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

[His_Majesty]

You can have the last word, for now. Right now, I have bigger fish to fry.

Come back here! After promising a case for the resurrection of Jesus you just run off without following through?

FINE!

I don't need you. I can hold my own on that thread without your help!

Just ask the atheists here. Even they will tell you that I'm doing as good a job as they could possibly expect from anyone! In fact, I'm heading back to that thread right now because I just thought of another great argument to post!

SO WHO NEEDS YOU?

*sulk*

All praise and glory to God.

[Anomalocaris]

All praise and glory to God.

Yeah, chanting victory makes up for being full of shit.

[Minimalist]

All praise and glory to God.

He sounds like one of them muslim assholes.

[Cyberman]

What, the ones that shout "Admiral Ackbar" ?

[Anomalocaris]

What, the ones that shout "Admiral Ackbar" ?

The stricture against portraying God is perfectly understandable if God looks like that:

[abaris]

Yeah, let's all praise god. On your knees please.

[Crossless2.0]

Tenacious Poe. I suggested it a while ago, and now I'm pretty much convinced. Life's too short to waste on this asshole. If he ever gets around to failing miserably at presenting a case for the resurrection, wake me. Until then, if I want to attend a fucking circle jerk, I'll send out a neighborhood flyer.

[JonDarbyXIII]

All praise and glory to God.

Yeah, chanting victory makes up for being full of shit.

Of course... why else would we have Muslims shouting Allahu-akhbar right before painting the pavement with their intestines?

[His_Majesty]

Scholars have estimated Jesus' death between 27 and 36 AD with 32 AD being the best guess. 51 AD is 19 years after 32AD and 60 AD 28 years after. So I hardly think twenty to thirty is disingenuous. Grow-up.

I was only emphasizing on the "between" part so it could be understood as 51AD as the earliest date. Calm your nerves.

The fact remains that Paul did not write of Jesus for at least 19 years after Jesus' supposed death.

So what? Who are we to tell a person when to write something? Regardless a damn WHEN he wrote it...what matters is the truth value in what he is saying...and no one can take someone's experiences away from them.

Which he claims to know by supernatural means. It's not historical evidence.

My point was he knew about the STORY of the Resurrection from one of Jesus' right hand man, Peter. So if the Resurrection is a complete hoax, then the hoax would come from someone that would have known whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to him, which would be Peter.

You continue to miss the point which is that Paul does not ever discuss the details of Jesus' life, and he is the first "witness." His testimony is based entirely on revelation.

How am I missing it when I responded directly to it?? As I said, if his purpose wasn't to write about Jesus' life, then of course he wouldn't write about Jesus' life. And also as mentioned, he didn't need to write about Jesus' life because we already have four Gospels which have taken that to task.

Sorry if you're claiming he met Jesus in the flesh after Jesus' death, than we just have another incredible supernatural claim here.

Point? So what?

And he tells them to live god-like lives without ever referring to what Jesus said about how people should live? Why not? Because he had no details of Jesus' life whatesoever.

First off, I disagree about the notion that Paul had no details about Jesus' life...he said he met with Peter, one of the ORIGINAL disciples and James brother of Jesus...and I doubt they were spending their time having beers and shooting pool. All were missionaries, and they would have been discussing those kinds of things...in fact, Paul probably got the creed from them during that time...where they would have had an extensive conversation where Paul was filled in with the details that Peter and James had first-hand knowledge of.

You're assuming the resurrection to prove Jesus' existence. Talk about begging the question.

False charge. It isn't begging the question if I specifically said "IF" what he said actually happened...

Do you see that key word of emphasis? If

Name some whose training is not theological. Good luck because the vast majority of them are Christian and the vast majority of those who aren't were when they got their biblical training in divinity school. And they say the are in the majority because recently, they have secular competitors who disagree.

Moving the goal posts...now the criterion is someone that doesn't have training in theology...but what you fail to realize is just because you have training in theology doesn't mean you have to grant that Jesus existed or his alleged Resurrection...you can be a Buddhist, train in theology, and still not believe that Jesus existed...hell, being a Christian theologian doesn't even necessarily mean that you are a Christian...it just means that theology is an area of interest for you..

So again, the fact that you think all of them are "thelogicians" says nothing towards the notion that they all believe in the historical Jesus because of the biases that comes with their training in theology...

It is yet another non sequitur coming from your direction.

Right here bottom of post #114;

In that context, I was saying that WLC is a better Christian advocate than I...I was not appealing to his authority on this issue...which is what I THOUGHT the charge was against me...from you.

here post #163,

In that context, I mentioned WLC's name as a potential debate opponent for those SCHOLARS that you were appealing to that supposedly had some newfounded doubt on Jesus' existence.

Again, I was not appealing to his authority on this issue...which is waht I THOUGHT the charge was against me...from you.

and here post #191,

In this context, I mentioned WLC as the guy that intellectually spanked Richard Carrier in a debate....again, I was not appealing to his authority on this issue...which is what I THOUGHT the charge was against me...from you.

and here post #344.

In this context, I mentioned WLC and posted a video of him giving his view on John Dominic Crossan's interpretation on the Resurrection.

So again, I was not appealing to his authority on this issue...which is what I THOUGHT the charge was against me..from you.

That you are relying on authority rather than facts once again. Not to mention that Ehrman is also a theologian not a historian by training.

You can be an atheist and also an theologican, Jenny.

[JonDarbyXIII]

Of course... why else would we have Muslims shouting Allahu-akhbar right before painting the pavement with their intestines?

wow maybe i should read a little further before I post something that I've already been beaten to