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

[downbeatplumb]

Has his Majesty made a cogent point yet?
I can't be bothered to read back too far.

[The Grand Nudger]

Negatron.

[His_Majesty]

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there a single one of your sources in this precursor to a case for christ that you feel you can redeem, particularly considering the comments offered to you about them? Seems to me.... that you'll need different sources -just- to establish the existence of a "jesus the man", before you can proceed with a "jesus the christ", what do you think?

[His_Majesty]

Is there a single one of your sources in this precursor to a case for christ that you feel you can redeem, particularly considering the comments offered to you about them?

No.

Seems to me.... that you'll need different sources -just- to establish the existence of a "jesus the man", before you can proceed with a "jesus the christ", what do you think?

As I said before, these sources are the same sources that the vast majority of historians have...and they all draw the same conclusion, that Jesus the man existed...in fact, the sources themselves only stated that "Jesus the man existed".....so for those on this forum that thinks otherwise, they are the ones that are in the minority, not me.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your appeals to authority -and majority- are unconvincing (and illogical), can you explain -why- they have reached this conclusion (particularly when none of them seem to have anything to say about any "jesus the man")? I could tell you that authorities in their fields don't believe in a god, have in fact concluded "no god" -but you wouldn't accept that..would you?

Why even offer the sources, why not just say "Lots of people believe it, so that settles it".....?

[His_Majesty]

Your appeals to authority -and majority- are unconvincing (and illogical)

Actually it isn't illogical...because I am not saying that just because the vast majority of historians today recognize Jesus as a historical figure, that it is true. I am saying the vast majority of of historians today believe that Jesus existed based on the very same sources that I presented on this thread. Nothing more, nothing less.

can you explain -why- they have reached this conclusion (particularly when none of them seem to have anything to say about any "jesus the man")?

None of them? How do you know? The fact is, as I keep stressing, that the vast majority of historians accept Jesus as a historical figure....Jesus "the man"...and the amazing part about it is not all of them are Christians...just because you accept Jesus as a historical figure doesn't make you a Christian...and most of you are under the false assumption that is does...which is why you have so many people on here doing every thing that can to raise objections to the sources, as if acknowledging that Jesus existed will automatically make them Christians...bullshit..you can accept that Jesus existed as a man, and just a man, and not have the burden of Christianity hanging over your head...which is what those that DO believe in Jesus "the man" have done. And again, the non-Christian sources themselves acknowledge that there existed a man behind the belief, who lived during the Tiberius administation and crucified by Pontius Pilate. Thats it.

I could tell you that authorities in their fields don't believe in a god, have in fact concluded "no god" -but you wouldn't accept that..would you?

Straw man. I never said nor implied that just because they believe it, that it is true. The quality of the accounts that I presented in this thread has been questioned, and I merely stated that the vast majority of all historians accept the sources, and most aren't even Christians. Nothing more, nothing less.

Why even offer the sources, why not just say "Lots of people believe it, so that settles it".....?

How does it feel to devote an entire post on a irrelevant straw man interpretation of what someone else said???

[The Grand Nudger]

Actually it isn't illogical...because I am not saying that just because the vast majority of historians today recognize Jesus as a historical figure, that it is true. I am saying the vast majority of of historians today believe that Jesus existed based on the very same sources that I presented on this thread. Nothing more, nothing less.

Ah, I see, you're essentially saying nothing - okay.

The fact is, as I keep stressing, that the vast majority of historians accept Jesus as a historical figure....Jesus "the man"...and the amazing part about it is not all of them are Christians...

What's the point of stressing something you've very accurately determined to be a non-point....as above?

Straw man. I never said nor implied that just because they believe it, that it is true. The quality of the accounts that I presented in this thread has been questioned, and I merely stated that the vast majority of all historians accept the sources, and most aren't even Christians. Nothing more, nothing less.

Right, a non-point, no argument...as above.

How does it feel to devote an entire post on a irrelevant straw man interpretation of what someone else said???

...except that you just keep "stressing it"as though it meant something, rather than addressing criticism by any other means. I can only respond to what you offer HM. If you had something of substance I would have responded to that - but you don't, so here we are.

[His_Majesty]

Ah, I see, you're essentially saying nothing - okay.

No, I don't think me and you are saying the same thing here...

What's the point of stressing something you've very accurately determined to be a non-point....as above?

The point is, if the sources are shaky, then why are so many historians, some of whom are non-Christian, saying that it is convincing enough for them?

Some of them are people who could care less about a Messiah, a cross, a Resurrection, yet they are at the very least willing to accept the fact that the man existed, based on the historical evidence.

...except that you just keep "stressing it", rather than addressing criticism by any other means.

Been there, done that, and ready to move on to part 2...unless you people want to keep yapping about part 1...we can do that too.

[Jackalope]

The point is, if the sources are shaky, then why are so many historians, some of whom are non-Christian, saying that it is convincing enough for them?

You tell us. Why do you find them convincing, apart from the dubious fact that other people do as well?

You're still cloaking this in a thinly-veiled argument from authority whether you realize it or not. We all understand what historians believe these sources tell us. What's missing is WHY they think that, and HOW they came to those conclusions.