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

[dyresand]

Jesus, Mary, Joseph were common names in a part of the world not known for innovative naming practices, who is to say a certain Jesus son of Mary and Joseph had never existed who was a bit luny in ways that happen to dovetail with pervailing social conditions so as to impress impressionable illiterate yokels? Who is to say the bunch of yokels most foolishly impressed didn't number 13 and didn't have the names that Christians recognized as the "apostles"?

But it seems absolutely irrelevent whether a real Jesus existed. The important thing is a biblical New Testament Jesus who had the salient characteristics attributed to him by subsequent christians runs against all we've since learned about the real world. So we can as confidently rule out the existence of the biblical as we can the sun rising from the west.

Christians seem to think insinuating the unprovable fact Jesus existed proves any such Jesus as might have existed would also be son of god.

What idiots.

Also if Mary did give birth to jesus it wasn't a virgin birth.

[Cyberman]

Not to mention that a virgin birth would have produced a girl. Why wasn't that miracle written down!

[robvalue]

Genes weren't invented back then.

[Natachan]

But what about Egyptian pharoes! What about Neanderthals! They had genes! Or are those just lies put out by Satan to trick us all?

[abaris]

Also if Mary did give birth to jesus it wasn't a virgin birth.

Maybe it was an abdominal delivery. There were enough farm tools in that shed I guess.

[robvalue]

Everything is lies from satan. You can't prove they aren't! Go on, try and prove something that isn't a lie from satan

Anyone?

[Jenny A]

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

He lived during a time at which the ORIGINAL disciples were still going around town saying that Jesus rose from the dead...the belief in the Resurrection began with the original disciples...and Paul met Peter, and James, brother of Jesus.

Paul would have known about both Pilate and Tiberius, and he certainly got his information from a DIRECT contemporary source in Peter and James.

Remember when I was asking you and others "How do you know that George Washington existed?" when no one alive today ever saw him, and you and others response to this was "we have contemporary accounts of him"...well, Paul spoke to those that WERE contemporary accounts.

And not only that, but he also claimed to have witnesses the Resurrected Jesus himself.

Paul writes between 51 and 58 AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles That is twenty to thirty years after the crucifixion is supposed to have happened.

He does not claim to know what Jesus said in the flesh. Instead he says,

But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:11

Having had that revelation he did not go to Jerusalem to talk with those who had actually seen Jesus. Instead, he preached in Arabia and Damascus.

But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Galatians 1:15-17

Only three years after that does he go to Jerusalem to meet with Peter and James.

Does it bother you that in his letters Paul claims only to have seen Jesus in a vision? His account of the last supper is also visionary. If he knew of Jesus personally, or spoke to people who did why is it that he never alludes to any of the details of Jesus' life. Nor does he ever speak of the teachings of Jesus. For Paul the death and resurrection are everything. His Jesus is unearthly being known only through revelation.

It bothers me.

---

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.

---

To bad the vast majority of historians already believe that he existed...it is only the few mythers here and there that says otherwise...and it is almost as if the myth is that he DIDN'T exist rather than he did.

But they aren't really historians are they? They are theologians and like the theologian archeologists likely to assume the truth of the Bible rather than test it as a real historian would.

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.

That's his problem, not mines.

If you cite him as authority, and you have, it's your problem. Rely on your own evidence and it isn't. But you don't want to rely on the evidence do you? You want to rely on the "vast majority historians."

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.

You keep talking about Craig as if I appealed to WLC or something

Because you rely on him and men like him. You have used him as authority. And he's part of that "vast majority" you keeping referring to.

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.

Then you disregard all of the positive evidence in favor of Jesus...got it.

Sure there's positive evidence out there. Just not much and not very good evidence.

[robvalue]

I have trouble taking seriously what Christian scholars have to say, if they are doing anything other than delivering demonstrable facts.

How can I trust someone to be objective on these matters when they have presupposed that it's all magically true before they have even begun?

[His_Majesty]

Paul met Peter, huh?

He sure did.

How would you know about that?

How do we know anything in history?

Paul says so?

Damn right he did.

Did Peter ratify that claim?

More goal post moving shit.

Yes, the emperor and the local governor... both well placed hints to lend credence to the story... but does that make the story true?

It makes the story believable.

Says Paul.... do you have accounts from other people claiming to have spoken with Paul?

Do you have statements from George Washington listing the names of all of the people that spoke to him? No, you don't...so based on your shitty logic, everyone that claims to have met George Washington and spoke with him...if GW didn't name them in a list of names that he jotted down throughout his life, those people did not speak to him

That kind of shitty logic works both ways.

Did the Corinthians ever reply to his letters?

Paul was a journeyman...probably not.

See how you're using english the proper way, now?
"claimed to"
Tolkien claimed to use the Red Book of Westmarch as a base for the Lord of the Rings account.
Does that make Hobbits real? Rings of power? Wizards? Nazgul?

We will get in to that a tad bit later

---

I have trouble taking seriously what Christian scholars have to say, if they are doing anything other than delivering demonstrable facts.

How can I trust someone to be objective on these matters when they have presupposed that it's all magically true before they have even begun?

Well, I can say the same thing about evolution. Most of them are already naturalists anyway...they presuppose macro changes like reptiles to birds...so how can I trust them to be objective on those matters with they have presupposed that it's all voodoo science before they even begun?

[pocaracas]

Paul met Peter, huh?

He sure did.

How would you know about that?

How do we know anything in history?

Historical characters are not commonly claiming to be gods.
Unless you count pharaohs...

But, you know.... there is a gospel attributed to Peter... how about you tell me if he wrote down about his meeting with Paul? It would be rather significant, if he did, don't you think?
Also significant if he didn't...

Paul says so?

Damn right he did.

Did Peter ratify that claim?

More goal post moving shit.

That's how you like it!
You see, the claim of one person isn't really of that much worth.
Many people in ancient times made claims... some are considered trustworthy, while others aren't. This trustworthiness is based on corroborating evidence... corroborating writings (as independent as possible), corroborating archeological findings, etc...

For your case of Paul meeting Peter, do you have any such corroborating evidence?

Yes, the emperor and the local governor... both well placed hints to lend credence to the story... but does that make the story true?

It makes the story believable.

And that's partly why lots of people still, to this day, believe it.
But it doesn't make it true.
There's a difference between believing in a false claim and believing in a true claim.... but the believer cannot see it.

Says Paul.... do you have accounts from other people claiming to have spoken with Paul?

Do you have statements from George Washington listing the names of all of the people that spoke to him? No, you don't...so based on your shitty logic, everyone that claims to have met George Washington and spoke with him...if GW didn't name them in a list of names that he jotted down throughout his life, those people did not speak to him

That kind of shitty logic works both ways.

You may learn something from this...




Note that George actually sent letters to some people and signed them!
Not all, I grant that... it would be ludicrous to consider he would document all people he ever had contact with... but a few... it's to be expected!
And that's what we have.

Did the Corinthians ever reply to his letters?

Paul was a journeyman...probably not.

sad... sad....