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

[His_Majesty]

I'm getting damn tired of yet another embarrassment to my faith beating about the bush. Sheesh, either crap or get off the pot already!

If you are tired, go have a seat.

I'm going to take over. His Moronicry can sit down and let a real pro handle this topic. Everyone come join me in my thread...

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Deux) (Link to follow once I've posted)

How the hell are you gonna make a case for the Resurrection without first establishing whether or not Jesus existed in the first place??

[Jackalope]

How the hell are you gonna make a case for the Resurrection without first establishing whether or not Jesus existed in the first place??

Indeed.

Be sure to let us know when you come up with a compelling argument.

[His_Majesty]

Don't worry about it. I've got you covered.

Do yo thang. I will move on when Im ready.

[Jenny A]

You guys didn't demolish anything. If the majority of historians believe that Jesus existed...what are they basing this conclusion on?? The Gospels?? Why would they believe that Jesus existed...what sources are they using?? If they aren't using the sources that I provided as supplementary evidence that Jesus existed, then what makes them all convinced? The Gospels are the next best thing as far as documentary evidence...so do they draw the conclusion based on the Gospels? What is it?

The sources that I provide in the OP is clear evidence that a man named Jesus existed...and it is very fortunate that historians aren't foolish enough to believe that the Christian religion originated based on a man that never actually existed in the first place.

No, you didn't provide any such thing. You provided a group of texts, some forged and all non-contemporary.

The appeal to authority would only be the case if I said "Such and such said it, and they are historians, therefore, it is true". But that isn't what I am saying. You people attacked the sources, and I merely said that the majority of historians that already agree that Jesus existed uses these same sources as evidence...and also not every historian that is included in this majority bunch is a Christian...which says a lot, because it shows that there are no biases there, they are letting the evidence speak for itself.

Saying these texts are good evidence because a majority of people/historians/martians/PHDs say so is a fallacy. A majority of doctors once believed disease was called by bad smells. They were experts. So?

Your second point is irrelevant, because it doesn't matter if they are theologians or apologists, because the evidence that they use is independent of their personal beliefs, which is why non-Christians are also included in that majority bunch, because the evidence is independent of one's personal beliefs.

Uh uh. A man with preconceived and dearly held beliefs about an issue is unlikely to objectively analyze that issue. Theologians and apologists (is that one catagory or two?) are definitionaly believers. They look at the texts within the context of belief and objectively.

[quote='Jenny A' pid='806317' dateline='1417287627']
Sometimes this bias is extraordinary clear as in the case of William Lane Craig who when asked:

Common Sense Atheismhttp://www.atheistmissionary.com/2010/10...craig.html

Replied that ibid

That kind of thinking is NOT the thinking of a historian it's theology pure and exceedingly simple.

So? Back to the actual evidence?

If you are going to quote me, quote me. Don't remove the substance of what I said. I said that a man who is so wrapped up in believing in Jesus that he would believe in the resurrection even if he went back in time and saw that it did not happen, is not a historian with regard to Jesus. William Lane Craig is not a historian. He is an apologist of the most absurd form, nothing more.

Irrelevant. Even if Christianity was proven to be false, that still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

How did the question of God's existence creep in here. We are talking about whether a man who would still believe in the resurrection even if he had absolute proof of the contrary is fit to make a scholarly determination about the existence of Jesus. He is not.

If everyone SHUT UP about this one then maybe we can move on..but if not, lets keep at it...because I can go all night long.

Go on if you're going to. But if you think you will win by shear volume of posts you're mistaken. Substance is the only way to win. You don't seem to be very good at substance.

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, you didn't. You linked to one entry in a wikipedia bibliography, the information in which consisted of title, author, publisher, and ISBN. There was no indication that the book containted a study, and there was no information that I had asked for.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wa...real.shtml

Het, citing a Christian site which lists a few quotes is not, you know, a study, which was my request.

You're not honest enough to admit that you just pulled that claim out of your ass. It's cool. I had you pegged right.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Hey, this isn't a poll of historians either, is it?

Nice to know you cannot support your claim. You said the "vast majority" of historians accept the historicity of Jesus, yet cannot produce a poll demonstrating such. Instead, you link to two sites, one obviously biased, with a total of twelve quotes, including some from theologians, who are irrelevant to my request.

Now, you and I both know that there are more than twenty-three (I'm in a generous mood) historians in America. So, where are you getting this "overwhelming majority" from?

You're new to critical thinking, clearly.

The same shit I gave Jenny. There are agnostics and atheists on the list, and if they are confirming that the historical weight is on the side of Jesus' existence, then we should listen to them.

"List", yes -- not study, nor poll.

And I've found one point of agreement with you: the links you've posted are shit.

I am already winning, so to lie WHILE I am winning would just be an overkill..not to mention the fact that I am not a liar, anyway...and I don't need to mislead anyone regarding anything on here...since I am on the winning side of things and when you are winning, there is no need to cheat.

I'm content letting the readership of this thread make that judgment. I'm very comfortable with my assessment of you as a typical dishonest apologist.

As I said before, do a freakin google search if you are not satisfied with what I am giving you, instead of just sitting on your ass and waiting to be hand fed information.

As for why I'm not Googling this, that's because my point is not to confirm your bullshit claim -- and that's what it is, bullshit. My aim here is to demonstrate that your claim is baseless, that you don't have any poll conducted by a reputable, unbiased source demonstrating your claim.

I once dated a lawyer who gave me the classic lawyerly advice: In an argument, never ask a question if you don't know the answer

Which I did, which convinces not only me, but the broader spectrum of actual historians.

You haven't done anything of the sort, Pigeon.

Yet, historians agree with me?

Some, I'm sure. But the overwhelming majority, which was your claim, has yet to be shown. In fact, you haven't mustered more than twelve, many of whom aren't historians, others of whom are clearly biased.

Were you there when George Washington became President of the United States? No? Then you accept by faith that he was. Do you believe historians when they tell you we have contemporary accounts of GW? No. Then you accept by faith that the accounts are true.

Oh, dear. Surely you're not equating the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for George, are you?

So, admit that your belief in GW is faith. You...were...not...there. All you know is what people told you, and they could have been lying.

All of them? Every last one of them?

Do you know how many independent corroborations of Washington's existence there are?

Are you honestly trying to say that your little Christ has that sort of support?

Wait, strike the word "honestly", for obvious reasons.

You used to be surprised? Well, I am currently surprised at how non-believers think that believers are the only ones playing the faith game...as if they are ignorant of the fact that the entire field of history is one big faith game. None of us were there...the only thing we can determine, or TRY to determine is what...based on the evidence, PROBABLY happened.

No one gives two shits rubbed together what you think of faith, because you clearly have no idea what critical rigor is, nor historiography.

And historians just aren't divided on this issue, Parkers. The majority of all historians believe that based on the evidence, Jesus Christ existed.

Firstly, I'm still awaiting support for this statement. Citing two links to twelve quotes isn't support.

Secondly, historians aren't divided on the issue of Washington's existence. I wonder why?

I

've provided both quotes and videos to back up my side of things...and I challenge you to find me one video or otherwise of someone stating a "majority historical opinion" on the con side of the question of Jesus of Nazareth' existence. And guarandamntee you would be able to do so...because that it just isn't there.

In other words, you're admitting that your claim is baseless. Thanks. Game, set, match.

Whether or not I can convince you is questionable...but what isn't questionable is whether or not I will combat opposing views regarding Jesus Christ...that isn't questionable...and btw, I don't need to convince myself. I'm already convinced that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and I will die believing that.

That's nice, here's a cookie. Hope you feel proud.

I don't think you want to be convinced that Jesus or God exists. If you wanted to be convinced, you wouldn't be arguing the notion of whether life can come from nonlife, and whether consciousness can come from unconsciousness...and you also would not be in denial about something as so simple as the existence of a man whom the world's largest religion originated from.

Your irrelevancies aside, I've spent thirty-five years pursuing this question. I've seen better practitioners of apologetics, but I've not seen evidence. This isn't a matter of denial; this is a matter of education, particularly being ediucated in the discipline of critical thinking.

When you continue to argue against common sense, you are light years away from being convinced. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink. [/

That's not methodolgy. That is data. Data which you have proved reticent to provide. Hell, if I had something as rock-solid as you claim to have, I'd be beating your face in with my numbers. The fact that you're hiding these numbers means that either they don't support your claim, or you just pulled your claim out of thin air. Which is it?

I never said I have statistical numbers, but I do a lot of research, a lot of reading, and time and time again I see the same thing from different people regarding Jesus...almost everyone is saying that the man existed. There is no historian (that I'm aware of) that speaks in broad terms to the left of this subject. All of these men, both believers and non-believers are saying that the vast majority of people within their fields of study believe that Jesus existed, and they wouldn't be making these kinds of statements if that isn't what the majority consensus is within the field.

No. You've asserted that you can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. In pursuing that intent, you've asserted that the "vast majority" of historians regard his existence as historical. I have asked you for supporting data.

Again, I never said I have stats...I am going by what those that are in the field are saying. Again, this is not saying that just because the majority believes it, it is true...this is saying that the majority of those in the field are persuaded by the sources that I provided...since you guys were attacking the sources.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

How the hell are you gonna make a case for the Resurrection without first establishing whether or not Jesus existed in the first place??

FAITH my friend, FAITH!

You just keep posting that scholars say this or that about the some-guy Jesus. I got the evidence for the resurrection covered!

[Thumpalumpacus]

No, you didn't. You linked to one entry in a wikipedia bibliography, the information in which consisted of title, author, publisher, and ISBN. There was no indication that the book containted a study, and there was no information that I had asked for.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wa...real.shtml[/quote]

Citing a Christian site which lists a few quotes is not, you know, a study, which was my request.

You're not honest enough to admit that you just pulled that claim out of your ass. It's cool. I had you pegged right.

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

Hey, this isn't a poll of historians either, is it?

Nice to know you cannot support your claim. You said the "vast majority" of historians accept the historicity of Jesus, yet cannot produce a poll demonstrating such. Instead, you link to two sites, one obviously biased, with a total of twelve quotes, including some from theologians, who are irrelevant to my request.

Now, you and I both know that there are more than twenty-three (I'm in a generous mood) historians in America. So, where are you getting this "overwhelming majority" from?

You're new to critical thinking, clearly.

The same shit I gave Jenny. There are agnostics and atheists on the list, and if they are confirming that the historical weight is on the side of Jesus' existence, then we should listen to them.

"List", yes -- not study, nor poll.

And I've found one point of agreement with you: the links you've posted are shit.

I am already winning, so to lie WHILE I am winning would just be an overkill..not to mention the fact that I am not a liar, anyway...and I don't need to mislead anyone regarding anything on here...since I am on the winning side of things and when you are winning, there is no need to cheat.

I'm content letting the readership of this thread make that judgment. I'm very comfortable with my assessment of you as a typical dishonest apologist.

As I said before, do a freakin google search if you are not satisfied with what I am giving you, instead of just sitting on your ass and waiting to be hand fed information.

As for why I'm not Googling this, that's because my point is not to confirm your bullshit claim -- and that's what it is, bullshit. My aim here is to demonstrate that your claim is baseless, that you don't have any poll conducted by a reputable, unbiased source demonstrating your claim.

I once dated a lawyer who gave me the classic lawyerly advice: In an argument, never ask a question if you don't know the answer

Which I did, which convinces not only me, but the broader spectrum of actual historians.

You haven't done anything of the sort, Pigeon.

Yet, historians agree with me?

Some, I'm sure. But the overwhelming majority, which was your claim, has yet to be shown. In fact, you haven't mustered more than twelve, many of whom aren't historians, others of whom are clearly biased.

Were you there when George Washington became President of the United States? No? Then you accept by faith that he was. Do you believe historians when they tell you we have contemporary accounts of GW? No. Then you accept by faith that the accounts are true.

Oh, dear. Surely you're not equating the evidence for Jesus to the evidence for George, are you?

So, admit that your belief in GW is faith. You...were...not...there. All you know is what people told you, and they could have been lying.

All of them? Every last one of them?

Do you know how many independent corroborations of Washington's existence there are?

Are you honestly trying to say that your little Christ has that sort of support?

Wait, strike the word "honestly", for obvious reasons.

You used to be surprised? Well, I am currently surprised at how non-believers think that believers are the only ones playing the faith game...as if they are ignorant of the fact that the entire field of history is one big faith game. None of us were there...the only thing we can determine, or TRY to determine is what...based on the evidence, PROBABLY happened.

No one gives two shits rubbed together what you think of faith, because you clearly have no idea what critical rigor is, nor historiography.

And historians just aren't divided on this issue, Parkers. The majority of all historians believe that based on the evidence, Jesus Christ existed.

Firstly, I'm still awaiting support for this statement. Citing two links to twelve quotes isn't support.

Secondly, historians aren't divided on the issue of Washington's existence. I wonder why?

I've provided both quotes and videos to back up my side of things...and I challenge you to find me one video or otherwise of someone stating a "majority historical opinion" on the con side of the question of Jesus of Nazareth' existence. And guarandamntee you would be able to do so...because that it just isn't there.

In other words, you're admitting that your claim is baseless. Thanks. Game, set, match.

Whether or not I can convince you is questionable...but what isn't questionable is whether or not I will combat opposing views regarding Jesus Christ...that isn't questionable...and btw, I don't need to convince myself. I'm already convinced that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and I will die believing that.

That's nice, here's a cookie. Hope you feel proud.

I don't think you want to be convinced that Jesus or God exists. If you wanted to be convinced, you wouldn't be arguing the notion of whether life can come from nonlife, and whether consciousness can come from unconsciousness...and you also would not be in denial about something as so simple as the existence of a man whom the world's largest religion originated from.

Your irrelevancies aside, I've spent thirty-five years pursuing this question. I've seen better practitioners of apologetics, but I've not seen evidence. This isn't a matter of denial; this is a matter of education, particularly being ediucated in the discipline of critical thinking.

When you continue to argue against common sense, you are light years away from being convinced. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

Says the guy who believes in an invisible skyguy who dooms all humans to death because a ribgirl bit an apple at the behest of a talking snake.

Tell us what you know about common sense.

I never said I have statistical numbers, but I do a lot of research, a lot of reading, and time and time again I see the same thing from different people regarding Jesus...almost everyone is saying that the man existed. There is no historian (that I'm aware of) that speaks in broad terms to the left of this subject. All of these men, both believers and non-believers are saying that the vast majority of people within their fields of study believe that Jesus existed, and they wouldn't be making these kinds of statements if that isn't what the majority consensus is within the field.

Yeah, we've already established that your claim is bullshit. Twelve man aren't a "vast majority" of historians.

Again, I never said I have stats...I am going by what those that are in the field are saying. Again, this is not saying that just because the majority believes it, it is true...this is saying that the majority of those in the field are persuaded by the sources that I provided...since you guys were attacking the sources.

Well, words have meanings. When you claim that the "overwhelming majority" of historians support this or that position, you'd goddamned well better be able to support it with data.

[Minimalist]

If everyone SHUT UP about this one then maybe we can move on..but if not, lets keep at it...because I can go all night long.

Sadly, boy, in order for your godboy to "resurrect" he has to have been here the first time. So far, you have produced exactly shit to support that position.

Never forget the wisdom of H. L. Mencken.

Either Jesus rose from the dead or he didn’t. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if he did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

Based on your shitty performance, I'm going with sheer nonsense.

[dyresand]

How the hell are you gonna make a case for the Resurrection without first establishing whether or not Jesus existed in the first place??

FAITH my friend, FAITH!

You just keep posting that scholars say this or that about the some-guy Jesus. I got the evidence for the resurrection covered!

those scholars didn't even know jesus personally let alone even cared if he did exist or not.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

This is an overly simplified view of the power of faith. The Rev. Ernest Poe once gave a more extensive talk on YouTube over just what a potent force faith is in people's lives.

"These so-called scientists have explained it to me many times but I have never heard it (the explanation) and I assure you I never will."

"These scientists may be able to prove their point beyond reasonable doubt but nothing can survive unreasonable doubt. You may have reasons to believe the things that you do but I have one reason not to believe you: I don't want to."

"It's mind over matter. If I don't mind, it don't matter."

Amen, brother Poe!

That's why all the reasoning and all the facts in the world will just melt away in the presence of my faith. No matter what you may think you've proven, nothing will discourage me from believing that Yahweh sent Himself down to earth to sacrifice Himself to Himself because bleeding on a cross was the only way He could convince Himself to forgive all of us for being such sinful beings which we are because an ancestor of ours who was made from a rib ate a magic fruit after she spoke with a talking snake!

Glory!

Oh glory!

And remember, love is evil when the body parts are similar!

---

Don't worry about it. I've got you covered.

Do yo thang. I will move on when Im ready.

I'm kicking ass for Christ on that other thread.

I've even got one atheist to come to Jesus! Glory!

Unless he was just joking. I hate people like that.

Do let me know if I missed one of the arguments for the resurrection of Jesus! By the time I'm done, I should have them all covered.