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

[abaris]

A poll: All those who remain unconvinced say

Some poor sod up to the task of counting the he used instead of presenting an argument?

[Minimalist]

You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

I stopped reading HM's long winded posts about 20 pages ago. Can anyone tell me if he's said anything worthy of consideration?

Surely you jest, D-P.

[robvalue]

He said he was going to stop, that was good. But then he didn't.

[Minimalist]

They can't stop. It's a personality flaw.

They're inveterate shitheads.

[Jenny A]

---

Don't use my name again in that condescending way --doing that is a concession you have no real argument, it's like leaving your trousers unzipped.

The question is not if you can remember 20 years ago, but if it were important to the world would you wait 20 years to say so.

---

Again, for the third time..who are you to tell someone when they should write something? He wrote it when he wanted to write it, plain and simple...and by the time he actually did write it, Christianity had already spread miles and miles away from where it originated. So again, it is not up to Jenny to tell someone when they should write something. You have no authority in this or any other matter like it.

This is really funny. . . I say, unless we have evidence there is no proof and that in the case of history, contemporary evidence is best and non-contemporary evidence of much lesser value. Rather than respond to the logic of that, you respond that I have no authority to make people write things down when I want them too. If you can think at all, you must see that that is a non-sequitur.

If there was a Jesus, it would have been useful to us if he had written something down. It would have been useful to us if his disciples had written something down. It would have been useful if an uninterested third party had written something down. BUT they didn't. That suggests that either the events didn't happen, or they weren't as big or important as what is described in the Gospels. The absence of contemporary writing doesn't prove Jesus didn't exist, but it does make his existence less certain.

[/hide]

Actually no. The more emphasis you put on a memory the less reliable your memory is. We are story tellers and we humans.

[/hide]

Well...yet, there are many believers that have memorized verses in the bible to a tee...you can fight the fact that you are WRONG as much as you'd like, Jenny, but it doesn't change the fact that you are simply wrong.

Yes, people can memorize verses. What does that have to do with the accuracy of their memory for what they heard in a sermon? If you think your memory of conversations yesterday, let alone 20 years ago are accurate. You're an idiot. If you think it's as easy to make things up about yesterday and be believed and it is to make things up about 20 years ago and be believed, you're an idiot.

First off, again...you are failing to distinguish the difference between when he WROTE it and when he actually preached it...the book of Acts describes in detail Paul's beginning in Christ and all of the sermons and trials that he went through AS he preached the Word...and this was BEFORE he wrote anything...he had a 20 year head start preaching the Word at various locations throughout the empire, before he wrote anything...so again; you are wrong...and your wrongfulness is started to get on Esquil's level...and that is saying a lot

I don't give a rats ass when you think Paul preached or even that he preached. What we have is his writings and they are 20 years out from Jesus' purported death and we have his own admission that he never knew Jesus in life.

Acts on the other had is a fine example of why we don't weigh non-contemporary evidence as heavily as contemporary evidence. Acts was written sometime between 80 and 90 CE. Despite the fact that it and Luke were written by the same author, the two books contradict each other. It is factually at odds with Paul's letters in numerous places. Not to mention that in it Paul uses the words Christians and disciples frequently, though Paul never uses though word in his letters.

---

oooooh Bullshit. Scary cuss word!. Philoactually wrote things himself. And Josephus, knows of him and discusses him in an unforged paragraph.

---

And Paul actually wrote things himself too...and both Josephus and Paul knew OF Jesus and discussed him despite a certain part of Josephus being forged later.

But this is as blatant of a double standard as I've seen...as you were just arguing me down a few pages back about how how contemporary sources are so important and none of the sources that I presented met Jesus...but when it comes to Philo, oh, the skeptics hat comes off and despite no contemporary accounts being mentioned for him, it is ok to come out the closet and believe that??

Bullshit.

I suggest once again that you stop and read something about historical method. Phio did actually write and we have some of his writings. As contemporary evidence of his existence goes that's pretty good. And yes Josephus mentions him. That's evidence. It would be better evidence if it were contemporary.

In the case of Jesus, Paul's mention of him is from supposedly meeting Jesus after Jesus' death, which in not the sort of evidence generally believed even when it is contemporary. That Paul waited 20 years to write about it make it even less useful. Is it evidence for the existence of Jesus? Yes, just not very good evidence.

---

"There was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Gaius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, (29) who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Gaius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Gaius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the Alabarch, (30) and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Gaius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Gaius's words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

---

Who is that? Josephus? No, he doesn't account, he didn't know Philo of Alexandria. He never met the guy.

Yep it's Josephus. And yes it's in the very same Antiquities that Jesus is referred to. But unlike the Jesus reference no one forged it or tampered with it either. Again it's not that Josephus is useless to prove the existence of Jesus, only that writing that has been tampered with is not as good evidence as writing that hasn't.

You are playing the role of "super skeptic" with things you don't necessarily agree with...but refusing to use the same line of reasoning when it comes to other things...this is called the taxi cab fallacy..

Apparently 'The “Taxi-Cab Fallacy' is committed when one hops in and assumes a certain system of thought or world-view in an attempt to make a particular point but then jumps out of the system of thought when it suits their fancy. Some say that such practice lacks logical consistency and is therefore a logical fallacy. http://somethingsurprising.blogspot.com/...llacy.html

Again. Philo, like Josephus actually wrote things.

Paul wrote things, too. Taxi cab fallacy.

Not really. I'm not arguing Paul didn't exist. He wrote things down. Frankly, I'm not even arguing the Jesus didn't exist, only that the evidence is not certain.

Because they weren't signed and the traditional authors weren't added until later. Duh.

No, you said "they weren't even written down by those eyewitnesses", which is a claim of knowledge, when in fact, you don't know...for all you know they could have been written down by the authors whom all four were attributed too.

I'm really sure they weren't written by eye witnesses. That vast army of biblical historians you keep referring to is pretty sure too. Give the dates of the Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke and John would have had to have been pretty old to have written them. The author of Luke even says he's writing from other accounts which would be rather odd if he were a disciple. Finally, it is only in later versions that their names are added.

[hide]

If no one writes a thing till twenty years later, especially if it is of general importance, it probably didn't happen. What more needs to be said?

Again, as mentioned in this very thread...just because he didn't write it down until 20 years later doesn't mean he wasn't spreading the WORD as a Christian journeyman in that 20 year time-span...the word was getting spread..in fact, that is EXACTLY what the book of Acts describe

No it doesn't mean he wasn't preaching. But it does greatly reduce the value of what he writes as evidence of Jesus. Why you can't understand that some kinds of evidence are better than others is beyond me.

---

You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

I stopped reading HM's long winded posts about 20 pages ago. Can anyone tell me if he's said anything worthy of consideration?

Sure. He hasn't.

In summary:

1. Paul met Peter and James and would have talked with them about Jesus, therefore Paul's letters are proof of Jesus.

2. Non-contemporary evidence is just as good and contemporary evidence.

3. Acts is proof Paul knew all about Jesus.

4. References to what Christians believed is just as good as evidence that what they believed was correct.

5. The majority of biblical scholars think Jesus existed therefore he does.


Rinse repeat.

[Natachan]

I am very tempted to use my free time after finals to come up with an actual argument for the existence of an actual historical progenitor for the cult that Paul used. The library should be open for a few days during winter break.

Or I could, you know, spend time getting drunk with my friends. Hang out with my fiancé. Stuff like that.

[robvalue]

Let's see if I got this right now...

I think in the non forged parts, Paul only refers to a celestial Jesus (carrier). It's another mythology that got shoe horned in and that's part of the reason they had to be sewn together into the ludicrous trinity.

Trinity of mythologies is all it is. Angry God, pious doogooder man with familiar qualities, and floating sky creature thing doing astral battle.

I think they later tried to make out the sky creature was actually the man, if I'm following the trail of bullshit correctly. But they forgot to tipex out the astral thingy so he's now the spirit. I think!?

For fucks sake, who would believe any of this? It's got more ridiculous than when I first looked into it. And it was pretty ridiculous then.

(Apologies if I screwed up parts of that, but I think I got the gist right. Anyone who knows their shit is free to correct me)

[Mudhammam]

Let's see if I got this right now...

I think in the non forged parts, Paul only refers to a celestial Jesus (carrier). It's another mythology that got shoe horned in and that's part of the reason they had to be sewn together into the ludicrous trinity.

Well, the mythicist case largely seems to rely on interpreting Paul's frequent saying "according to the flesh" to mean something else than what would appear obvious, and his references to Jesus being born of a woman and one under the law (a Jew) as being little more than something like spiritual qualities. Eh. I'm also skeptical about dismissing any passage that contradicts one's theory as a forgery, or as Bart Ehrman calls it, invoking the "principle of convenience."

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Nope, I assume. I have stopped reading his diatribe at the same time you have. But I'm pretty sure he hasn't. At least going by the amount of

Proof that he isn't a True Christian ™. True Christians ™ don't use emotocons to emphasize a point. EVERYONE KNOWS WE LIKE TO ABUSE THE ALL CAPS BUTTON AND PUT LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS AT THE END OF OUR SENTENCES!!!!!!!!!!

[Minimalist]

Remember that we have no original documents written by any "paul" character.

"Paul's" patron was Marcion who wrote of an anti-jewish xtianity in which yhwh was some miserable prick of a god.

http://www.theopedia.com/Marcion

Marcion of Pontus... developed his teaching, shamelessly blaspheming the God whom the Law and the Prophets proclaimed, describing him as the author of evils, desirous of wars, changing his opinions, and [at different times] contrary to himself. But Jesus [was] from the Father who is above the God that formed the world, and came into Judea in the time of Pontius Pilate, who was procurator of Tiberius Caesar; manifest in human form to those who were in Judea, he abolished the Prophets and the Law, and all the works of that God who made the world, whom he calls the World Ruler.

So sayeth Irenaeus