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

[The Valkyrie]

Well, we've had 60 pages of debate for the case for the resurrection of Jesus.

I think we are now in a position to vote if the evidence is up to the claim.

I vote "no"

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Well, we've had 60 pages of debate for the case for the resurrection of Jesus.

It's actually on the other thread, "Part Deux", that I presented the case for the resurrection of Jesus. HM never got around to it.

However you vote, you must admit that I did every bit as good a job in my presentation as you would normally expect even from the best of apologists.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

I stopped reading HM's long winded posts about 20 pages ago. Can anyone tell me if he's said anything worthy of consideration?

Unless he's replying to me, I don't bother reading his tripe.

[His_Majesty]

It's actually on the other thread, "Part Deux", that I presented the case for the resurrection of Jesus. HM never got around to it.

Really wasn't worth my time.

However you vote, you must admit that I did every bit as good a job in my presentation as you would normally expect even from the best of apologists.

Are we admitting you did a good job based on the presentation, or something else???

The fact that I am even asking the question should let you know where im coming from

---

Well, we've had 60 pages of debate for the case for the resurrection of Jesus.

I think we are now in a position to vote if the evidence is up to the claim.

I vote "no"

I will see you all in the parking lot, Beccs

---

Some poor sod up to the task of counting the he used instead of presenting an argument?

Oh I'm convinced.

Jesus was the son of god
He died and was resurrected
He's coming back soon
He's now mowing lawns in Texas.

If he is now mowing lawns, doesn't that mean he already came back?

[His_Majesty]

This is really funny. . . I say, unless we have evidence there is no proof and that in the case of history, contemporary evidence is best and non-contemporary evidence of much lesser value. Rather than respond to the logic of that, you respond that I have no authority to make people write things down when I want them too. If you can think at all, you must see that that is a non-sequitur.

Yeah, this is really funny...you sit there and talk about how we don't have any contemporary sources for Jesus, and then you mention Philo of Alexandria, a guy you believe existed, DESPITE not having any CONTEMPORARY sources for him?

Taxi cab fallacy. And you just keep committing it like it is the thing to do.

If there was a Jesus, it would have been useful to us if he had written something down.

Bullshit. When you are a "boss" like Jesus was, you don't write down anything, you have people write it down for you...which is what occurred.

It would have been useful to us if his disciples had written something down.

Two of them did...Matthew, and John.

It would have been useful if an uninterested third party had written something down.

If Facebook or Twitter was around then, I am sure Jesus would have had the most friends and followers.

I find it hilarious that you expect people that couldn't read or write to write stuff down.

Kinda like expecting a person with no fingers to be able to "press" charges

BUT they didn't. That suggests that either the events didn't happen, or they weren't as big or important as what is described in the Gospels.

They did better than writing it down...they spread the word. Apparently, that method was very effective, because by the time Paul was writing things down, the word had already spread far and beyond where the belief originated. Hmmmm.

I just put things back in its proper perspective, Jenny. And I want you to keep it there.

The absence of contemporary writing doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist, but it does make his existence less certain.

Giving it all but everything, huh?

Yes, people can memorize verses. What does that have to do with the accuracy of their memory for what they heard in a sermon?

It may not have been a perfect word for word, it may have been a paraphrase.

If you think your memory of conversations yesterday, let alone 20 years ago are accurate. You're an idiot. If you think it's as easy to make things up about yesterday and be believed and it is to make things up about 20 years ago and be believed, you're an idiot.

It is about as accurate as it can be for 20 years later. That is what I believe.

I don't give a rats ass when you think Paul preached or even that he preached.

When the truth is sinking in, you get this kind of reaction.

What we have is his writings and they are 20 years out from Jesus' purported death and we have his own admission that he never knew Jesus in life.

Bullshit. You are making it seem as if he converted and then went on to pursue other interests in those 20 years and suddenly picked up where he left off 20 years earlier. That is nonsense...within those 20 years he was a missionary...preaching and evangelizing for Christ within the duration of those 20 years.

What part of that you don't understand or are you going to keep these bogus and completely FALSE implications coming??? Second, no one is denying that Paul never knew Jesus "in life"...but Peter DID know Jesus, and last I checked, Peter was a contemporary source to Christ...keyword; CONTEMPORARY...you know, what you have been CRYING about us not having, and then we Peter is mentioned as a contemporary source, all of a sudden you want to bring up a false notion that that Peter could have been a different Peter?

Moving goal posts...you don't want to learn, accept, and acknowledge Jesus Christ...and these bullshit objections you are raising is apparent of that fact.

Acts on the other had is a fine example of why we don't weigh non-contemporary evidence as heavily as contemporary evidence.

Nonsense. Acts was written by Luke, friend of Paul. Paul had ties to Peter and James, brother of Jesus...so Luke's authorship is third hand source at best.

Acts was written sometime between 80 and 90 CE. Despite the fact that it and Luke were written by the same author, the two books contradict each other.

Bogus...Acts was written before 70AD, just like all four Gospels were.

It is factually at odds with Paul's letters in numerous places. Not to mention that in it Paul uses the words Christians and disciples frequently, though Paul never uses though word in his letters.

Factually at odds with Paul's letters? How? And this whole "Paul didn't use Christians and disciples" crap is just another bogus objection that you are using because you don't have anything concrete to go on. Who gives a DAMN whether or not Paul uses the words "Christians and disciples"? It just just a non-factor to ANYTHING whatsoever.

I suggest once again that you stop and read something about historical method. Phio did actually write and we have some of his writings.

Please...you don't know who wrote what...all you know is what you were told...because in that case, hell, Paul "did actually write and we have some of his writings", too. How does Philo's writing have any more virtue than Paul's? Because Paul was writing about Christianity and Philo wasn't? That is obviously what you are going by..because there isn't any other reason for you to give Philo's writing all of this praise and glory but completely disregard Paul's stuff.

Like I said...taxi cab fallacy.

As contemporary evidence of his existence goes that's pretty good. And yes Josephus mentions him. That's evidence. It would be better evidence if it were contemporary.

And yes, Josephus mentioned Jesus too. So that's evidence. He didn't only mention him in the "forged" passage you keep holding for dear life to...he also mentioned him in another passage when he called "James, BROTHER of Jesus".

In the case of Jesus, Paul's mention of him is from supposedly meeting Jesus after Jesus' death, which in not the sort of evidence generally believed even when it is contemporary. That Paul waited 20 years to write about it make it even less useful. Is it evidence for the existence of Jesus? Yes, just not very good evidence.

If a man is saying he saw the "vision" or Resurrected body of a previously deceased person...that would seem good as evidence for that person's existence.

Yep it's Josephus. And yes it's in the very same Antiquities that Jesus is referred to. But unlike the Jesus reference no one forged it or tampered with it either. Again it's not that Josephus is useless to prove the existence of Jesus, only that writing that has been tampered with is not as good evidence as writing that hasn't.

Again, he mentioned Jesus in another context as brother of James...and no one is saying that this particular passage was forged. So I guess that makes it good evidence, right?

Not really. I'm not arguing Paul didn't exist. He wrote things down. Frankly, I'm not even arguing the Jesus didn't exist, only that the evidence is not certain.

We have more evidence for Jesus than we do for Philo...and you are not denying that Philo existed.

Double taxi cab (double standard/taxi cab)

I'm really sure they weren't written by eye witnesses. That vast army of biblical historians you keep referring to is pretty sure too.

Yeah, appeal to them now

Freakin' joke

Give the dates of the Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would have had to have been pretty old to have written them.

Old...how old?

The author of Luke even says he's writing from other accounts which would be rather odd if he were a disciple.

Straw man. No one is claiming that Luke was a disciple...where are you getting this nonsense from???

And I'm glad you mentioned Luke, because in his preface, he states:

1"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

He said that the account was handed down to them FROM EYEWITNESSES.

Ahhh...I just love how it all just seems to fall right in place...and the nonsense that you are talking can be combated with good ole fashioned...TRUTH...and sometimes, that is all that is needed.

Finally, it is only in later versions that their names are added.

Names that were attributed by second generation apostles.

No it doesn't mean he wasn't preaching. But it does greatly reduce the value of what he writes as evidence of Jesus. Why you can't understand that some kinds of evidence are better than others is beyond me.

Um...Jenny, he wrote about what he was preaching for 20 straight years...what the heck are you talking about???

1. Paul met Peter and James and would have talked with them about Jesus, therefore Paul's letters are proof of Jesus.

It was based on contemporary accounts...isn't that what you wanted?? But when Paul actually had exactly what you claim is needed, it isn't any good, huh???

Man, you got it bad. I actually think you have Esquilax beat now...this is ridiculous.

2. Non-contemporary evidence is just as good and contemporary evidence.

Paul had contemporary evidence.

3. Acts is proof Paul knew all about Jesus.

Straw man...as that was never said, or implied.

4. References to what Christians believed is just as good as evidence that what they believed was correct.

Straw man.

5. The majority of biblical scholars think Jesus existed therefore he does.

"The majority of American history historians think that George Washington existed therefore he does".

Is that what you are saying?

[Minimalist]

Well, we've had 60 pages of debate for the case for the resurrection of Jesus.

I think we are now in a position to vote if the evidence is up to the claim.

I vote "no"

Wait. You're saying there's been evidence presented?

[Jenny A]

H-m,

1) Contemporary evidence is much better than evidence 20 years later;

2) Contemporary evidence does not cease to be contemporary because it is self referring as in writing about oneself;

3) Evidence a person exists, as in for example Paul's letters cited as proof of Paul's existence, is not proof that what the person says is so.

Now, with regard to George Washington versus Jesus in terms of probability of existence: George Washington wrote things and numerous contemporaries refer to him. He is also signatory to many contemporary documents. Little of of what is said of him requires suspension of disbelief. Therefore George Washington existed.

Jesus is referred to at best 20 years after his purported death. The first accounts of him involve supernatural visitation (Paul). Mitigating this is the fact that many fewer people wrote in the first Century AD than did in the late 1700s. But this only mitigates with regard to whether lack of evidence proves non-existence. It does nothing to provide evidence for Jesus' existence.

Noting that there is a lack of evidence is not a demand on my part that people in the past provide evidence, just a note that the fact that most men in the past didn't write and weren't written about make impossible to prove the existence of individuals who didn't write and weren't written about.

Jesus is somewhere between the situation of Washington and those anonymous people of the first century AD. He did not write. He was not written about until twenty years (at best) after his purported life. He was not written about by anyone with first hand knowledge of his life. Therefore his existence is much less likely than George Washington's and anything we know about him much less certain.

Scream and post all you like, but the fact remains that we have no contemporary evidence of Jesus.

[His_Majesty]

H-m,

1) Contemporary evidence is much better than evidence 20 years later;

2) Contemporary evidence does not cease to be contemporary because it is self referring as in writing about oneself;

3) Evidence a person exists, as in for example Paul's letters cited as proof of Paul's existence, is not proof that what the person says is so.

Now, with regard to George Washington versus Jesus in terms of probability of existence: George Washington wrote things and numerous contemporaries refer to him. He is also signatory to many contemporary documents. Little of of what is said of him requires suspension of disbelief. Therefore George Washington existed.

Jesus is referred to at best 20 years after his purported death. The first accounts of him involve supernatural visitation (Paul). Mitigating this is the fact that many fewer people wrote in the first Century AD than did in the late 1700s. But this only mitigates with regard to whether lack of evidence proves non-existence. It does nothing to provide evidence for Jesus' existence.

Noting that there is a lack of evidence is not a demand on my part that people in the past provide evidence, just a note that the fact that most men in the past didn't write and weren't written about make impossible to prove the existence of individuals who didn't write and weren't written about.

Jesus is somewhere between the situation of Washington and those anonymous people of the first century AD. He did not write. He was not written about until twenty years (at best) after his purported life. He was not written about by anyone with first hand knowledge of his life. Therefore his existence is much less likely than George Washington's and anything we know about him much less certain.

Scream and post all you like, but the fact remains that we have no contemporary evidence of Jesus.

I think we are ready for part 2.

[Ryantology]

I think we are ready for part 2.

I think your ideas aren't so profound that they need more than one thread. This is a discussion forum, not a showcase for your ego.

[robvalue]

After utterly failing at the much easier and possible part 1, you will continue to the actually impossible part 2?