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

[Cyberman]

Everything you have presented so far has been rejected in detail.

Indeed; and not simply out of hand either. We've submitted genuine, pragmatic reasons for dismissing what's been presented and explained precisely why it's not compelling. And to what result? The objections have been rejected out of hand...

Someone around here is being unreasonable and I'm buggered if I can put my finger on who.

[dyresand]

Everything you have presented so far has been rejected in detail.

Indeed; and not simply out of hand either. We've submitted genuine, pragmatic reasons for dismissing what's been presented and explained precisely why it's not compelling. And to what result? The objections have been rejected out of hand...

Someone around here is being unreasonable and I'm buggered if I can put my finger on who.

some people will reject and reject and keep rejecting claims. they want it to happen but history said it did not and to move on. some people have a mind set of i want to believe this to be true no matter what credible evidence goes against it. i have no idea why but that is faith in a nutshell.

[Mudhammam]

But Paul says he visited and stayed with Jesus' brother and his best friend!!! ;-)

Yes, because there was only one dude with that name in all of Palestine.

An even better way to come at is that, apart from Acts and the Gospels, which mainstream academia admits don't record reliable history, we know little to nothing about the historical lives, including characters and reputations, of Jesus, James, or Peter, their relationships to one another or the population at large, or THE SPECIFICS OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. The best we can say is that the latter two were possibly "pillars" or leaders in the first "Nazorean" or Jewish Christian "church" in Jerusalem which had an innovative, syncretic, new, popular religion to sell, and that Paul was perhaps it's most enthusiastic, influential, and interesting convert.

[DeistPaladin]

So answer the question......how do you know that George Washington was the first President of the U.S??

A bit of US trivia for you: George Washington was NOT the first president of the US.

That title went to John Hancock, who was the president during the Articles of Confederation, prior to when our Constitution was written.

This is a part of our history that our textbooks gloss over. I didn't learn about it until college. In retrospect, I don't know why I didn't question the gap between the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783 to the signing of the Constitution in 1787.

The truth is that our founders' first attempt at creating a government was a dismal failure. We were barely united at all, unable to pay our war debts or maintain order between the states. At one point, two states nearly went to war with one another. John Hancock was little more than a figurehead. We were so uneasy about a new monarchy that we went too far to the other extreme, creating a government that couldn't maintain order at all.

I'm fond of the "child of Britain" analogy to describe our country as I find the metaphor descriptive when you look at our founding as a nation. Using that anthropomorphous metaphor, we can describe our war of independence as an adolescent rebellion (we were the hell-raising, wild, rebellious one while our northern sibling Canada was the "good child", or at least the mellow stoner who lived in the parent's basement, moving out of the house only gradually). After storming out of the house, we tried to reinvent the wheel. Then after failing, we asked ourselves "how does mom do it". We copied the British government as it existed at the time making a few changes (most notably spinning out the judiciary into its own branch.

Whenever I explain our seemingly Byzantine government system to British people, I tell them it's based on the government they had at the time. The old struggles between monarch and parliament are now reflected in our struggles between president and congress.

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Even the hell-raising rebellious child winds up becoming like their parents.

So as much as we like to gloss over our founding fathers' disastrous first attempt at a government and how, under questionable legal conditions, they hit the "do over" button in 1787, it's still part of our history. John Hancock was technically our first president.

As for Jesus, I've already had this debate but if you want to offer a rematch because you think you can do better, feel free.

[Mudhammam]

George Washington's that guy who hacked down his father's cherry tree, right?

[Mister Agenda]

I see at 25 pages in, we've established that Jesus may or may not have really existed, that the early Christian church may or may not have been based on his teachings, and that there were definitely early Christians.

Very productive, everyone, and I think that's as far as it's possible to go on the historicity of Jesus, so I presume HM will be moving to Part 2.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right, and based on these sources the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

[Citation needed]

---

Doesn't matter what "most historians believe".

I want to know, who polled them, how large was the sample size, where it was located, exactly what questions were asked, and other such data, before I accept that claim, anyway.

Four out of five dentists prefer Trident, too ... if you ask the right dentists the right questions.

[Esquilax]

Everything you have presented so far has been rejected in detail.

Indeed; and not simply out of hand either. We've submitted genuine, pragmatic reasons for dismissing what's been presented and explained precisely why it's not compelling. And to what result? The objections have been rejected out of hand...

Someone around here is being unreasonable and I'm buggered if I can put my finger on who.

But, but, H_M keeps telling us how much he's winning the thread! How can someone who keeps bragging about how great they're doing be unreasonable?

[LastPoet]

To further explain this subject:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

[DeistPaladin]

George Washington's that guy who hacked down his father's cherry tree, right?

Thank you. You just help me underscore how we evaluate claims and why, when Christians keep saying "how do you know [X person] of history existed" doesn't help their case.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mundane claims are often accepted with testimony and the lack of contrary evidence.

So, Washington existed: Mundane claim more than adequately supported.
The folklore about the Cherry Tree: Not accepted as it's a pretty unusual claim, not supported by anything but a story.
That he threw a silver dollar across the Potomac: Extraordinary claim not accepted.

By the way, my dad came back to life today. He was cremated but his ashes reconstituted themselves into a body and he's feeling much better now. I'm sure I can find four "witnesses" who can write about what they saw. So tell me HM, would you accept that claim? If not, why not?