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

[Minimalist]

From a jesus freak site on Van Voorst:

In Jesus outside the New Testament, Robert Van Voorst gives 7 reasons why historians are confident Jesus lived:

The Apostle Paul did not say a lot about Jesus (an argument sometimes used by sceptics, but this is an argument from silence and therefore invalid without positive evidence). But Paul did know about Jesus, and was unlikely to write a lot of historical detail in letters.

The gospels are too early for invention (too many people would have remembered the real facts), and their accurate references to Palestinian geography would not have been possible if the stories were invented later.

The development of the early christians' understanding of Jesus which can be seen in the gospels (another argument sometimes used) is not sufficient to justify the belief that they were inventions.

No early opponents of Christianity, whether pagan or Jew, ever denied that Jesus truly lived, or even questioned it.

Scholars are generally agreed that references to Jesus in the Roman historian Tacitus (early second century) and the Jewish historian Josephus (late first century) are both genuine, though some parts of Josephus appear to be later additions.

Most arguments that Jesus wasn't a historical figure have come from people opposed to Christianity and thus not unbiased, whereas scholars of all viewpoints from atheists to Christians accept the historicity of Jesus.

Proponents of the mythical Jesus view have not been able to offer any credible hypothesis that explains the stories of Jesus and the birth of Christianity.

This is apologetic nonsense.

1 - Paul seems as phony as "jesus." He does not appear even in the xtian record until the 2d century and that is a big fucking problem.

2- The "earliness" of the gospels is part of the story...like Luke Skywalker being born on Tattooine. We have no evidence at all of this claim..which does not prevent jesus freaks from regurgitating it relentlessly. Nonetheless, the earliest fragments of copies are also 2d century.

3- Not evidence. Merely a baseless assertion.

4- Why would there be early opponents if the story itself is not early?
We see xtian dogma fleshed out - more or less - in Justyn Martyr c 160 AD and almost immediately we have Lucian of Samosata making fun of it and 20 years later Celsus is blasting the living shit out of it.
But if there is no "jesus" in the first century how could anyone "oppose" it?

5- Xtian wet dream. The evidence for Tacitus is mainly wishful thinking and Josephus is an obvious forgery. The 11th century manuscript of Tacitus' Annales shows under ultraviolet light that the word was "chrestianos" not "christianos." This puts Tacitus' manuscript more in tune with what his contemporary Suetonius wrote when he said that "Chrestus was causing trouble in Rome" during the reign of Claudius.
The Chrestus/Christos enigma is bizarre but the fact remains that neither Suetonius, Pliny nor apparently Tacitus ever heard of any fucking "jesus." Josephus was called a forgery by Bishop Warburton in the 1760s. It remained such until embarrassed fundie preachers decided to breath life back into the corpse by claiming that there was a watered down version of it....which they cannot produce anywhere except their own imaginations.

6- Most arguments that jesus was a historical person come from people with a decided bias...not to mention financial interest...in asserting that there was one. Add in the fact that for 1800 years these fine xtians would burn anyone at the stake who denied their godboy and point #6 fades into oblivion. Now that the church has lost its power to murder people they are losing control....as evidenced by the empty churches which are worrying them so.

7- Simply untrue. Stories of assorted heavenly horseshit fill the literature of the Hellenistic world...which jesus freaks might learn if they put their fucking bibles down long enough to learn something useful.

You'll have to do better than Van Voorst.

[robvalue]

I think I'll have to borrow a phrase here; "What if you're wrong?" You wasted the only life you have worshipping something that isn't there, funding and supporting an institution of imaginary characters.

[His_Majesty]

As evidence? No. But you're still trying to use it to justify an extraordinary claim.

Ok, well lets pretend that abiogenesis isn't an extraordinary claim...lets pretend that it is a natural, ordinary claim. So, where is the evidence for it?? See, you can't even prove an ordinary, natural claim...but then you have the nerve to say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" when you have a natural, ordinary claim that you can't prove??

My point was that you just saying "that's a played out atheist catchphrase. It's not effective," is not an argument. It's just a flat out dismissal, like the one you just gave when picked up on your dishonest deflection, and it doesn't suddenly make the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" point invalid, just because you think it doesn't work, presumably solely because of how inconvenient it is for your position.

That is fine..the only problem is, I wasn't using it as an argument.

Miller-Yurey, and John Oros' experiments. That's literally one hundred percent more indication than we have for intelligent design of any stripe. Thus, probabilistically- which I'd remind you is the method you asked me to use- it is more likely that no intelligent designer was necessary or involved. I don't happen to think this is some magic bullet sure shot win for natural causes, just one point worth mentioning, but don't ask me to use a certain method and then laugh at me for using that method, asshole.

Did Miller and that other guy experiment create life from nonlife? If you are honest, you will answer "No".

They didn't create life from nonlife, but even if they DID..hypothetically speaking, even if they did...what would that prove? That intelligent design was needed!! And not only that, but then they would have to get that life to think, which is an independent problem from abiogenesis!!!

As I've said before, these are all independent problems, so get Miller back in the lab and tell him to hold his breath until he can conduct the right experiment that will guarantee life from non-life

Incidentally... inanimate matter beginning to live? You mean, like Adam coming to life from dirt?

But the life itself came from something that was already living (God)...so still, it wasn't life from nonlife, it was life from life, you know, what we are all accustomed to actually seeing.

Oh no, I forgot: that's your beliefs. Apparently those don't require evidence at all, nor do any of your arguments also apply to them. Because you said so.

Hey, yeah, I believe in the Genesis account of how life began, but the difference between my belief and yours is simple; I am not calling my belief science...I know my belief is beyond the realms of science and nature itself...your beliefs ARE SUPPOSED to be scientific/nature related, so I expect, based on observation and repeated experiment to be able to witness abiogenesis...so far, nothing.

Not only that, but I can't even conceive the thought of life coming from nonlife or consciousness from unconsciousness...these things are so unnatural to me, that I can't even conceive the thought.

I could say that a brain is a necessary but not sufficient cause for consciousness, with life being another component.

Wait a minute, so there could be consciousness with no brain?

But you're equivocating, since even the sentence you quoted doesn't say anything about consciousness, it speaks about life.

I mentioned consciousness because it is a dual problem for you. I always link the two together to give my point an extra umph.

That consciousness evolves as a part of life is well documented, regardless of your simplistic, offhand dismissals without looking at any of the evidence.

Cart before the horse fallacy, yet again. You are telling me that something evolved, but in order to evolve, it has to exist...but the origin of its existence is what is in question.

But you're not going to re-route the conversation midway through when you can't actually answer the point; we know that the components of life, organic matter and so on, are naturally occurring, and that the building blocks of those can form without direction from outside sources. That was my point, that those things are readily demonstrable as real, and yet magic designers are not.

That is like saying "We have all of the ingredients to make the pizza, we just don't know how to make it".

If Domino's had that kind of mindset, they wouldn't be in business.

Once again, this is a question you asked me. I didn't bring this up, you did, and the least you could do is stay on topic rather than throwing desperate non-sequiturs at me in an attempt to deflect.

One conversation leads to another...such is life

You asked for a probabilistic model, shitlord! Besides, the fact that physical matter exists is demonstrable, as is the laboratory experiments I pointed you to earlier! Jesus fucking christ, are you even reading what you write?

So because "physical matter exists", therefore, abiogenesis is true?

That is about as worse of a non sequitur I've seen.

I don't think you know very much about scientific theories if you think they're that easy to come by.

Apparently they are...but instead of God, it is "In the beginning, nature..."

But probabilistically, which again, is what you asked for, there is a greater probability of abiogenesis happening versus intelligent design, since we have experimental results, and the components of abiogenesis have the advantage of being readily apparent to all.

You have no background knowledge or data to determine what is more probable...so kill that noise.

Oh, and intelligent design by supernatural space wizards has never been observed either, so...

I admit that my belief is one of faith...can you do that for yours?

I actually mentioned that in my probability model above. Strange that you missed it; I guess it was inconvenient to your position too.

What you mentioned was a failed experiment.

Yeah, but oversimplified strawmen are your bag, not mine.

Straw man my ass...if you negate intelligent design, what else are you left with but nature...therefore, NATUREDIDIT!!!

So you believe your god is eternal? After spending a few weeks explaining to us why you think eternities are impossible? Hmm...

I never said eternities were impossible, I said ACTUAL infinities are impossible. Fundamental difference there that you are obviously ignorant of.

Besides, "began to exist" doesn't absolve you of this problem either; you still believe in a lifeform that exists without requiring another life form to do so, something that you're claiming is impossible. So when you say "life comes from life" you evidently don't believe that.

Listen carefully...because you are apparently lost in your own pile of crap...when I talk about how life can't come from nonlife, I am talking about life that BEGAN to exist. Being the monotheistic Christian that I am, I don't believe in any necessary being besides God, so therefore I believe that God is an uncaused cause...which means that God doesn't require any outside source to sustain his existence. You follow me?

I dont know what part of that you dont understand..but I dont think I can help you any further.

The really rich thing is that if I tell you that life didn't "begin to exist" either, you'd probably start yammering about how impossible that is.

If you told me that life didn't begin to exist, you will be intellectually dishonest, and if you have to be intellectually dishonest just to hold on to your atheism, then that is very, very ,very sad and it goes to show the great lengths one will go to continue in their disbelief.

Another problem with what you just said is that we've never seen a life or consciousness that didn't begin to exist, so under the same logic you were using on me a moment ago, we have no reason to believe it... And yet you do. Still a hypocrite, I see.

Well I will put it to you this way; we know that life on this earth began, so the question is where did it come from...and we know there couldn't have been an infinite number of causes which lead to it...therefore, in order for the event of life's origins to come to past, it had to come from a past-boundary...and a first cause which initiated the chain of events which lead to it.

Yes, I'm aware that a lot of christian apologetics comes down to "god is the thing that does the thing that resolves the problem Ive defined into existence by fiat, by being able to violate the rules I've set in place by similar fiat." I'm just also aware, apparently unlike apologists, that if you have to propose a thing that violates the rules you've set in order to resolve a problem, then those rules evidently do not apply consistently, and thus are not a problem at all.

Please enlighten me on exactly what rules are being violated.

Seriously, boiled down, your first cause argument is basically "Life only comes from life, so therefore we need a life which doesn't come from life in order to make the first life, and that thing is called god." Your conclusion, regardless of the semantic "begins to exist" tricks you want to pull, violates the first premise you erect as a problem that needs to be resolved.

It is not a semantic trick, it is a fact...life on this earth began...no one is disputing that. If we go back in time to when there was no life, either we will go back in time to eternity past at which no future event would be possible, or we go back in time to where we would reach a past boundary at which the trail leads to something that was already living.

The first one is logically impossible, so the second one wins by default...hands down.

If you don't believe that life needs to come from life then fine, but don't pretend that you do so that you can force other people to play by rules you have no intention of playing by yourself.

A first cause' life doesn't need to come from life, obviously...but a life that BEGAN to exist, like yours and mines, does need to come from life.

By the way, how did you determine that it's possible for life to exist without beginning to exist? How did you observe that?

Because the existence of life cannot be extended into past eternity, that is why...I can observe the logical absurdity on that notion. And not only that, but we KNOW that life on this earth BEGAN to exist...you want to talk hypotheticals as if that will somehow help your position, but unfortunately for you, it won't..it will just lead you right back to the absurd notion of infinity.

Once again, you cannot be trusted to come up with accurate conclusions as to how these exchanges are going. Like a lot of apologists, you seem to have mistaken self-aggrandizing bullying for winning an argument. But it doesn't work on me, nor anyone else here. We've dealt with real hostile theists in the past; your passive aggressive nonsense is just too obvious.

Bullying? Passive aggressive? Not I. I just kick the actual factuals.

Are you running away, then? Can't handle what I'm saying, finally realized I won't just let you change the subject whenever you want to escape via rhetoric, and so you're going the route of every other theist we've thwarted here; "You guys is dumb, stop talking to me!"

Since when has pleading for silence ever led to a decent debate, H_M? You don't see me commanding everyone to shut up. I wonder what you have to hide?

You beat a person up, and they just come back begging for more SMH.

---

A little list of atheist biblical scholars who do not believe in the historicity of Jesus:

G. A. Wells, an Emeritus Professor of German at Birkbeck, University of London. He does allow the the possibility of historic Jesus he just doesn't think it's likely. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Albert_Wells

Earl J. Doherty, a Canadian author with bachelor's degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages but no completed advanced degrees. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Doherty

Robert McNair Price, doctorates in theology and former Baptist preacher. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Price

Richard Cevantis Carrier, PhD in ancient history from Columbia University in 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Carrier
Looky, Looky, a man whose background really is history---that makes him a rare man in the Jesus wars.

If we discuss whether Jesus was crucified, the list will get longer.

Does this prove Jesus wasn't a real man? No. But note how easy it is to come up with a list a men who have studied the NT and come to rather different conclusions. What do they lack? Christian bias. So, can we discuss the texts and not the scholars?

Right, but those individuals are among the MINORITY.

Look in the wikipedia article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

In the footnotes for the second paragraph (#8), states that Robert Price' (the same guy you have above) opinion of the historical Jesus: Robert M. Price (an atheist who denies the existence of Jesus) agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views.

---

Don't forget Dawkins.
http://youtu.be/Ant5HS01tBQ

You, my friend, just put the nail in the coffin. Thank you, and God bless you

---

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.

The problem is, he isn't the only one that said it.

[Mudhammam]

So... does His_Majesty have anything to add other than an appeal to ignorance?

[His_Majesty]

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.

What I said was "the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus existed, and that would include atheists (nonbelievers) as well".

That is what I have continuously said in a nut shell.

Robert Van
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.

You appear to be confused here, Jenny. I am posting the quotes only to prove my point of the MAJORITY consensus concerning Jesus' existence. When they say stuff like "virtually" all..or the "majority"...they mean believers and unbelievers alike...believers aren't the only ones that are concerned with this stuff...unbelievers are as well..hell, Robert Price and Bart Ehrman both acknowledge this "majority" and "virtually all" fact. If Robert and Bart can make such statements as unbelievers, then Robert Van Voorst can certainly say it as a believer. The facts are what they are...it is what it is.

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

1. Bart Erhman
2. Robert Price
3. Michael Grant
4. Will Durant
5. James Tabor

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

Um, Durant's quote was in the same LINK I gave you earlier.

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.

We are not just talking about biblical historians here, we are talking about historians, PERIOD. In fact, what sense would it make for the majority of biblical scholars who are already Christians to say "The majority of us believe that Jesus existed"...which would be exactly what they are saying if the majority of them were just merely Christian "biblical historians"...that wouldn't make any sense at ALL...but what would make sense is if they are making the statements speaking for the larger population of HISTORIANS in general, which would include people of all different backgrounds, whether religion or otherwise, and that is exactly what they are doing.

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.

I already gave the five..I met the minimum requirement. I challenge you to give me a source which state a historian consensus that is contrary to the position that I've argued. You can't.

[b]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?

The actual evidence is this; the vast majority of historians believe that Jesus of Nazareth existed, and among these historians are unbelievers...and they all use the same sources that I've provided here on these very threads.

Those are the facts.

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

Then your opinion of the historical Jesus is within the minority..nothing wrong with that.

---

I think I'll have to borrow a phrase here; "What if you're wrong?" You wasted the only life you have worshipping something that isn't there, funding and supporting an institution of imaginary characters.

This is the euthyphro dilemma: atheist style

[Cyberman]

The point that keeps being missed is that listing half a dozen or so names of people who agree with you =/= "the vast majority of historians". I mean, you may in fact be correct - I'm not for a nanosecond saying you are - but you're doing a piss-weak job of demonstrating that. That we now have the names is a good thing and what you've been asked to provide almost all along. It means, as I said, that we can assess their credentials and what you think they are saying.

[Cyberman]

Also that isn't the Euthyphro Dilemma. Do learn the basics; there may be a test.

[vorlon13]

Would Jesus shed skin cells scattered during his life around Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem and other locales still be alive today ??

Also, spittle contains the odd white blood cell among others, would they persist in the environment too ?? (recall the poultice Christ made for the blind man's eyes)

[Natachan]

I'm sorry, I only read the first six pages before hrm started out-and-out lieing before skipping here to see him being ridiculously stupid. So I am browsing and not seeing any argument or evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Just him saying "I provided good evidence he existed!" while everyone else says no he didn't.

Let me just state I actually do think there was a historical person at the beginning of the cult which became Christianity. There were several such figures who started cults in the area at the time. I think that Paul used one of these as the basis for what we today call Christianity.

I would like to move past the "Jesus existed" part and come to the evidence that exists for the resurrection. If it has already been presented I apologize, but it doesn't look like it.

[abaris]

1. Bart Erhman
2. Robert Price
3. Michael Grant
4. Will Durant
5. James Tabor

1, I assume we all know about Bart Ehrman.

2, Robert Price, a theologian, mind you.

In books like The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man and Deconstructing Jesus, Price challenges biblical literalism and argues for a more skeptical and humanistic approach to Christianity. He questions the idea of a historical Jesus; in the documentary The God Who Wasn't There, Price supports a version of the Jesus myth hypothesis, suggesting that the early Christians adopted the model for the figure of Jesus from the popular Mediterranean dying-rising saviour myths of the time, such as that of Dionysus. He argues that the comparisons were known at the time, as early church father, Justin Martyr had admitted the similarities. Price suggests that Christianity simply adopted themes from the dying-rising god stories of the day and supplemented them with themes (escaping crosses, empty tombs, children being persecuted by tyrants, etc.) from the popular stories of the day in order to come up with the narratives about Christ.[citation needed] He has argued that there was an almost complete fleshing out of the details of the gospels by a Midrash (haggadah) rewriting of the Septuagint, Homer, Euripides' Bacchae, and Josephus.

A good man obviously, but not exactly making the case for you.

3. Michael Grant, died 2004, historian. I guess it's about "Jesus: An historians Review". His take on the gospels.

They do not fit into any known genre of literature, ancient or modern., ... the writers of the gospels, their aims being what they were , had no intention of limiting themselves to these facts of prosaic history. For they interwove them with a great deal of other material as well. But so did ancient pagan writers on historical subjects.

4. Will Durant. 1885 to 1981. It's important to know that his works were mainly written in the first half of the 20th century when historical wasn't as advanced as it is now. Durant also argues for Genesis to be taken as a historical fact, barring the supernatural.

The discoveries here summarized have restored considerable credit to those chapters of Genesis that record the early traditions of the Jews. In its outlines, and barring supernatural incidents, the story of the Jews as unfolded in the Old Testament has stood the test of criticism and archeology; every year adds corroboration from documents, monuments, or excavations... We must accept the Biblical account provisionally until it is disproved.

5. James Tabor. A real quack, arguing for a Jesus dynasty. It's important to note, that not even theologians agree with him.

Darrell Bock, professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, writing for Christianity Today (May 2006) has said "Four major historical problems exist with Tabor's portrait beyond the mere worldview issues that drive his portrait. "

Bert Jan Lietaert Peerbolte from the Theological University of Kampen writing in the Society of Biblical Literature Review of Biblical Literature (June 2007) was highly critical of the book saying, "Some books are written to spread knowledge, others to generate controversy. This book falls into the latter category. In his Jesus Dynasty James Tabor presents a reconstruction of the Jesus movement from a perspective that purports to be a neutral view at the facts. Unfortunately, Tabor’s view is not neutral and his “facts” are not facts."