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

[Minimalist]

Still involves shit, Abaris.

[abaris]

Still involves shit, Abaris.

Yup, but useful for taking one. Well, there are a lot of ifs involved. If the paper is right, if the situation is dire and if your anus actually appreciates the treatment.

But for emergencies, everyone should carry a bible. You never know what life throws at you and you end up with stained pants.

[Whateverist]

You may as well talk to a stone wall. This guy is a fucking asshole.


From Richard Carrier's 'On the Historicity of Jesus:'

So what's up? Did you want to discuss anything? Aside from a few remarks about what others have said, you don't seem to have anything to say. That's okay of course. I guess our company is pretty irresistible.

If you've said anywhere why your username asserts atheism to be illogical, I've missed it. What an odd assertion. You believe in shit you can't point to but you find our unwillingness to do the same illogical. Whatever.

[Minimalist]

The only complaint I have with Carrier's work is that he assigns - arbitrarily - too high a historical probability level to some of this jesus freak horseshit.

But you can bet your ass that morons like him won't agree...not that they would even read something which dismissed their bullshit god for the myth that it is.

[His_Majesty]

H_M,

You proposed that the majority of non-Christian historians believe there is a historical Jesus. You, after much badgering came up with five names and no citations. I pointed out that with one possible exception all of their academic training is theological not historical and that several of them are Christians. And for all your large caps, that remains the case.

Several of them? I only listed 5, and each one is a historian some capacity...they all specialize in specific kinds of history..namely, the NT, origins of Christianity, etc...and they are all leading authorities in the field.

They are writing articles, peer reviewed journals, books, etc, based on this specific genre of history, and that is Christianity/the Historical Jesus.

Interesting you should post Craig's assessment of Crossan rather than Crossan himself. Crossan does not believe in Jesus embodied the his corpse after death or that it happened as outlined in the Gospels. But he does believe in the resurrection. https://earliestchristianity.wordpress.c...valuation/http://ionofhope.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...c-crossan/----So no, he's not an atheist and is by his own account a Christian.

Well, replace him with Will Durant, who is a historian, who said himself that he is an agnostic, apparently in a book before his death..

"I am still an agnostic, with pantheistic overtones. The sight of plants and children growing inclines me to define divinity as creative power, and to reverence this in all its manifestations, even when they injure me. I cannot reconcile the existence of consciousness with a deterministic and mechanistic philososphy. I am skeptical not only of theology but also of philosophy, science, history, and myself. I recognize supersensory possibilities but not supernatural powers."

So he is an agnostic, and he said this about Jesus...


The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.

So, it still remains at 5. For every one you take out, I can add another...but wait, it gets better.

WOW and admission you're wrong. Congratulations.

I wasn't wrong, I was "mistaken"...there is a difference

You have to read the article in context. He is listing the events as found in the Bible.

But he is a Christian. Read before you post. E.P. Sanders is your addition now, not on your earlier list.

Saunders and Crossan are Christian, though you wouldn't get along well with their theology. So that's two. You may have found a substitute for Saunders, but he is a Christian that was on your list. Tabor is a possible third.

Skeptic does not equal atheist. It's very hard to determine what Tabor believes.

And that has what to do with your proposition that there are numerous non-Christian historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus? Your list was supposed to be of non-Christians.

Again has nothing to do with whether there are many non-Christian historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus.

Theologian and historian are rather different disciplines and often at odds with each other as one requires faith and the other does not. Most of the men on your list are actually historians. But none of them with the possible exception of Tabor has any formal historical education. They all come out of Divinity school.

Note: I agree that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus. But the vast majority of biblical historians are Christian and unlike historians of other areas they tend to be theologians and literary people by training. You've had a hard time coming up with five historians who aren't Christian but do believe in a historical Jesus. In fact, you haven't managed it quite yet.

Grant, Erhman, Ludmann, and possibly Tabor. You're two short even after adding Grant.

Let's take everything that you said above and compare that to what actual historians regarding this particular subject matter say.

"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus .... We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period."

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

"We can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ..... In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

The late Michael Grant, eminent historian of the Roman Empire

"Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E."

Prof James Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary

"Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it [the theory that Jesus didn't exist] as effectively refuted."

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did"

NT Wright

All of that is derived from http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wa...real.shtml

But wait, there's more... http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm (Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth )

And watch this freakin' video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LP15Pc2Lljc

You can only fight it for so long, Jenny.

[Minimalist]

Habermas. Liberty Univ. Enough said.

[DeistPaladin]

"...We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period."

Prof Bart Ehrman, University of North Carolina

WOW!

Bart Ehrman actually said that? Well, I supposed it depends what you mean by "almost anybody". How many historical characters are allowed for with that "almost" fudge factor?

Clearly, he really isn't a historian. Or he's being dishonest.

[Silver]

Let's take everything that you said above and compare that to what actual historians regarding this particular subject matter say.

Are you referring to biased historians who will bend anything to their way of believing or are you referring to unbiased historians? Goodness knows, Christians since the beginning of time have never been able to be trusted to provide any real facts in relation to their faith, because lying to preserve the faith is above reproach.

[Jenny A]

Once again, you can find "experts" on either side of this issue. You claimed that even a majority of atheist historians agreed that Jesus was historical. But you sure seem to have difficulties demonstrating that.

Robert Van Voorst, Western Theological Seminary

"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did"

Van Voorst man have said it, but that doesn't make him right. And Van Voorst is an pastor, not an atheist. His education is theological. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Van_Voorst And I just gave you a list of atheist historians who disagree.

Several of them? [atheist historians who believe in a historical Jesus] I only listed 5, and each one is a historian some capacity...they all specialize in specific kinds of history..namely, the NT, origins of Christianity, etc...and they are all leading authorities in the field.

They are writing articles, peer reviewed journals, books, etc, based on this specific genre of history, and that is Christianity/the Historical Jesus.

Uh huh, but you didn't get to five, which is the point, huh?

Interesting you should post Craig's assessment of Crossan rather than Crossan himself. Crossan does not believe in Jesus embodied the his corpse after death or that it happened as outlined in the Gospels. But he does believe in the resurrection.

---

https://earliestchristianity.wordpress.c...valuation/http://ionofhope.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...c-crossan/

---

----So no, he's not an atheist and is by his own account a Christian.

Well, replace him with Will Durant, who is a historian, who said himself that he is an agnostic, apparently in a book before his death..

Citation please. I'm tired of Googling to find you can't read. If Durant counts, don't just quote LINK.

I wasn't wrong, I was "mistaken"...there is a difference

I think I'll just let that stand as a refutation of your general trustworthiness and accuracy.

Again has nothing to do with whether there are many non-Christian historians who believe in the historicity of Jesus.

Theologian and historian are rather different disciplines and often at odds with each other as one requires faith and the other does not. Most of the men on your list are actually historians. But none of them with the possible exception of Tabor has any formal historical education. They all come out of Divinity school.

Note: I agree that the vast majority of historians believe in the historicity of Jesus. But the vast majority of biblical historians are Christian and unlike historians of other areas they tend to be theologians and literary people by training. You've had a hard time coming up with five historians who aren't Christian but do believe in a historical Jesus. In fact, you haven't managed it quite yet.

Grant, Erhman, Ludmann, and possibly Tabor. You're two short even after adding Grant.

Let's take everything that you said above and compare that to what actual historians regarding this particular subject matter say.

No, let's stick to the point that you have a hard time finding those atheist historians who think the historicity of Jesus is proven fact. I already told you I agree that the majority of biblical historians (who are majority Christian and who do not have historical training) believe in a historical Jesus.

I'm not arguing anything more that you won't find a vast majority of non-Christian historians who believe in a historical Jesus. That is my point. Unlike you, I won't argue beyond the actual facts.

So, back to the texts you began with. Don't like that? That's because when we leave the rhetoric and appeals to authority and look at the actual evidence, it ain't so good, is it?

I won't argue that a mythical Jesus is proven, but the historicity is Jesus is not proven.

[His_Majesty]

No, you didn't. You linked to one entry in a wikipedia bibliography, the information in which consisted of title, author, publisher, and ISBN. There was no indication that the book containted a study, and there was no information that I had asked for.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/wa...real.shtml

http://www.bede.org.uk/price1.htm

The same shit I gave Jenny. There are agnostics and atheists on the list, and if they are confirming that the historical weight is on the side of Jesus' existence, then we should listen to them.

Stating that you satisfied my request is dishonest on your part. But it's cool, I've already figured out that you're a liar. I'm just elucidating it for anyone else reading this thread.

I am already winning, so to lie WHILE I am winning would just be an overkill..not to mention the fact that I am not a liar, anyway...and I don't need to mislead anyone regarding anything on here...since I am on the winning side of things and when you are winning, there is no need to cheat.

As I said before, do a freakin google search if you are not satisfied with what I am giving you, instead of just sitting on your ass and waiting to be hand fed information.

Except, that isn't the topic here, now is it? The topic is, you are going to demonstrate Christ's existence.

Which I did, which convinces not only me, but the broader spectrum of actual historians.

You're failing miserably, and desperately tossing out any critique, real or imagined, you can think of in order to smokescreen your utter inability to deliver the goods.

Yet, historians agree with me?

Rather than admit that your faith is Jesus is faith, you're driven to cloak it in academic respectability.

Were you there when George Washington became President of the United States? No? Then you accept by faith that he was. Do you believe historians when they tell you we have contemporary accounts of GW? No. Then you accept by faith that the accounts are true.

So, admit that your belief in GW is faith. You...were...not...there. All you know is what people told you, and they could have been lying.

I used to be surprised at how many believers are absolutely ashamed to admit that their beliefs are faith, but no more.

You used to be surprised? Well, I am currently surprised at how non-believers think that believers are the only ones playing the faith game...as if they are ignorant of the fact that the entire field of history is one big faith game. None of us were there...the only thing we can determine, or TRY to determine is what...based on the evidence, PROBABLY happened.

And historians just aren't divided on this issue, Parkers. The majority of all historians believe that based on the evidence, Jesus Christ existed.

I've provided both quotes and videos to back up my side of things...and I challenge you to find me one video or otherwise of someone stating a "majority historical opinion" on the con side of the question of Jesus of Nazareth' existence. And guarandamntee you would be able to do so...because that it just isn't there.

From the perspective of a nonbeliever, there are only two reasons for you to gussy up your faith in the trappings of science: you either wish to convince me, or you wish to convince yourself.

Whether or not I can convince you is questionable...but what isn't questionable is whether or not I will combat opposing views regarding Jesus Christ...that isn't questionable...and btw, I don't need to convince myself. I'm already convinced that Jesus is my Lord and Savior, and I will die believing that.

And if you wish to convince me, your dishonesty is going to torpedo that effort.

I don't think you want to be convinced that Jesus or God exists. If you wanted to be convinced, you wouldn't be arguing the notion of whether life can come from nonlife, and whether consciousness can come from unconsciousness...and you also would not be in denial about something as so simple as the existence of a man whom the world's largest religion originated from.

When you continue to argue against common sense, you are light years away from being convinced. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to the water, but you can't make it drink.

That's not methodolgy. That is data. Data which you have proved reticent to provide. Hell, if I had something as rock-solid as you claim to have, I'd be beating your face in with my numbers. The fact that you're hiding these numbers means that either they don't support your claim, or you just pulled your claim out of thin air. Which is it?

I never said I have statistical numbers, but I do a lot of research, a lot of reading, and time and time again I see the same thing from different people regarding Jesus...almost everyone is saying that the man existed. There is no historian (that I'm aware of) that speaks in broad terms to the left of this subject. All of these men, both believers and non-believers are saying that the vast majority of people within their fields of study believe that Jesus existed, and they wouldn't be making these kinds of statements if that isn't what the majority consensus is within the field.

No. You've asserted that you can demonstrate the historicity of Jesus. In pursuing that intent, you've asserted that the "vast majority" of historians regard his existence as historical. I have asked you for supporting data.

Again, I never said I have stats...I am going by what those that are in the field are saying. Again, this is not saying that just because the majority believes it, it is true...this is saying that the majority of those in the field are persuaded by the sources that I provided...since you guys were attacking the sources.