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

[His_Majesty]

I understand your ignorance, h/m. You cannot help yourself because you have been indoctrinated by pious asswipes.

Try to learn something....but don't scare yourself. The truth is you simply do not know what the fuck you are talking about.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-21103-p...#pid513676

I don't know what the fuck I am talking about? I said that there is historical evidence for Jesus "the man", and that the vast majority of historians, most of whom aren't even Christians, that Jesus the man existed.

That is basically all that I said, and both are facts...so how don't I know when I am talking about when I gave two facts?

That is what happens when you are so quick to attack, you end up typing dumb shit, as you just did.

[dyresand]

You wouldn't know an ad hominem if it bit you on the ass.

You're stupid, because you compare the existence of a person for whom no contemporary source exists, versus on where a great many contemporary sources do.

You are the one that is stupid, because you are making my point despite being to stupid to realize that to be the case.

You said "verse on where a agreat many contemporary sources do"...so how do yo know that they are contemporary sources...ohhh, wait, right back to believing what you were told, right?

Like I said, made my point for me.

So, yes, it would appear that you really are that stupid. Which, incidentally, is not an ad hominem - it's an inescapable conclusion one reaches when reading your arguments.

You believe that there are contemporary sources for George Washington's presidency based soley on what you were told. You were not there...you only go by what someone else told you, and you don't even know if that person was there

Stupid.

As I have better things to do at the moment, I'll leave the arguments to my counterparts here, and resume the regularly scheduled mocking you so richly deserve.

Your counterparts can't handle me either. I began this thread so I can purposely intellectually spank every single person on here that has something to say....and I am doing a damn good job of it

To win your argument HM ill even give you a hint and help you a bit.
the biggest thing you would need to find a historical record that is unbiased and it is proof of the existence of jesus. <- google and exclude christian websites as they will say here is the proof but there is none.

[FatAndFaithless]

Ahh, the old "If you don't agree with me you're dumb" technique. Effective on the playground, HM, but you might need something like...actual corroborated evidence...or something like that if you want to make a point here.

[His_Majesty]

HM, there is one thing you probably need to be aware of.
Whilst your "proofs" maybe satisfactory to you, they are not sufficient for us.

You need to present much better evidence than you have been.

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

And for you to continue to rant that we should accept it makes you to appear as nothing more than some petulant child having a tantrum.

Just a thought.

Here is just a thought, too. The vast majority of historians, some who aren't friendly to Christianity at all, is willing to accept the sources that I provided as historical evidence that Jesus the man existed...the vast majority, and there are many out there.

The fact that this small group on this forum thinks otherwise is no problem...the fact that Jesus existed is an issue that most historical skeptics regarding Christianity and Christians can actually agree on...if you are not on board...that is your issue.

[Mudhammam]

Unfortunately, if you, like Thomas L. Brodie, the Irish Roman Catholic priest in the Dominican Order, come out in support of the Christ-myth theory, you're more than likely to surrender your job position, as Brodie was forced to do.

[FatAndFaithless]

The vast majority of historians, some who aren't friendly to Christianity at all, is willing to accept the sources that I provided as historical evidence that Jesus the man existed...the vast majority, and there are many out there.

You just keep repeating that over and over as if it's evidence for your point. You already agreed that the fact that a number of historians agree does not make it true, so stop using that statement as if it does.

[Esquilax]

Think you can play by the rules and actually engage in your opponents assertions this time?

Why would he start now? Dismissing everything out of hand and pretending his opponents haven't said anything has done wonders for stroking his ego so far.

[DeistPaladin]

The question is, how do you know who was the first President?? Regardless of what answer you give, you are relying on what you were told from someone else.

I know this because of the historical records.

Now before you get all excited and say, "Ah HA, so why don't you believe the historical records of the miracles of Jesus?", it's because (1) I distinguish between folklore and history (see Washington's Cherry Tree story) and (2) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The divinity and miracles of Jesus are extraordinary claims that are only supported by what are, at best, legends.

Rematch?

Yeah.

Didn't you notice, the other guy tucked tail and fled?

By the way, a bit more education for you: An "ad hominem" is not just an insult. It's an insult used in place of an argument.

Example A: "I won't debate you because you're an idiot" (Ad hominem)
Example B: "You're an idiot because...." (not necessarily an ad hominem)

You're welcome.

---

Think you can play by the rules and actually engage in your opponents assertions this time?

Why would he start now? Dismissing everything out of hand and pretending his opponents haven't said anything has done wonders for stroking his ego so far.

Frankly, this one will do better if he just stays for the whole debate instead of fleeing the scene.

[Esquilax]

I don't know what the fuck I am talking about? I said that there is historical evidence for Jesus "the man", and that the vast majority of historians, most of whom aren't even Christians, that Jesus the man existed.

If most of the historians involved in this discussion aren't christians, doesn't that give you a little hint as to the parts of the Jesus story they don't accept as true? And since you keep prattling on about the vast majority of historians accepting something, as though an argument from popularity is a legitimate point, then doesn't that simple fact alone completely scuttle any future arguments for the resurrection of Jesus you care to make?

Or is this another one of those double standards things, where anything you can spin to fit what you want to be true is an effective argument, but it becomes a fallacy again the moment it supports something you disagree with, because you said so?

[dyresand]

HM, there is one thing you probably need to be aware of.
Whilst your "proofs" maybe satisfactory to you, they are not sufficient for us.

You need to present much better evidence than you have been.

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

And for you to continue to rant that we should accept it makes you to appear as nothing more than some petulant child having a tantrum.

Just a thought.

Here is just a thought, too. The vast majority of historians, some who aren't friendly to Christianity at all, is willing to accept the sources that I provided as historical evidence that Jesus the man existed...the vast majority, and there are many out there.

The fact that this small group on this forum thinks otherwise is no problem...the fact that Jesus existed is an issue that most historical skeptics regarding Christianity and Christians can actually agree on...if you are not on board...that is your issue.

lets see why history and historians are not fond of the Christ myth. If there was historical evidence of a Christ and a god where would it go why would it disappear. but we live in a real world looking for real truth. Not to mention the horrible things Christians did for god and pretty much said science is evil. If there was a record of a person named jesus out there then maybe just maybe its not the biblical jesus but some ordinary guy doing bronze age parlor tricks.