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

[His_Majesty]

"Because perhaps" . . is that really the best you can do?

The average lifespan in the first century was abysmal by today's standards. But if you lived past 10 years you'd live to about 46 or so on average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy That's based on classical Rome. Might be a little better or worse in Palestine a hundred years later, but not much. So no those decades later writers and witnesses are unlikely. Rather more unlikely than literate witnesses, if there was actually anything to witness.

Well, Ramesses the Great lived to be in his 90's at a time when the average man died at age 35...so there were exceptions to the rule, Jenny. Jospehus lived to be in his 60's, and Philo of Alexandria, the SAME guy you mentioned in the other thread, lived to be in his 70's....King Herod lived to be 70...and Caesar August lived to be 75, after reigning for 41 years.

So yes, those decades later writers and witnesses are likely, unless you can somehow explain why those gentleman I just mentioned were able to live long lives and the eyewitnesses of Jesus wasn't.

And the Gospels are obviously not first hand accounts.

How can they not be first hand accounts when they the material is telling us stuff that only someone there would know?

They aren't written in the first person.

Which isn't a requirement. First-person is a style and there is no rule of thumb which state that a person have to write in first person and when.

They don't claim to be first hand accounts and the synoptic Gospels copy from each other way too much to have been independently written.

Nonsense. The Gospels are ALL of the genre of biography. The authors MEANT to tell a story regarding the life, death, Resurrection, travels, teachings, sayings, personality, appearances, etc of Jesus..and you will only get this kind of material from someone that was with him on his travels, heard his sayings, knew about his personality, and his death.

Second, the Gospels do copy from each other, but it is ironic that the claim is the Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, yet Mark is the shortest Gospel I find that hilarious. Matthew is almost twice as long as Mark, yet Matthew copied from Mark? Same with Luke. The fact that Matt and Luke has almost double the material that Mark has DESPITE borrowing material from him is evidence that they are all independent accounts.

Nor is there any indication that they are in anyway history as opposed to the recounting of legend. They read rather more like legend.

Wait a minute..."there is no indication that they are in anyway history"? Um, how the hell not? They mention geographical locations, they list historical figures in the narrative, and they also talk about specific customs and beliefs of the day...so how the hell do they not indicate that they are in history?

Actually Jackson is instructive. Not because many people in the 1st Century lived nearly that long, but because of just what Jackson said and when. First of all, he didn't wait five decades to say boo about it did he?

Again, you keep referring to the fact that it wasn't written down...but ignoring the fact that the word spread via word of mouth. I guess it is just far to convenient to ignore that fact.

And his story has still grown in the telling over the last five decades. There's still a controversy about whether he was on the balcony (he wasn't). And yet he claims that MLK died in his arms.

But the fact is no one is disputing that he was THERE.

Really? Here's a goodly long list of contradictions: http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

Right, and just like there are many sites geared to point out bible contradictions, there are many sites geared to refute those contradictions.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

See, I can post links that back up my case too.

No we wouldn't expect that. But if we had no written sources for the assassination of MLK's until 1990, those of us who think would suspect it was legendary.

So you think the Gospels are four books full of lies?

You mean they spread the news orally? Possible. People have been spreading news orally since there have been people. But oral history is not very reliable and after a few decades it's hard to tell the facts from the legends. That's why we refer the centuries before humans learned to write as prehistoric.

Well, it depends on what the story is...religion is something that, for the most part, is near and dear to believers hearts, and we (in general) tend to think of religious texts, sayings, books, oracles, etc, we tend to look at these things as sacred, and we tend to want carefully preserve it.

[b]All of which is beside the point. The fact that you or anyone else can come up with reasons why we don't have evidence, does not create evidence. To prove something you need real evidence, not just an explanation for why you don't have it.

But I think we do have evidence. All you want to do is move the goal post. The goal post is at 30 yards, and I kick the football through the goalposts...then you move the goal post back 45 yards, I kick the football through the goal post, then you move to the 50 yard line, and I kick the football through the goal post...but that time, it was more difficult because it is further...the further you move it back, the more difficult time I will have to kick it through.

Well first of all, you would expect Christianity to spread rapidly immediately, if that were the case. But there's no real evidence it did.

For a starting number, Acts 1:14-15 suggests that several months after the Crucifixion there were 120 Christians. Later, in Acts 4:4, a total of 5,000 believers is claimed. And, according to Acts 21:20, by the sixth decade of the first century there were “many thousands of Jews” in Jerusalem who now believed. These are not statistics. Had there been that many converts in Jerusalem, it would have been the first Christian city, since there probably were no more than twenty thousand inhabitants at this time… As Hans Conzelmann noted, these numbers are only “meant to render impressive the marvel that here the Lord himself is at work” [1973:63]. Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, “one must always remember that figures in antiquity… were part of rhetorical exercises” [1977:7-8] and were not really meant to be taken literally. Nor is this limited to antiquity. In 1984 a Toronto magazine claimed that there were 10,000 Hare Krishna members in that city. But when [researchers] checked on the matter, they found that the correct total was 80.3

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95

Jerusalem was still predominately a Jewish city, Jenny.

[The Valkyrie]

---

"Because perhaps" . . is that really the best you can do?

The average lifespan in the first century was abysmal by today's standards. But if you lived past 10 years you'd live to about 46 or so on average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy That's based on classical Rome. Might be a little better or worse in Palestine a hundred years later, but not much. So no those decades later writers and witnesses are unlikely. Rather more unlikely than literate witnesses, if there was actually anything to witness.

Well, Ramesses the Great lived to be in his 90's at a time when the average man died at age 35...so there were exceptions to the rule, Jenny. Jospehus lived to be in his 60's, and Philo of Alexandria, the SAME guy you mentioned in the other thread, lived to be in his 70's....King Herod lived to be 70...and Caesar August lived to be 75, after reigning for 41 years.

So yes, those decades later writers and witnesses are likely, unless you can somehow explain why those gentleman I just mentioned were able to live long lives and the eyewitnesses of Jesus wasn't.

And the Gospels are obviously not first hand accounts.

How can they not be first hand accounts when they the material is telling us stuff that only someone there would know?

They aren't written in the first person.

Which isn't a requirement. First-person is a style and there is no rule of thumb which state that a person have to write in first person and when.

They don't claim to be first hand accounts and the synoptic Gospels copy from each other way too much to have been independently written.

Nonsense. The Gospels are ALL of the genre of biography. The authors MEANT to tell a story regarding the life, death, Resurrection, travels, teachings, sayings, personality, appearances, etc of Jesus..and you will only get this kind of material from someone that was with him on his travels, heard his sayings, knew about his personality, and his death.

Second, the Gospels do copy from each other, but it is ironic that the claim is the Luke and Matthew copied from Mark, yet Mark is the shortest Gospel I find that hilarious. Matthew is almost twice as long as Mark, yet Matthew copied from Mark? Same with Luke. The fact that Matt and Luke has almost double the material that Mark has DESPITE borrowing material from him is evidence that they are all independent accounts.

Nor is there any indication that they are in anyway history as opposed to the recounting of legend. They read rather more like legend.

Wait a minute..."there is no indication that they are in anyway history"? Um, how the hell not? They mention geographical locations, they list historical figures in the narrative, and they also talk about specific customs and beliefs of the day...so how the hell do they not indicate that they are in history?

Actually Jackson is instructive. Not because many people in the 1st Century lived nearly that long, but because of just what Jackson said and when. First of all, he didn't wait five decades to say boo about it did he?

Again, you keep referring to the fact that it wasn't written down...but ignoring the fact that the word spread via word of mouth. I guess it is just far to convenient to ignore that fact.

And his story has still grown in the telling over the last five decades. There's still a controversy about whether he was on the balcony (he wasn't). And yet he claims that MLK died in his arms.

But the fact is no one is disputing that he was THERE.

Really? Here's a goodly long list of contradictions: http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

Right, and just like there are many sites geared to point out bible contradictions, there are many sites geared to refute those contradictions.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/bible.htm

See, I can post links that back up my case too.

No we wouldn't expect that. But if we had no written sources for the assassination of MLK's until 1990, those of us who think would suspect it was legendary.

So you think the Gospels are four books full of lies?

You mean they spread the news orally? Possible. People have been spreading news orally since there have been people. But oral history is not very reliable and after a few decades it's hard to tell the facts from the legends. That's why we refer the centuries before humans learned to write as prehistoric.

Well, it depends on what the story is...religion is something that, for the most part, is near and dear to believers hearts, and we (in general) tend to think of religious texts, sayings, books, oracles, etc, we tend to look at these things as sacred, and we tend to want carefully preserve it.

[b]All of which is beside the point. The fact that you or anyone else can come up with reasons why we don't have evidence, does not create evidence. To prove something you need real evidence, not just an explanation for why you don't have it.

But I think we do have evidence. All you want to do is move the goal post. The goal post is at 30 yards, and I kick the football through the goalposts...then you move the goal post back 45 yards, I kick the football through the goal post, then you move to the 50 yard line, and I kick the football through the goal post...but that time, it was more difficult because it is further...the further you move it back, the more difficult time I will have to kick it through.

Well first of all, you would expect Christianity to spread rapidly immediately, if that were the case. But there's no real evidence it did.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95

Jerusalem was still predominately a Jewish city, Jenny.

---

[Minimalist]

But I think we do have evidence.

And you would be wrong. A common state for you.

[abaris]

How can they not be first hand accounts when they the material is telling us stuff that only someone there would know?

So Frodo and Harry Potter are true accounts. Because how could the writers come up with these stories if they hadn't been there.

Man.....

[His_Majesty]

The audience you are attempting to convince.

Well, I remain unconvinced at the less than convincing objections and "at least I tried" refutations of my arguments.

In any case, to claim that you made a compelling case in your first thread was complete fiction.

It was compelling to me.

Honestly, these threads should be merged to keep the bullshit all in one place.

And more than half of the bullshit comes right off of some of you all's fingertips.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How can they not be first hand accounts when they the material is telling us stuff that only someone there would know?

So Frodo and Harry Potter are true accounts. Because how could the writers come up with these stories if they hadn't been there.

Man.....

Like shooting fish in a barrel, right, Abs?

[abaris]

Like shooting fish in a barrel, right, Abs?

But convincing to him. Which is the sad part.

[His_Majesty]

You do understand that we don't think god said anything at all ever don't you?

Yeah, I understand...and you do understand that as a Christian, I believe that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind?

Just so we understand where we both are coming from.

There is no evidence to support this persecution complex by Christians.

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/07/08/d...-part.html

I would rather just let Tactius' words speak for itself instead of relying on a secular non-Christian who is finding any way to debunk a particular implication of a Roman senator who would have known if an actual EMPEROR ever committed such atrocities.

But you must admit that Christianity was forced on an unwilling world by order of the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine. The crusades were just the bloody highlights.

Nonsense. We were talking about how Christianity SPREAD...and it spread well before even the Great Fire of Rome even occurred. You are talking about stuff that happened hundreds of years laters...and by that time, it was ready to take over as the religion of Rome, as you just alluded to...although I don't know about it being forced on anyone by Constantine.

[Minimalist]

I would rather just let Tactius' words speak for itself instead of relying on a secular non-Christian who is finding any way to debunk a particular implication of a Roman senator who would have known if an actual EMPEROR ever committed such atrocities.

Of course you would...since Tacitus is a later xtian interpolation. No one in antiquity - pagan or xtian - ever knew anything about it.

That of course is not even going to slow down a stupid jesus freak from swearing it is true.

[Jenny A]

"Because perhaps" . . is that really the best you can do?

. . .


But I think we do have evidence. All you want to do is move the goal post. The goal post is at 30 yards, and I kick the football through the goalposts...then you move the goal post back 45 yards, I kick the football through the goal post, then you move to the 50 yard line, and I kick the football through the goal post...but that time, it was more difficult because it is further...the further you move it back, the more difficult time I will have to kick it through.

So far the goal post isn't moving. If you want to prove a man existed, especially about whom nothing is told that isn't bound up in the supernatural, you need much better evidence than second hand reports written decades later, especially if those reports are not told in the style of history and do not reveal any awareness of the comparative value of sources.

Your arguments that the Gospels were somehow well researched, resulting from eyewitness accounts, or a sudden urge 30 years later on the part of eyewitness to write it all down, are absurd. They remain absurd. Far fetched perhapsing, won't get you anywhere.

I repeat:

The fact that you or anyone else can come up with reasons why we don't have evidence, does not create evidence. To prove something you need real evidence, not just an explanation for why you don't have it.

Well first of all, you would expect Christianity to spread rapidly immediately, if that were the case. But there's no real evidence it did.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95

Jerusalem was still predominately a Jewish city, Jenny.

What does that have to do with how fast Christianity spread? You claimed it spread rapidly, I present evidence that we don't know that it did. You respond, well Jerusalem was still Jewish. WTF?