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

[The Grand Nudger]

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

....we should be...?

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?

Because people often reach silly conclusions for "reasons" that they can't quite demonstrate or articulate?

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.

So what...we wouldn't even dream of flirting with an appeal to authority/majority. I've asked you this very question...and it's a question that -you- will have to answer, do work.

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.

I think more work will be required on part 1, before part 2 has a snowballs chance in hell. "More work" as in a re-write, from the ground up.

[abaris]

Move on to the resurrection crap already, HM.

It will be more fun, since honestly I'm rather on your side on this one. I believe there has been some raving rabbi called Jesus or Kermit the frog for all I care. What I don't believe is that he was some divine being. That's all myth, and much older than that Jesus character.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that it's going to be difficult to establish that someone did some resurrecting without first establishing that there was someone -to do some resurrecting-. "Bob climbed Everest in 15 mins" - it's true, really...except the bit about there being a Bob, anyway.....

[Jackalope]

I think that it's going to be difficult to establish that someone did some resurrecting without first establishing that there was someone -to do some resurrecting-. "Bob climbed Everest in 15 mins" - it's true, really...except the bit about there being a Bob, anyway.....

Frankly, I think he's going to run into rather more serious trouble with part 2, even if we grant for sake of argument that the bloke existed.

[abaris]

I think that it's going to be difficult to establish that someone did some resurrecting without first establishing that there was someone -to do some resurrecting-.

But as much as I hate it, he got the basics right. Most historians actually do believe it to be a historical figure or collection thereoff. All legends have a true core. The point is, there's no record of anything other than some troublemaker wandering the land. Everything else is just been there, done that. Starting with Osiris, over Horus to Mythras and many other gods who supposedly have risen from the grave.

[The Grand Nudger]

Doesn't matter what "most historians believe". I'm seriously disappointed.....Is there even a record of a troublemaker? What basics did he get right?
(and I'd bend your credulity to breaking point on that "all legends have a true core" bit - how much do you know about the meso-american pantheon? For example, why do you think that they did the whole blood sacrifice bit?)

[Jackalope]

But as much as I hate it, he got the basics right. Most historians actually do believe it to be a historical figure or collection thereoff.

So? I frankly couldn't care less what they believe, I care about *why* they believe it.

Historians aren't trying to sell us a supernatural bill of goods, this joker is. I'll undermine his argument wherever it's weak - and it's weak down to it's very foundation.

The point is, there's no record of anything other than some troublemaker wandering the land.

There's not even any credible record of that.

[His_Majesty]

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

Because the sources seem honest, and modest....and not just a little modest, but VERY modest.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_..._criticism They all go by some sort of a historical method...and if you apply the historical method for Jesus, then you will draw the conclusion that it is likely that the MAN existed. Now of course, this is still far away from a Resurrected Jesus, but the man existed, nevertheless.

Hell, even Bart Erhman, who is a very highly skeptical Bible critic and new testament scholar...even he believes the historical evidence supports Jesus of Nazareth.

Now again, now one is saying that just because they believe it, it must be true...but the fact that even non-Christians can look pass their biases and admit "Well, the evidence does seem to point in that direction"...I think that speaks volumes.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hehehe, I wouldn't use Bart E. either....

But even taking these into account, there is not a single mythicist who teaches New Testament or Early Christianity or even Classics at any accredited institution of higher learning in the Western world. And it is no wonder why. These views are so extreme and so unconvincing to 99.99 percent of the real experts that anyone holding them is as likely to get a teaching job in an established department of religion as a six-day creationist is likely to land on in a bona fide department of biology.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehr...49544.html

Yeah, Bart...you might be on to something...now turn that statement inward....

HM...tell us, please, -why- the evidence suggests this, and what evidence it is that suggests this? You don't have to speak volumes...a couple of sentences will be sufficient.

[His_Majesty]

So? I frankly couldn't care less what they believe, I care about *why* they believe it.

Historians aren't trying to sell us a supernatural bill of goods, this joker is. I'll undermine his argument wherever it's weak - and it's weak down to it's very foundation.

Ok well how about this..you do your own research to figure out why...but the fact of the matter is, they do.

There's not even any credible record of that.

Obviously..."evidences" are subjective...but again, the record is credible enough for even non-Christians to believe it. Now whether or not this includes you, I don't really give a damn...because one could play the role of a "super skeptic" about any event or person in history...but if we are all honest with ourselves and willing to put our biases aside for just a second, then this wouldn't happen.