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

[Jenny A]

---

No, let's not pretend it at all. Because we were talking about the resurrection of Jesus, and then when you couldn't answer my very simple statement, you started deflecting by talking about abiogenesis. It's entirely irrelevant to what we were talking about before, and you are not going to get away with your blatant unwillingness to actually engage with your own conversation except on terms where you think you'll win.

Man I forgot how we even got into this whole abiogenesis thing.

I don't think you actually understand how evidence works in a scientific field. The evidence for abiogenesis, as I've said before, are the numerous probabilistic indicators that lead a reasonable person to consider the proposition, in addition to the lab experiments that demonstrate that the basis of the concept can occur naturally.

Probabilistic indicators? Like what? Based on all of the arguments for the existence of God that is convincing to ME, I have probabilistic indicators that God exists and he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So how does your indicators have any more virtue than mines?

If you're looking for the kind of simplistic ideal of certainty that theism baselessly asserts, then we don't have that yet, but it's also not required. Science is probabilistic, and the probability trends away from intelligent designers and toward natural causes.

That is your opinion. I think the probability trends away from naturalism.The God hypothesis best explains the origin of life, consciousness, species, and the universe....that is my opinion. Those are four different/independent problems for the naturalist, and so far science is silent on all four of those problems...and since science can't demonstrate either one, you have no reasons to believe that any of that stuff occurred, so you simple pout and/or frown...and accept by faith that it occurred.

You can continue to ignore the way science works in order to demand scientific evidence, but you'll be dishonest if you do.

Science hasn't demonstrated what it needs to demonstrate to convince me that those things could happen without intelligent design..to hell with "the way science works"...however it is working, it hasn't answered my questions.

Not that that's ever stopped you before.

You can't stop the unstoppable...top the untoppable....pop the unpoppable..

You can't take the untakeable...break the unbreakable...shake the unshakeable...

This doesn't follow at all. It's merely a bullying tactic, substituting scoffing mockery for an actual point; so what if I can't prove every claim ever?

Bullying? What are you, in the 5th grade? How the hell is it bullying...it is a fact. You can't provide evidence for what you believe to be NATURAL occurrences...but you have nerve to claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences"?

Like I said, this is an old played out line by atheists and it is time someone called you guys out on this...and I am just the guy to do it.

How does that even connect with the above? It's a total non-sequitur, and also a complete strawman to begin with. You keep foisting abiogenesis on me, but I don't accept that.

As mentioned previously, I don't recall how abiogenesis crept in to the conversation, but if I brought it up, it was because of something someone else said.

My position is that we don't know how life began on earth, with the further corollary that natural means are more probable given what we know now than supernatural ones, and that abiogenesis is the best supported current theory.

Look, all of that "I don't know" shit is misleading...sure, you don't know...but it is clear that you BELIEVE that it happened even if you don't know HOW it happened. If you conclusively rule out intelligent design...if your stance is "God didn't do it"...then the default position is nature did it.

Either life formed naturally, or supernaturally. Point blank, period. You sit there and argue against intelligent design, all the while acting as an apologists for naturalism...but then sit there and say "I don't know"...yeah you don't know, but you BELIEVE that nature did it, and the fact of the matter is that science cannot validate that hypothesis as of yet, so you simply accept by faith just like any religious folk does.

I'm not required to defend something I don't accept as true, and I've told you my position on this in the past, which I think makes it clear that what you're saying here is yet more dishonest deflection, rather than an actual rebuttal.

Dude, even if I am attacking the concept of abiogensis with someone else, you make your way into the conversation and begin defending against those attacks, as if you are an apologist for the position...yet you claim you dont know, and you claim that you don't accept it, but your actions prove otherwise. It is clear as day.

No, they didn't, and I pointed out numerous times that they didn't. What they did do was provide a means by which the building blocks of life form naturally, a demonstration of possibility that is an indicator toward abiogenesis.

First off, they were still longggg ways from life...second, they would still have to find out how to get consciousness in there...third, even the little bit that they did do, guess what, intelligence was required, right?

My entire point being that even this preliminary step is covered by natural means, but not by intelligent design. We may not have a complete picture of abiogenesis yet, but at least we've got some of the pieces; intelligent design hasn't even provided a single shred of evidence.

Im not even sure you would call it a piece...it may be one piece, OF a piece...not even a full piece. It has been over 60 years since the Miller experiment, and we really havent made any advancements since then...we have a long way to go...and we wont even mention consciousness, like how are you going to get consciousness squirting in there amiss of all of that molecular junk? It aint happening.

No, actually the compounds in question formed completely without direction from outside sources, using variables that are entirely common within nature. Stuff was evaporated and some electricity was present, but both of those things are naturally occurring. Given that the experimental environment was sealed, you couldn't claim intelligent design even played a role here unless you hadn't bothered to even look up the experiment in question.

Wait a minute, so two scientists conducted an experiment, but no intelligence was needed??? dude, you are a mess.

My point was, INTELLIGENT DESIGN WAS NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT.

Not only that, but environmental conditions of the early earth 3 billion years ago did NOT reflect what Miller & nem THOUGHT the early earth was...so after it was all said and done they only were able to produce two amino acids...2 out of the minimum 200 that is needed for a protein molecule...and even if they managed (which they didn't/can't) to get the minimum needed, they would still have had to get the correct sided amino acids..as amino acids come right-handed and left handed...and only the left-sided is needed...then you would have to get all of the left side-sided amino acids in sequence order, otherwise the protein molecule can't be formed.

So it is highly improbable for even ONE protein molecule to be formed without intelligence, let alone 200.

Now this is a well known problem with abiogenesis...and no amount of bio babble will be able to save this nonsensical notion that life can come from non living material.

Yes, but bringing it up as an argument against abiogenesis would be an irrelevant deflection. So... shocker.

Hey, I understand that you are uncomfortable talking about the limitations of science..but science will also have to explain the origin of consciousness as well. You got life, but how do you get life to think and become aware..but lets just sweep that shit under the rug, huh?

Certainty is a dishonest misunderstanding of both the methodology of science and reality itself. Besides, my point, which you seem to have missed again, is that the evidence for abiogenesis is "some," and the evidence for intelligent design is "none."

"Some" is not good enough...Carmello Anthony played in "some" playoff games and even won a few playoff series, but he never actually won a championship, which is the ultimate goal. Second, again, you still have the consciousness problem, infinity problem, and species problem...you are not even half way done on naturalism

But god's life didn't come from life, making it impossible according to your own argument.

Since my argument is based on life that began, then that light bulb that apparently went off in your head to make you think you had such an awesome response becomes....meaningless.

My belief is that neither of us know how life began. So, I guess you're strawmanning again.

I appeal to what I think is the best explanation.

So what? I already took you to task for this argument from personal incredulity before.

And I took you to task by explaining to you the fact that NOT being able to conceive of something only ratifies its impossibility.

Do you not know what the word "necessary" means?

Of course I do, but you said it wasn't "necessary", so you are making it seem as if it COULD something other that what it is..and my question is, based on what?

You link the two together because you're dishonest; neither are actually linked, they don't rely on one another. You conflate the two so that when somebody gives an answer to one you can go "aha! But what about the other! Since you didn't answer that, the answer you did give is untrue!" and switch when required. You're asking for a single unified answer that covers two completely unrelated topics.

I know, you are basically saying "If I had such a hard time dealing with the abiogenesis problem, why would you throw the origin of consciousness in there to make the problem twice as difficult."

No one said the job was going to be easy, Esquil

Yeah, pretty much exactly like this. You asked me about consciousness, and then when I gave you an answer about consciousness you immediately switched to abiogenesis as though you were always talking about that.

You sound like a damn fool. If I am asking you to explain the origin of consciousness, why the hell would you start by saying it evolved?? But its evolution could only occur after it originated, which still has yet to be explained, but that was the question in the first place!!!

Second, you are WRONG anyway, because I didn't switch to abiogenesis, my point was if abiogenesis PROVED to be true, hypothetically speaking, then where did consciousness come from?? That was the freakin' point...it had nothing to do with abiogenesis as I assumed (briefly) that abiogenesis was true.

Your reading comprehension skills are piss poor, bro.

When intelligent design can't produce any ingredients at all, and their idea of how to make a pizza is just "god makes it," then it's still a far better answer than your own.

And naturalists position is that "nature makes it". And if that isn't your position, then stop defending it.

It's also a strawman. The position is "physical matter exists, physical matter is all that's required for any potential naturalistic origin of life.

So get all of the inanimate physical matter in the world, and see if any of the matter will come to life.

Non sequitur.

Intelligent design requires supernatural additions, which aren't demonstrable as existing.

Life from nonlife hasnt been demonstrated as a natural occurrence either.

Therefore, since the former has all the ingredients readily available, and the latter does not, the probability of the former being true is higher than the latter, until evidence of the latter's missing ingredient and method comes to light."

Again, if just having all the right ingredients was all that is needed, why aren't you able to demonstrate life from nonlife??

You asked for a probabilistic model, but now you apparently don't know what probability is either?

I like the ID model better.

Yeah, see how easy it is to make something look silly when you drastically oversimplify it and put it in a format that's devoid of information?

I am just taking out the bio-babble and calling it what it actually is..."In the beginning, nature..."

Yes, I do: Miller-Urey and John Oros. Ignoring them won't make them go away. Also, as I've been saying all along, at least we know natural things are possible. We have no such indications for supernatural things.

Everyone knows that the Miller experiments didn't come close to creating life...you are the only one even still appealing to that experiment...it is a dead issue...they went in the lab to create life from nonlife, and failed. Point blank, period.

The Miller-Urey experiment exceeded expectations, producing more compounds, upon further inspection, than was even mentioned in the initial report. It was in no way a failed experiment, baseless assertions from people who know nothing about it notwithstanding.

Dude, the goal was for them to create life from nonlife, and they didn't...so how is that exceeding expectations?

Oh, so god isn't ACTUALLY eternal, then? He's only IMAGINARILY eternal? Makes much more sense.

Completely ignored the distinguishing point I was making between eternity and infinity. Each term has at least two definitions for it and it isn't until you put each one in its proper perspective that you won't end up looking like a dumbass.

So then you believe that it is possible for life to exist without an additional life to bring it into being.

Um, I believe in God, duh.

You just believe that god is the only life that exists within that category. I understand that, but you have no reason to believe that category doesn't contain more life forms than god.

Yes I do...and for you to sit there and say that is very dishonest, but when you are intellectually losing, I guess dishonesty is the last resort.

You've undermined your own premises here. You say that life can only come from life, but that god is in a special category where he doesn't have to.

I've also stated why that to be the case...but lets conveniently leave that part out and continue with this meaningless rhetorical tirade, shall we?

You believe it's possible for life to exist without life. Simply braying "but god is special!" doesn't suddenly make that not the case.

It does make it the case if I have reasons to believe it to be the case.

How do you know that I'd be intellectually dishonest? How have you demonstrated that life cannot be eternal?

Because life through infinite duration is impossible.

And if you haven't done that, isn't your accusation here just an unjustified presupposition you've made, because it's convenient for your argument?

I repeat: Because life through infinite duration is impossible. You see how I am giving a reason for the shit? Instead of just saying it because it is "convenient", I am actually giving a reason for the shit, ain't I?

"Here's a rule I've made up. Here's a problem with that rule. So here's a thing which breaks the rule, in order to resolve the problem I made up, with the rule I made up." [/quote}

It is more like "There are only two possibilities, one doesn't violate logic and reasoning, and the other one does violate logic and reasoning, so I think the best bet is to go with the one that DOESN'T violate logic and reasoning".

Don't blame me because my explanation is within logic and reasoning, and your isn't.

[quote='Esquilax' pid='806300' dateline='1417285893']
"Life only comes from life. Therefore, life on earth is a problem. So there must be a life that didn't come from life that created all the life, because as I said, life only comes from life."

*Life that began, that is.

You just said here that eternity is impossible. But you said earlier that god is eternal. Hence, it is a semantic trick; why are eternities impossible when natural causes are being discussed, but conveniently possible when it comes to your god?

No, I said actual infinities are impossible...Now yeah, when dealing with actual time, infinite time and eternity mean the same thing...but eternity can also mean "without time" or "timelessness" or "atemporal" <----these are all synonymous with each other and also with "Eternity"...and this is the eternity I am talking about when I said "God is eternal", meaning that he wasn't living through infinite duration of time...he transcended time altogether...he was above and beyond time.

False dichotomy. There could be three options, like, say, that life arose gradually from a series of chemical reactions. You dismiss that one out of hand, but you have no reason for doing so. Same with my cyclical universe model from the other thread; you never even addressed that one, you just ignored it and pretended I hadn't said anything.

Um, life originating from chemical reactions would be a natural phenomena, right? And I could of swore that was one of the options...but hey, it isnt the first time my point was misrepresented, so what the hell.

But you've never seen a life that didn't begin to exist! Therefore, according to your own argument, it's impossible!

But I recognize that there couldn't be an infinite chain of "life producing life" going all the way back to eternity past, which is a view that is quite consistent with me arguing against infinity on the other thread.

Dude, there are no "gotcha" moments with me on this subject. None.

But that's an argument from ignorance, not evidence for a life form that didn't begin to exist. At best, what you get out of that is "life can't be eternal," but that's not what you're trying to prove.

*Life that began.

It is ok, the more you keep attacking straw man, I will be there to put you right back on path, you know, the path of my actual position.

If infinity is absurd then god cannot be eternal, and therefore you're wrong.

God is not eternal in the sense of infinite duration in time, no.

Bullying? Passive aggressive? Not I. I just kick the actual factuals.

Which is exactly what a self-aggrandizing bully would say.

Interesting that you say you're not being a bully, but your description of what you're trying to do to me is a comparison with a violent assault.

---

You are right, I am an intellectual bully...so after school...me...you....playground.....and I will intellectually beat the crap out of you regarding any subject that we've been discussing.

What the hell does any of that crap have to do with the historicity of Jesus?

And you aren't a bully, more like a clumsy toddler.

[Cyberman]

Well if his chosen emoticons are any guide, he likes to depict himself on his back a lot, unable to get up and giggling. That says toddler to me.

[The Valkyrie]

---

Man I forgot how we even got into this whole abiogenesis thing.


Probabilistic indicators? Like what? Based on all of the arguments for the existence of God that is convincing to ME, I have probabilistic indicators that God exists and he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ. So how does your indicators have any more virtue than mines?


That is your opinion. I think the probability trends away from naturalism.The God hypothesis best explains the origin of life, consciousness, species, and the universe....that is my opinion. Those are four different/independent problems for the naturalist, and so far science is silent on all four of those problems...and since science can't demonstrate either one, you have no reasons to believe that any of that stuff occurred, so you simple pout and/or frown...and accept by faith that it occurred.


Science hasn't demonstrated what it needs to demonstrate to convince me that those things could happen without intelligent design..to hell with "the way science works"...however it is working, it hasn't answered my questions.


You can't stop the unstoppable...top the untoppable....pop the unpoppable..

You can't take the untakeable...break the unbreakable...shake the unshakeable...


Bullying? What are you, in the 5th grade? How the hell is it bullying...it is a fact. You can't provide evidence for what you believe to be NATURAL occurrences...but you have nerve to claim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences"?

Like I said, this is an old played out line by atheists and it is time someone called you guys out on this...and I am just the guy to do it.


As mentioned previously, I don't recall how abiogenesis crept in to the conversation, but if I brought it up, it was because of something someone else said.


Look, all of that "I don't know" shit is misleading...sure, you don't know...but it is clear that you BELIEVE that it happened even if you don't know HOW it happened. If you conclusively rule out intelligent design...if your stance is "God didn't do it"...then the default position is nature did it.

Either life formed naturally, or supernaturally. Point blank, period. You sit there and argue against intelligent design, all the while acting as an apologists for naturalism...but then sit there and say "I don't know"...yeah you don't know, but you BELIEVE that nature did it, and the fact of the matter is that science cannot validate that hypothesis as of yet, so you simply accept by faith just like any religious folk does.


Dude, even if I am attacking the concept of abiogensis with someone else, you make your way into the conversation and begin defending against those attacks, as if you are an apologist for the position...yet you claim you dont know, and you claim that you don't accept it, but your actions prove otherwise. It is clear as day.


First off, they were still longggg ways from life...second, they would still have to find out how to get consciousness in there...third, even the little bit that they did do, guess what, intelligence was required, right?


Im not even sure you would call it a piece...it may be one piece, OF a piece...not even a full piece. It has been over 60 years since the Miller experiment, and we really havent made any advancements since then...we have a long way to go...and we wont even mention consciousness, like how are you going to get consciousness squirting in there amiss of all of that molecular junk? It aint happening.


Wait a minute, so two scientists conducted an experiment, but no intelligence was needed??? dude, you are a mess.

My point was, INTELLIGENT DESIGN WAS NEEDED TO PRODUCE THE DESIRED EFFECT.

Not only that, but environmental conditions of the early earth 3 billion years ago did NOT reflect what Miller & nem THOUGHT the early earth was...so after it was all said and done they only were able to produce two amino acids...2 out of the minimum 200 that is needed for a protein molecule...and even if they managed (which they didn't/can't) to get the minimum needed, they would still have had to get the correct sided amino acids..as amino acids come right-handed and left handed...and only the left-sided is needed...then you would have to get all of the left side-sided amino acids in sequence order, otherwise the protein molecule can't be formed.

So it is highly improbable for even ONE protein molecule to be formed without intelligence, let alone 200.

Now this is a well known problem with abiogenesis...and no amount of bio babble will be able to save this nonsensical notion that life can come from non living material.


Hey, I understand that you are uncomfortable talking about the limitations of science..but science will also have to explain the origin of consciousness as well. You got life, but how do you get life to think and become aware..but lets just sweep that shit under the rug, huh?


"Some" is not good enough...Carmello Anthony played in "some" playoff games and even won a few playoff series, but he never actually won a championship, which is the ultimate goal. Second, again, you still have the consciousness problem, infinity problem, and species problem...you are not even half way done on naturalism


Since my argument is based on life that began, then that light bulb that apparently went off in your head to make you think you had such an awesome response becomes....meaningless.


I appeal to what I think is the best explanation.


And I took you to task by explaining to you the fact that NOT being able to conceive of something only ratifies its impossibility.


Of course I do, but you said it wasn't "necessary", so you are making it seem as if it COULD something other that what it is..and my question is, based on what?


I know, you are basically saying "If I had such a hard time dealing with the abiogenesis problem, why would you throw the origin of consciousness in there to make the problem twice as difficult."

No one said the job was going to be easy, Esquil


You sound like a damn fool. If I am asking you to explain the origin of consciousness, why the hell would you start by saying it evolved?? But its evolution could only occur after it originated, which still has yet to be explained, but that was the question in the first place!!!

Second, you are WRONG anyway, because I didn't switch to abiogenesis, my point was if abiogenesis PROVED to be true, hypothetically speaking, then where did consciousness come from?? That was the freakin' point...it had nothing to do with abiogenesis as I assumed (briefly) that abiogenesis was true.

Your reading comprehension skills are piss poor, bro.


And naturalists position is that "nature makes it". And if that isn't your position, then stop defending it.


So get all of the inanimate physical matter in the world, and see if any of the matter will come to life.

Non sequitur.


Life from nonlife hasnt been demonstrated as a natural occurrence either.


Again, if just having all the right ingredients was all that is needed, why aren't you able to demonstrate life from nonlife??


I like the ID model better.


I am just taking out the bio-babble and calling it what it actually is..."In the beginning, nature..."


Everyone knows that the Miller experiments didn't come close to creating life...you are the only one even still appealing to that experiment...it is a dead issue...they went in the lab to create life from nonlife, and failed. Point blank, period.


Dude, the goal was for them to create life from nonlife, and they didn't...so how is that exceeding expectations?


Completely ignored the distinguishing point I was making between eternity and infinity. Each term has at least two definitions for it and it isn't until you put each one in its proper perspective that you won't end up looking like a dumbass.


Um, I believe in God, duh.


Yes I do...and for you to sit there and say that is very dishonest, but when you are intellectually losing, I guess dishonesty is the last resort.


I've also stated why that to be the case...but lets conveniently leave that part out and continue with this meaningless rhetorical tirade, shall we?


It does make it the case if I have reasons to believe it to be the case.


Because life through infinite duration is impossible.


I repeat: Because life through infinite duration is impossible. You see how I am giving a reason for the shit? Instead of just saying it because it is "convenient", I am actually giving a reason for the shit, ain't I?


*Life that began, that is.


No, I said actual infinities are impossible...Now yeah, when dealing with actual time, infinite time and eternity mean the same thing...but eternity can also mean "without time" or "timelessness" or "atemporal" <----these are all synonymous with each other and also with "Eternity"...and this is the eternity I am talking about when I said "God is eternal", meaning that he wasn't living through infinite duration of time...he transcended time altogether...he was above and beyond time.


Um, life originating from chemical reactions would be a natural phenomena, right? And I could of swore that was one of the options...but hey, it isnt the first time my point was misrepresented, so what the hell.


But I recognize that there couldn't be an infinite chain of "life producing life" going all the way back to eternity past, which is a view that is quite consistent with me arguing against infinity on the other thread.

Dude, there are no "gotcha" moments with me on this subject. None.


*Life that began.

It is ok, the more you keep attacking straw man, I will be there to put you right back on path, you know, the path of my actual position.


God is not eternal in the sense of infinite duration in time, no.


Which is exactly what a self-aggrandizing bully would say.

---

You are right, I am an intellectual bully...so after school...me...you....playground.....and I will intellectually beat the crap out of you regarding any subject that we've been discussing.

What the hell does any of that crap have to do with the historicity of Jesus?

And you aren't a bully, more like a clumsy toddler.

Trouble being, HM, we would all show up and you'd either make an excuse not to show up or you'd send someone else to do it and fail for you.

[His_Majesty]

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

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.

I had that one, the vid of Dawkins, the wikipedia link, and the vid of Bart Erhman speaking on the broad consensus of the subject.

You got more than what you asked for. If that isn't enough, I can't help you.

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

I don't remember saying anything about a damn poll.

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.

I didn't know that having a poll was the criteria.

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.

Again, I will repeat; You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

Now again, I don't know what more you want...oh yeah...a poll. Well, too bad...I don't have a poll nor did I claim to have a poll. What I have is videos and quotes from men that are in the field, and they are all saying the same freakin' thing.

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?

Where am I getting it from? Again, for the third time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

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

Videos and quotes of people maintaining the exact point I've argued here.

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.

Typical? I thought I was one of a kind

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.

Fourth time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

You keep spewing that nonsense about what you haven't gotten, instead of focusing on what you DID get...and four times I reminded you of what you've gotten.

If the general consensus WASN'T true, then you wouldn't have so many people (that you were provided) saying that it IS true...and not behind closed doors, but openly in public, by believers and unbelievers alike.

Now again, if that isn't good enough for you, than to bad.

---

What the hell does any of that crap have to do with the historicity of Jesus?

And you aren't a bully, more like a clumsy toddler.

Trouble being, HM, we would all show up and you'd either make an excuse not to show up or you'd send someone else to do it and fail for you.

"We would all show up"

Damn Beccs, now that's GANGSTA

[Thumpalumpacus]

I had that one, the vid of Dawkins, the wikipedia link, and the vid of Bart Erhman speaking on the broad consensus of the subject.

You got more than what you asked for. If that isn't enough, I can't help you.

Unfortunately for your point, not one of them demonstrates that the "vast majority of historians" think anything at all, because 12 historians is not a "vast majority".

I don't remember saying anything about a damn poll.

Clearly, you don't understand that only a poll conducted on an objective basis could support your claim of a "vast majority" supporting your position.

Fuck all, I feel even more sorry for your teachers than I had earlier. You're clearly a dense brick.

I didn't know that having a poll was the criteria.

How else are you going to demonstrate a "vast majority"?

Again, I will repeat; You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

And again, none of that supports your actual claim, but you're too prideful, stupid, or dishonest to disavow your claim.

Which is it?

Now again, I don't know what more you want...oh yeah...a poll. Well, too bad...I don't have a poll nor did I claim to have a poll. What I have is videos and quotes from men that are in the field, and they are all saying the same freakin' thing.

And what you're really saying here is that you have no support for your claim, which is my point.

Thank you for your confession.

Where am I getting it from? Again, for the third time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...

... all twelve of them, what a majority ...

you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

Ooh, well that certainly speaks for the historians of the world. You're right, twelve is a supernumerary (that means "sufficient", in fancy English) majority to qualify as "overwhelming".

Videos and quotes of people maintaining the exact point I've argued here.

... which do not support the claim you've made, but don't have the honesty to redact.

Typical? I thought I was one of a kind

That's what thinking gets you when you're not practiced at it.

Fourth time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

Fourth time: those don't support your claim, but you're not honest enough to admit it.

You keep spewing that nonsense about what you haven't gotten, instead of focusing on what you DID get...and four times I reminded you of what you've gotten.

What you've provided doesn't support your claim, and that is what I've asked for. Keep whiffing, kid. You'll learn from this discussion to never, ever overstep your evidence.

Then again, maybe you won't. You don't strike me as terribly keen.

If the general consensus WASN'T true, then you wouldn't have so many people (that you were provided) saying that it IS true...and not behind closed doors, but openly in public, by believers and unbelievers alike.

All twelve of them? Stop the presses.

Now again, if that isn't good enough for you, than to bad.

You haven't supported your claim.

It is you losing credibility, not me.

And let's face it, that's a loss you can ill afford.

[His_Majesty]

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

One was forged...and as far as contemporary, Paul was contemporary...and those "texts" confirm what the contemporary source in Paul said...that Jesus existed.

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?

You just realized you've just shot the entire genre of history in the ass with that statement, right?

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.

Nonsense. I have no desire to be a Muslim and I think the entire Islamic religion is one big bootleg version of Christianity. I don't believe in the Muslim God Allah at all.

But I have no problem believing that Mohammed, the "prophet", existed. I am not a Muslim and I don't give two shits about Islam, so you can't say that I have any preconceived notions or biases in favor of Islam or Mohammed. The question is, where does the historical evidence point??

The point is, whether Christian or non-Christian, if you look at the evidence for Jesus OVERALL, you should be able to, at the very least, determine that Jesus the man existed.

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.

Point?

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.

Because, even if Jesus' existence was proven to be false, the traditional arguments theists use for God would still stand. That is the only point I was making.

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.

I was going to say the same thing about you.

[The Valkyrie]

---

I had that one, the vid of Dawkins, the wikipedia link, and the vid of Bart Erhman speaking on the broad consensus of the subject.

You got more than what you asked for. If that isn't enough, I can't help you.

Unfortunately for your point, not one of them demonstrates that the "vast majority of historians" think anything at all, because 12 historians is not a "vast majority".

I don't remember saying anything about a damn poll.

Clearly, you don't understand that only a poll conducted on an objective basis could support your claim of a "vast majority" supporting your position.

Fuck all, I feel even more sorry for your teachers than I had earlier. You're clearly a dense brick.

I didn't know that having a poll was the criteria.

How else are you going to demonstrate a "vast majority"?

Again, I will repeat; You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

And again, none of that supports your actual claim, but you're too prideful, stupid, or dishonest to disavow your claim.

Which is it?

Now again, I don't know what more you want...oh yeah...a poll. Well, too bad...I don't have a poll nor did I claim to have a poll. What I have is videos and quotes from men that are in the field, and they are all saying the same freakin' thing.

And what you're really saying here is that you have no support for your claim, which is my point.

Thank you for your confession.

Where am I getting it from? Again, for the third time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...

... all twelve of them, what a majority ...

you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

Ooh, well that certainly speaks for the historians of the world. You're right, twelve is a supernumerary (that means "sufficient", in fancy English) majority to qualify as "overwhelming".

Videos and quotes of people maintaining the exact point I've argued here.

... which do not support the claim you've made, but don't have the honesty to redact.

Typical? I thought I was one of a kind

That's what thinking gets you when you're not practiced at it.

Fourth time: You were given the sites which included quotes from both theologians and unbelievers regarding the general consensus of the historical Jesus...you were given the video by Bart Ehrman who is agnostic and stated what the general consensus is regarding the historical Jesus, and you were also given the video with Richard Dawkins who admitted that "most historians" believe that Jesus existed...which is ironic because he corrected himself on that very issue. Plus you were given the wikipedia article at which even a guy like Robert Price (as cited) stated that despite him NOT believing that Jesus existed, he realized that his opinion was in the minority, and NOT the majority.

Fourth time: those don't support your claim, but you're not honest enough to admit it.

You keep spewing that nonsense about what you haven't gotten, instead of focusing on what you DID get...and four times I reminded you of what you've gotten.

What you've provided doesn't support your claim, and that is what I've asked for. Keep whiffing, kid. You'll learn from this discussion to never, ever overstep your evidence.

Then again, maybe you won't. You don't strike me as terribly keen.

If the general consensus WASN'T true, then you wouldn't have so many people (that you were provided) saying that it IS true...and not behind closed doors, but openly in public, by believers and unbelievers alike.

All twelve of them? Stop the presses.

Now again, if that isn't good enough for you, than to bad.

You haven't supported your claim.

---

It is you losing credibility, not me.

And let's face it, that's a loss you can ill afford.
Losing credibility?

Lost any he may have had long ago.

[dyresand]

---

Unfortunately for your point, not one of them demonstrates that the "vast majority of historians" think anything at all, because 12 historians is not a "vast majority".


Clearly, you don't understand that only a poll conducted on an objective basis could support your claim of a "vast majority" supporting your position.

Fuck all, I feel even more sorry for your teachers than I had earlier. You're clearly a dense brick.


How else are you going to demonstrate a "vast majority"?


And again, none of that supports your actual claim, but you're too prideful, stupid, or dishonest to disavow your claim.

Which is it?


And what you're really saying here is that you have no support for your claim, which is my point.

Thank you for your confession.


... all twelve of them, what a majority ...


Ooh, well that certainly speaks for the historians of the world. You're right, twelve is a supernumerary (that means "sufficient", in fancy English) majority to qualify as "overwhelming".


... which do not support the claim you've made, but don't have the honesty to redact.


That's what thinking gets you when you're not practiced at it.


Fourth time: those don't support your claim, but you're not honest enough to admit it.


What you've provided doesn't support your claim, and that is what I've asked for. Keep whiffing, kid. You'll learn from this discussion to never, ever overstep your evidence.

Then again, maybe you won't. You don't strike me as terribly keen.


All twelve of them? Stop the presses.


You haven't supported your claim.

---

It is you losing credibility, not me.

And let's face it, that's a loss you can ill afford.

Losing credibility?

Lost any he may have had long ago.

you know i know a guy named Jesus he can't do any magical tricks like the Jesus in the bible. He isn't religious also he cant walk on water. And sure enough he hates snakes. Oh and he buys whine can't turn water into whine i asked him and he looked at me funny.

[Thumpalumpacus]

---

[quote='Parkers Tan' pid='807437' dateline='1417401862']

Unfortunately for your point, not one of them demonstrates that the "vast majority of historians" think anything at all, because 12 historians is not a "vast majority".


Clearly, you don't understand that only a poll conducted on an objective basis could support your claim of a "vast majority" supporting your position.

Fuck all, I feel even more sorry for your teachers than I had earlier. You're clearly a dense brick.


How else are you going to demonstrate a "vast majority"?


And again, none of that supports your actual claim, but you're too prideful, stupid, or dishonest to disavow your claim.

Which is it?


And what you're really saying here is that you have no support for your claim, which is my point.

Thank you for your confession.


... all twelve of them, what a majority ...


Ooh, well that certainly speaks for the historians of the world. You're right, twelve is a supernumerary (that means "sufficient", in fancy English) majority to qualify as "overwhelming".


... which do not support the claim you've made, but don't have the honesty to redact.


That's what thinking gets you when you're not practiced at it.


Fourth time: those don't support your claim, but you're not honest enough to admit it.


What you've provided doesn't support your claim, and that is what I've asked for. Keep whiffing, kid. You'll learn from this discussion to never, ever overstep your evidence.

Then again, maybe you won't. You don't strike me as terribly keen.


All twelve of them? Stop the presses.


You haven't supported your claim.

It is you losing credibility, not me.

And let's face it, that's a loss you can ill afford.

---

Losing credibility?

Lost any he may have had long ago.

I'm trying to be nice. He needs it.

[Jenny A]

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

One was forged...and as far as contemporary, Paul was contemporary...and those "texts" confirm what the contemporary source in Paul said...that Jesus existed.

Not contemporary and not a witness, but if you'd actually present Paul, we might discuss him.

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?

You just realized you've just shot the entire genre of history in the ass with that statement, right?

Why yes I do. ---Not to mention the first couple generations of biblical archeologists whose findings the new crop of trained archeologists on the ground now are disproving right and left. The controversy about Jesus is just beginning, but it's beginning because actual historians are looking at the evidence rather than just assuming.

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.

Nonsense. I have no desire to be a Muslim and I think the entire Islamic religion is one big bootleg version of Christianity. I don't believe in the Muslim God Allah at all.

But I have no problem believing that Mohammed, the "prophet", existed. I am not a Muslim and I don't give two shits about Islam, so you can't say that I have any preconceived notions or biases in favor of Islam or Mohammed. The question is, where does the historical evidence point??

And I have no problem with believing in a historical Jesus. But Craig, says that even if presented with personal uncontroversial eyewitness evidence that Jesus wasn't resurrected that he would still have faith and believe he was resurrected. That's bias in the extreme. So no I wouldn't trust him to evaluate evidence about Jesus. Obviously he isn't interested in evidence. And that intellectually dishonest bias towards the NT is why theologically trained scholars aren't that good at assessing evidence, though few are as extremely biased as Craig.

The point is, whether Christian or non-Christian, if you look at the evidence for Jesus OVERALL, you should be able to, at the very least, determine that Jesus the man existed.

I'm looking at that evidence, and no I don't see the proof. I do see that the existence of a man named Josiah who preached is more likely than not though I don't see proof I'd bet my life on or even proof I'd bet my net worth on. I strongly suspect that the Jesus in the Bible is an amalgamation of at least two prophets one a moral philosopher and the other an apocalyptic preacher. That's more likely than a single man. But I still wouldn't bet my life on it.

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.

---

Point?

Because misquoting is intellectually dishonest.

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.

Because, even if Jesus' existence was proven to be false, the traditional arguments theists use for God would still stand. That is the only point I was making.

None of the arguments for the existence of god hold water. But, they don't get better or worse with the existence or non existence of Jesus. Only Christianity falls if Jesus were not real. So? Why interject the larger question of god into the historicity of Jesus?

---

---

[quote='Parkers Tan' pid='807437' dateline='1417401862']

Unfortunately for your point, not one of them demonstrates that the "vast majority of historians" think anything at all, because 12 historians is not a "vast majority".


Clearly, you don't understand that only a poll conducted on an objective basis could support your claim of a "vast majority" supporting your position.

Fuck all, I feel even more sorry for your teachers than I had earlier. You're clearly a dense brick.


How else are you going to demonstrate a "vast majority"?


And again, none of that supports your actual claim, but you're too prideful, stupid, or dishonest to disavow your claim.

Which is it?


And what you're really saying here is that you have no support for your claim, which is my point.

Thank you for your confession.


... all twelve of them, what a majority ...


Ooh, well that certainly speaks for the historians of the world. You're right, twelve is a supernumerary (that means "sufficient", in fancy English) majority to qualify as "overwhelming".


... which do not support the claim you've made, but don't have the honesty to redact.


That's what thinking gets you when you're not practiced at it.


Fourth time: those don't support your claim, but you're not honest enough to admit it.


What you've provided doesn't support your claim, and that is what I've asked for. Keep whiffing, kid. You'll learn from this discussion to never, ever overstep your evidence.

Then again, maybe you won't. You don't strike me as terribly keen.


All twelve of them? Stop the presses.


You haven't supported your claim.

It is you losing credibility, not me.

And let's face it, that's a loss you can ill afford.

---

Losing credibility?

Lost any he may have had long ago.

I'm trying to be nice. He needs it.

I don't know about that. We have Christians here who I'd like to be much nicer to and am in non-debate threads. But H-M doesn't even notice it when his butt gets kicked. And he doesn't appear to have any niceness of his own.