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

[Exian]

"Well, I've already decided I'm right, and no matter what evidence is presented, I'll deny it or change the subject, so...yeah I'll take on the whole school."

So brave of you.

[Jenny A]

There is no controversy that people calling themselves Christians existed at during Nero's reign and that Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome.

Um...yes there is.

Really?

[His_Majesty]

Hey watch it there. Where do those sources ever reference Jesus being from Nazareth? Might as well have said "Those sources show Jesus was the son of God."

People didn't have last names during that time...and since "Jesus" was a popular name during that time, a way to distinguish him from the rest of those with the same name was to call him "Jesus of Nazareth". Now, of course none of those sources say "Jesus of Nazareth", but we know that they are speaking of the same person based on the other things that they stated.

So please, lets not start with the petty objections.

[GrandizerII]

Jesus was most probably a real person, as was Socrates (neither of them wrote anything down personally). From what I understand the historical records do seem to suggest Jesus was crucified by the Romans. We also know that Socrates was sentenced to death by poisoning.

The difference is you believe in some unsubstantiated magical re-appearing act pulled off by one of them, which is not exta-biblically supported. That would be like me saying we have historical records the Socrates took the hemlock and died but there is one book by the Bloo-loon society who believe he came back from the dead with a giant hole through his middle clearly indicating he wanted us all to worship donuts. That's how fucking silly your religion sounds to me.

Stop conflating fact with your fictions in an effort to prop them up, it's painfully transparent and frankly juvenile.

MM

Now now now, no need to take any personal jabs here. The thread is only to establish the existence of Jesus, we haven't got to the heavy stuff yet. If you agree that Jesus existed as a person in human history in even the slightest way, then we at least agree on that part...so therefore I don't expect to hear from you any more in this thread since you agree with me. There just simply isn't any more to discuss at this time.

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.

[Jenny A]

There is no controversy that people calling themselves Christians existed at during Nero's reign and that Nero blamed them for the burning of Rome.

Um...yes there is.

Really or are we talking about the difference between blamed and scape goated.

[Silver]

Hello folks,

I will cut to the chase.

You did not, and you provided crap. So fuck you.

[His_Majesty]

This tired old bullshit again?!?

For fucks sake, you'd think these asshats would find some new material.

This is like someone watching a 5 hour highlight session of Michael Jordan and saying "This same old fadeaway jumpshot: For fucks sake, you'd think that asshole would create a new move."

Sorry charlie, he will continue to shoot the same old fadeaway until the defense can learn to stop it.

See where I'm going with this?

---

There is no new material. Even the old material is horseshit.


I have to go walk the dogs. We'll see if this moron shows up again to try to defend his nonsense.

When you go out with the dogs, who is actually doing the walking?

[Zen Badger]

Hey watch it there. Where do those sources ever reference Jesus being from Nazareth? Might as well have said "Those sources show Jesus was the son of God."

People didn't have last names during that time...and since "Jesus" was a popular name during that time, a way to distinguish him from the rest of those with the same name was to call him "Jesus of Nazareth". Now, of course none of those sources say "Jesus of Nazareth", but we know that they are speaking of the same person based on the other things that they stated.

So please, lets not start with the petty objections.

So you have evidence for the resurrection and the miracles?

Good-o, let's see it then.

[Silver]

See where I'm going with this?

Not really. It seems to me you're just full of sht.

When you go out with the dogs, who is actually doing the walking?

You, because you enjoy walking them?

[Exian]

Petty objections? That's the exact point at which, if this was a video or a live congregation, a preacher would try to fit the entire bible. "These sources show that a man named Jesus of Nazareth, our lord and savior, the son of GOD, who found it in his ever loving heart to sacrificed himself to save us from an eternity of damnation at the hands of Sataaaaaan himself, a man sent by God to show us the path to the light, to the glory of God Almighty!....existed", in hopes that by the time the verbal masturbation is over, the flock will have forgotten the point all together. When really they say "Jesus" or "Christians". This isn't a petty objection, because its not an objection at all. I was pointing it out for fellow readers who may come along and be misled by the tactic of diverting attention from what the sources actually say, while ascribing much more information to them than is actually there.