrin, Priests, et al, then wouldn't it be obvious that he would be considered an enemy of the Jewish people?

Now bear with me here ...

If he was an enemy of the Jewish people, including high ranking Jewish officials such as Philo- who by the way was in Egypt at the time of the crucifixion- then how can you reasonably expect a high ranking Jewish official such as Philo to use the crucifixion of Jesus as some kind of fodder against Pilate?

Think about that, because it's perfectly sensible. If the Jewish leaders wanted him dead, and crucified by Pilate, wouldn't it be a little stupid for them to complain about Pilate killing him?

Your position on this is without any merit, or any serious thought. No insult intended, of course.

See what I mean when I say I'm tired of schooling every jesus freak who comes along spouting the same old nonsense. You aren't any different than the rest....except you are brazen about editing your own stories.

There's nothing you've said here that provides any kind of schooling whatsoever. It's mere bravado, and impoverished argumentation. Again, no offense intended.

[Tonus]

Have you overlooked the fact that it was written in red? Around here that is the color of Admin-hat-on speech. As such it could be considered authoritative. Just saying.

Dyresand is an admin? /suicide

[Free]

A long massive argument from silence is still not evidence. In fact, every last speculative/persuasive argument and argument from silence in here fails the test of reason, as not one of them is legitimate.

Have you overlooked the fact that it was written in red? Around here that is the color of Admin-hat-on speech. As such it could be considered authoritative. Just saying.

I did notice that! Anything in red has just GOT to be true!

[Whateverist]

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. *reaches for the hemlock*

[DeistPaladin]

That is your false assertion.

It's what your scripture says.

See my response from an earlier post.

You offered a flimsy rationalization to make your scripture say what you want it to say instead of what's there.

Nor is it the argument that you and your wife is the same person. You both are human, right? You both have human nature, right? How many human natures do you have? One, or two? The answer is ONE...there is only one human nature that you both have, but you are two different people, right?

Two people, yes.

Three separate beings with a divine nature = 3 gods.

Your use of the word "God" means "a pantheon".

Three gods in your pantheon.

Polytheism.

It is a title.

A pantheon shared by three beings. Three gods. Polytheism.

Now we are getting more deep into the subject of morality, save this for another post.

You brought it up. But fine.

Well, that just about sums up my entire tenure here.

Indeed.

I've already explained why that is the case and you've yet to respond to that.

No, you haven't. "You lost".

I gave the example at least three times and you didn't respond to the shit...I mean, it aint the best analogy in the world but you can at least address it instead of blatantly ignoring it and then typing the same crap as if it hasn't been addressed yet.

Because your analogy is completely a red herring. These are three separate beings, no matter how they decide to play together.

Three beings that are divine = three gods = polytheism.

If you don't understand how the nature/title of God can be applied to three persons, then I can't help you.

Sorry but you don't get to redefine words.

Even if you did, your redefinition doesn't magically turn 3 into 1.

Using the word "God" to mean your "pantheon" doesn't change that you are a polytheist.

The concept isn't that they share the same being. See, that right there just shows you don't even understand the concept.

Do tell.

If the Father is standing 50 feet to your left, the Son 50 feet in front of you, and the Holy Spirit 50 feet to your right...you see three individuals, right? Three separate beings...and all three of these beings share the same EQUAL essence of "God".

Right, three beings that are divine = three gods = polytheism.

Now what part of that don't you understand??

Your special math that makes 3 equal to 1.

If you don't know how it originated how in the hell do you know that the brain is involved?

We gain sensory input and process it in the brain. We determine what the sensory inputs mean in the brain. We store memory in the brain. We access memory through the brain. We feel emotions in the brain. Our earthly desires are the result of hormones interacting with the brain. When the brain is damaged, our nature changes accordingly. What part of our conscious experience occurs outside the brain and what evidence can you offer to prove that?

Straw man.

No. You were the one who spoke of your "flesh side". There is no such thing. There is no invisible version of you on your shoulder with horns and a tail saying "fuck her". Science understands what hormones are. It's a better explanation than your woo.

[downbeatplumb]

Do you understand the difference between a persuasive argument and actual tangible evidence?

Here are the definitions:

Persuasive Writing:

Persuasive writing, is a piece of work in which the writer uses words to convince the reader that the writer's opinion is correct in regards to an issue. Persuasive writing sometimes involves persuading the reader to perform an action, or it may simply consist of an argument or several arguments to align the reader with the writer’s point of view.

That is what you are attempting to do above, and the argument above is not persuasive at all.

Now here is what tangible evidence is:

Tangible Evidence:

Tangible Evidence is an evidence which can be treated as fact; real or concrete. It is capable of being touched or felt and have a real substance, a tangible object.

That is what you need to do.

You are providing a very poorly scripted persuasive argument and confusing it with tangible evidence.

Decisions are made on the evidence, not on poorly scripted persuasive arguments.

Are you really asking for tangible evidence for the non-existence of a character alleged to exist two thousand years ago?

A person that has no contemporary evidence that supports them existing and just happens to conform to your personal bias, that person?

Talking about your"poorly scripted persuasive arguments".

[Free]

Do you understand the difference between a persuasive argument and actual tangible evidence?

Here are the definitions:

Persuasive Writing:


That is what you are attempting to do above, and the argument above is not persuasive at all.

Now here is what tangible evidence is:

Tangible Evidence:


That is what you need to do.

You are providing a very poorly scripted persuasive argument and confusing it with tangible evidence.

Decisions are made on the evidence, not on poorly scripted persuasive arguments.

Are you really asking for tangible evidence for the non-existence of a character alleged to exist two thousand years ago?

Do you think it is unreasonable to find some kind of ancient text which disputes historicity?

A person that has no contemporary evidence that supports them existing and just happens to conform to your personal bias, that person?

In my opinion, and no offense intended, but this clearly demonstrates the weakness of the Mythicist argument, for there is one thing that Mythicists either fail to understand, or intentionally ignore:

Paul was a 1st century contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, and he wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Requiring further evidence such as "oh but, he never met Jesus" is completely irrelevant to the point.

Talking about your"poorly scripted persuasive arguments".

Yes, as had just been demonstrated once again with yours. No offense intended.

[Alex K]

I propose we elect an atheist forums Pope for a period of time who is declared infallible on matters atheistic and gets her or his own color.

[DeistPaladin]

Paul was a 1st century contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, and he wrote of the crucifixion of Jesus.

Can you quote chapter and verse so we can analyze what you're speaking of? Paul's Jesus was crucified in a higher realm.