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

[coldwx]

The hypocrisy is strong with this one. The previous thread was all about "did anyone observe a reptile change to a bird?" Well, did anyone of these persons actually observe Jesus alive? No? Well I guess you can't believe it then. No observation then I don't believe it, no matter how much extraneous evidence you present.

[Ravenshire]

If Jesus is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist. So you acknowledge after all that based on the external biblical accounts, he existed...that was the only point that I am making with this thread.

If Harry Potter is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist.

If Sherlock Holmes is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist.

If Mr. Spock is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist.

If Batman is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist.

Get the point?

[Jenny A]

Actually, you are the one with the problem..Josephus mentioned Pilate and Tacitus mentioned Tiberius...now, if you are basing your critique on the fact that those two weren't contemporary sources to Jesus, then you will have to acknowledge the fact that they weren't contemporary sources to Pilate and Tiberius either...so based on your logic, Tiberius and Pilate can't be historical either.

Either your logic must be consistent, or there is a double standard here.

That's just a hair insane. Josephus isn't the only mention of Pilate and Tacitus isn't the only mention of Tiberius. It they were, yes there would be reason to doubt Pilate and Tiberius. Actually, there isn't much for Pilate, and maybe, but for a contemporary inscription we'd have to count him unproven. But there is that inscription. For Tiberius there's plenty of contemporary evidence.

Um, Jenny...Josephus was a historian. Virtually ever historian that is alive today write about events that happened not only decades, but CENTURIES before they were born..second, he was born shortly after Jesus' death which would make him an adult before the first Gospel was even written...so in other words, he lived in the geographic location and time during which the Christian religion was spreading and Christians were being persecuted...so he would know about the Jews, the Christians, and Roman authorities.

Sure, he was a Jew and a historian. But he didn't have contempary sources (certainly didn't say he had) and wasn't a contemporary. There are plenty of contemporary sources for other important people during the time period, but not Jesus. So? Not proven.

Um, Jenny, he said that this particular Jesus was crucified by Pilate, and his followers were called "Christians". It is plain as day as to who he is referring to here.

Um, Jenny. He specifically said that the group being persecuted were called "Christians" by the population...and someone named "Christus" was from whom the title "Christians" came from....and he stated that this "Christus" guy was crucified by Pilate during the reign of Tiberius...and a "mischievous" superstition resulted after this "Christus" guy's death. Again, this harmonizes perfectly with the Gospel accounts.

So please, stop making it so obvious that you are deliberately trying your best to explain away why these accounts are NOT saying what they are clearly saying. I mean, DAMN.

Sorry, but the Pontius Pilate part of Josephus is actually in dispute and Christos means anointed or chosen. It's not a name and many men were called that.

Lucian is later yet and again only shows that Christians existed which is not in question.

Actually he is saying that the Christians are living according to the laws of a man that was crucified. All accounts, whether the later sources or earlier sources testify about the Christians following, worshiping, and living their lives according to someone that was crucified.

Yes, he says Christians believed that, not that he did that or that he believed Jesus existed.

Nonsense. In history classes every day across America, students are being taught history by teachers that are basing their material off of things that happened generations before they were born...so what is the difference, Jenny?

They do have contemporary sources on which to rely.

What you have shown is:
1. A generation or two after his purported life there were people other than Christians believed that there had once been a wise man named Jesus but no one felt he merited more than a sentence or two.

So what? They wrote about him, that is the point...if they are mentioning Jesus in a historical context, then obviously, he existed, which is the only thing I am establishing with this thread.

2. Some people called this wise man the King of the Jews and some blamed Jews for his death.
3. By the 60s Christianity had spread widely enough to be persecuted by Nero and noticed by others.

No arguments there.

If Jesus is remembered because of what he said...then he existed, because in order for you to say anything, you have to exist. So you acknowledge after all that based on the external biblical accounts, he existed...that was the only point that I am making with this thread.

Not really. We remember Homer because of what is attributed to him, but there's much depute over his existence.

[His_Majesty]

You're going nowhere, fast, because your analogy fails. People didn't get tired of watching Jordan make his fade-away shots for the same reason they haven't tired of watching Manning throw touchdowns. They helped their respective teams win games.

Not everyone was a Jordan fan, and not everyone is a Peyton fan..hell, there is a youtube video titled "Why I don't like Bruce Lee", and I thought everyone loved Bruce Lee.

You, on the other hand, are re-hashing bullshit arguments based on tenuous (at best) historical arguments to "prove" something that cannot be proven to a bunch of people who don't give a fuck what you have to say about the subject.

If no one gave a fuck what I have to say about the subject, then my thread shouldn't have gotten as many views as it did...and amongst the totality of those views...is a view from you.

So how exactly does one explain viewing a thread that he don't give a fuck about??

You want to claim that "Jesus of Nazareth" was a real person, maybe you could start be proving (you know, using testable, verifiable evidence) that Nazareth was an extant community during your god-boy's alleged lfe (good luck). Then you need to prove that your god-boy was actually born, factual, not fictive. Again with testable, verifiable evidence.

Still talking to me on a thread...based on a subject that you dont give a fuck about.

Once you've managed that, then you get to try to prove the magic. That should be entertaining. Walking on water, feeding the multitudes, etc... [/quote

You have no physical evidence and no contemporary accounts, though I'm sure you'll try to throw shit at the wall in the vain hope that some will stick.

Something else to keep in mind before you start with the "no one's sure what happened that long ago" argument (something that frequently happens in these shit-fests), the first century CE is the best documented century in antiquity.

Have fun attempting the impossible. I'm sure many here will be amused by your lame attempts.

Still not giving a fuck...but still talking to me about the subject.

[Zen Badger]

One thing you also seemed to have overlooked. On top of those accounts not being by eye witnesses

Ok, so where you an eye witness account to the Presidency of Martin Van Buren? The answer is no. So how do you know that he was ever the President? How can you be sure of anything in history if you were never a direct eyewitness to anything??

, none of them mention any of the miracles or the resurrection.

Tacitus mentioned a mischievous superstition which arose after Jesus' death. That is the Resurrection, the greatest miracle of them all.

So while there remains the slim possibility that JC might have been a real person, without the miracles and the resurrection any claims to him being the son of god are out the window. Along with your religions claim to possession of the "TRUTH".

The possibility is high, actually. If Jesus was never a real person, then how the hell could Christianity ever get off the ground from the belief of a man that never even existed? And why would non-Christian sources put a man that never existed in the same context of men that actually existed, like Roman politicians and emperors? Makes no sense.

To your first, we have eye witness accounts of Van Buren, but none of Jesus, so you fail there.
For your second one, Tacticus mentions a michevious superstition therefore the resurrection?!?! Fuck, you really are grasping at straws now laddie.

And lastly, this only attests to people's gullibility, nothing else.
Now if Christianity had appeared simultaneously at different places around the world you would have a case.

[Thumpalumpacus]

The thread is only to establish the existence of Jesus [...]

You've yet to establish the existence of your god.

This thread is the equivalent of trying to determine how fast the cart was going, before you determined the existence of the jackass pulling it.

[Ravenshire]

Still not giving a fuck...but still talking to me about the subject.

Oh, I can easily enjoy ridiculing you without caring fuck all about your claims.

I notice though, you avoided every actual point made (as I'm sure you'll continue to do with all comers throughout the thread).

Good luck in here. You're gonna need it.

[His_Majesty]

I believe Jesus may have existed, but I don't agree at all that what you posted is good evidence for his existence. Like Jenny said, all you did was show that Christians did exist in the first century.

Dude, every single source either mentions Jesus by name, title, or made implications regarding him. Yeah, they mentioned Christians, but every single time the Christians were mentioned, it was in the context of the man that they followed...every single one.

So what the heck are you talking about?? EIther you people are just not reading, or there is a major reading comprehension problem going on here...because I don't see how you can say that the source only mentions Christians when within the context either "Jesus", "Christ", "Christus", "Crucified sophist" "Wise King/new law"...those are freakin' names and titles that is as clear as day in the context, yet it is being bypassed for some f'ed up reason due to poor reading comprehension skills or just flat out denial.

[Foxaèr]

Dude, every single source

Dude, how about providing these supposed sources?

[His_Majesty]

Oh, I can easily enjoy ridiculing you without caring fuck all about your claims.

Yeah, you can...and I can also laugh at the fact that you typed up all of that crap, which I ignored..so you typed it alllll for nothing.

I notice though, you avoided every actual point made (as I'm sure you'll continue to do with all comers throughout the thread).

You noticed? Well, I made it quite obvious, didn't I?

Good luck in here. You're gonna need it.

Man please.