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

[His_Majesty]

HM answer me this out of all the people why did jesus visit 3 illiterate women.

Why not?

if they had said anything of jesus coming back to any men because during those days they
would have been put to death.

They did...they told the men what they saw.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So, now that I'’ve successfully made a case for and defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth'’s existence in human history [...]

Stopped reading at the first lie.

I thought lying was a sin. Anyone got a handy-dandy biblical reference for that?

[Minimalist]

That's not what your silly-assed gospel says:

The original ending of "mark"

Mark 16:8King James Version (KJV)

8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

Which I grant you, makes for a fairly stupid story. Probably why some unknown scribe wrote verses 9-20 a couple of centuries later to make "mark" fit in with the more current bullshit then being circulated.

[His_Majesty]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you did no such thing.

I didn't? Oh, I must of been looking at the wrong thread.

However, I (and others here) am willing to grant you the possibility of that existence and work from there.

The vast majority of historians also grant that possibility, so you (and others here) are in good company.

There are, however, competing gospels... like the gnostic gospels... or just all the apocryphal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_apocrypha.
I'm sure you've studied them all thoroughly and have your reasons to dismiss each and every one, except for the canonical ones.

Those Gospels were written much, much later.

Also, we have the dead sea scrolls... which reveal something about those times... like The Teacher of Righteousness!!
Hmmm.... a teacher, knowledgeable of the scriptures, a "counselor to the king", "dissatisfied with the religious sects in Jerusalem, and in reaction, founded a "crisis cult". While amassing a following, the Teacher (and his followers) claimed he was the fulfillment of various Biblical prophecies, with an emphasis on those found in Isaiah. The Teacher was eventually killed by the religious leadership in Jerusalem, and his followers hailed him as messianic figure who had been exalted to the presence of God's throne."

Sounds familiar?

The Dead Sea Scrolls is about Jewish stuff...the New Testament is about Christian stuff.

Possibly because they were obviously not written by any of the apostles themselves " and jesus did this miracle and all the apostles were amazed"... clearly a 3rd person account.... so a friendly 3rd person must be manufactured... a friend of the apostles, a disciple of an apostle, a meeting with one of the apostles...

First off, what do you mean "obviously"...it isn't obvious to me...second, as mentioned previously, Luke said that the story was passed down from eyewitnesses. If the story that Luke told was passed down from eyewitnesses, then it doesn't matter who wrote the story, as long as the source of the story comes from eyewitnesses.

Think about it.... Harry Potter lived in London, he visited the London Zoo, he went on the train to school from Paddington train station...
All this written by someone who obviously knew Harry and his environment.
Blimey! Wizards exist! There is a ministry of magic in the UK and in several other countries! There are evil people with magical powers!
We're doomed!!!!!

Fallacy of comparing apples and oranges.

"real"... you keep using that word...

Jesus of Nazareth was as real as any other person in antiquity.

You see... there was this teacher... he taught people... people listened... some wrote it down to remember it better.
The teachings got handed down... the name of the teacher morphed a bit.

For a moment there, I thought you were a Christian all the way up until that last part.

[Simon Moon]

Why not?

Because, supposedly, he has the most important message for all of humanity. A message that everyone must get correct, or end up being punished for eternity.

Why would a god not want to communicate this message in the most accurate, least likely to be prone to errors, misinterpretations, mistranslations possible?

Instead he uses languages that he knew would know will die out, dictated to one of the most illiterate societies of the time, who wait for decades or centuries to record any of it.

Not very good long term thinking by a god that should know better.

[His_Majesty]

Not about to do a line-by-line for this one (outstanding job, Jenny), but this bit leapt out at me:

Because only someone living during that time would know certain FACTS regarding the time and location...these facts include cultural customs, historical figures, and even the "nature" of things during the time.

This is so bad, it isn't even wrong.

So, you feel there's no such thing as historical writing? By your standard, if I were to write about the Great Hunger (the Irish 'famine') - a period I know quite a lot about - you would necessarily conclude that I lived during that time.

Boru

Yeah, it may not be in your best interest for you to do a line for line...otherwise your intellect will get exposed for what it is...like how you think you are making such a magnificent point regarding the Great Hunger...when you fail to realize that for you to know anything about it, you would have had to either lived through it, or have spoken to someone that DID live through it...otherwise, you wouldn't know squat about it....which basically harmonizes with what I said about the Gospel narratives.

So what is this grand point you were attempting to make here??

---

Talk about building houses on sand! You can't just point to a hundred page thread and bald assert that you've successfully done anything in that thread without pointing to the point at which you believe you successfully did "it".

I gave my personal assessment, based on what I've presented, the objections to what I presented, and my response to the objections of what I presented.

Please, for the love of intellectual honestly, show me where you believe you "succeeded at making a case for and successfully defended the historical evidence supporting Jesus of Nazareth's existence in human history."

I believe I succeeded by providing the same sources that leaves the majority of all historians convinced that Jesus of Nazareth existed.

---

Stopped reading at the first lie.

In other words "I stopped reading because I want to remain ignorant and die and ultimately stand face to face with the Almighty, the one of whom I rejected for x amount of years on earth."

I thought lying was a sin. Anyone got a handy-dandy biblical reference for that?

How is giving a personal opinion a lie?

You know, it kind of reminds me of the movie Fire Down Below with Steven Seagal...long story short, this millionaire in the movie is dumping toxic waste in this small country town, and Seagal's character brought him to justice...and Seagal wants the millionaire's son to testify against him at trial...and after roughing up the son's friends at their hangout/bar...Seagal said to the son (paraphrasing)...

"I want you to testify against your father...now, you can do it because you know it is the only way you can save your ass, or you can do it because it is the right thing to do. I really don't give a shit, but you are going to do it."

Kinda reminds me of what is going on here...you can acknowledge the fact that Jesus is Lord and Savior because the Holy Spirit is eating away at you on the inside...or you can acknowledge the fact that Jesus is Lord and Savior on judgement day when you stand before him...I really don't give a shit...but you are going to acknowledge him.

---

Because, supposedly, he has the most important message for all of humanity. A message that everyone must get correct, or end up being punished for eternity.

Why would a god not want to communicate this message in the most accurate, least likely to be prone to errors, misinterpretations, mistranslations possible?

Instead he uses languages that he knew would know will die out, dictated to one of the most illiterate societies of the time, who wait for decades or centuries to record any of it.

Not very good long term thinking by a god that should know better.

No doubt, trust me, I understand what you are saying, and my theory is that he used illiterate people because he knew that despite all of the illiteracy, all of the persecution, all of the trials and tribulations, the message would still get out, and eventually become the world's largest religion by numbers of followers.

So in other words, all of those things you mentioned did nothing to stop the Christian foundation, spread, and growth. God knew what he was doing.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yeah, it may not be in your best interest for you to do a line for line...otherwise your intellect will get exposed for what it is...like how you think you are making such a magnificent point regarding the Great Hunger...when you fail to realize that for you to know anything about it, you would have had to either lived through it, or have spoken to someone that DID live through it...otherwise, you wouldn't know squat about it....which basically harmonizes with what I said about the Gospel narratives.

So what is this grand point you were attempting to make here??

My point is that your contention that people cannot write knowledgably about an historic period unless they've lived through it is idiotic. Well-researched historical writing has a long, well, history. If it didn't, there would BE no historical writing. If what you contend is true, then you cannot possibly know anything about the life of the figure known as Jesus of Nazareth, because you didn't walk round with him, didn't talk to him, didn't hold the bucket while he vommed up that wine he made at Cana.

You're exactly as close to establishing the reliability of the Gospel accounts as you are to demonstrating the historicity of Jesus: nil equals nil.

Boru

[Jenny A]

Because they weren't written by disciples? And they were written much to late to make any such claim. And it's that much too late part that makes them essentially worthless.

I will gladly answer this in part 3.

---

Un huh, and because they didn't really know, and weren't really contemporary they made some big mistakes:

Let's begin with Mark:

Its author seems to be ignorant of Palestinian geography. Mark 7:31 describes Jesus going from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee by way of Sidon (20 miles farther north and on the Mediterranean coast). The author of Mark did not seem to know that you would not go through Sidon to go from Tyre to the Sea of Galilee, and there was no road from Sidon to the Sea of Galilee in the 1st century, only one from Tyre.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels[/url]
So Mark seems to have difficulties with anachronisms.

It depends on which translation you read....because after reading this one, there is no problem:

Mark 7:31: "And again, departing from the coasts of Tyre and Sidon, he came unto the sea of Galilee, through the midst of the coasts of Decapolis." King James Bible "Authorized Version", Cambridge Edition

How about Mathew:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Well if Mark is wrong and Mathew copies Mark, then we can't trust Mathew either.

Nonsense. First, you have to prove that Mark is wrong, which you haven't done yet.

What about Luke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Uh oh. Copying from bad sources again. But it gets worse. He probable wasn't a companion of Paul's either:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_...he_Gospels

Well I will put it to you this way; again, in the preface the author is acknowledging the fact that the information he is giving is being PASSED DOWN from eyewitnesses...so regardless, that is where the source of the information is from. Second, I'd like to know what did Act's say that contradicts Paul's letters? I don't want to click on links, I want YOU to tell me.

What about John? Second had at best:
In the majority viewpoint, it is unlikely that John the Apostle wrote the Gospel of John.[105][106] Rather than a plain account of Jesus' ministry, the gospel is a deeply meditated representation of Jesus' character and teachings, making direct apostolic authorship unlikely.[107] Opinion, however, is widely divided on this issue and there is no widespread consensus.[108][109] Many scholars believe that the "beloved disciple" is a person who heard and followed Jesus, and the gospel of John is based heavily on the witness of this "beloved disciple."

Well, if the Gospel of John is based on a person who heard and followed Jesus, that would make the testimony credible, right? Remember, contemporary??

Funny, that they got the names right, but messed up basic geography. --- No wait? You're citing the synopsis of an unreviewed self published book, really? Really?

Well, the book as been out there for all to see, for at least the past 12 years..and the information that she gathered is also for all to see...and don't make it seem as if this is a special pleading issue either...a shoalin monk could do the pain staking research that she did and draw the same conclusion...it was unbiased research that any person could do and draw the same conclusion.

Not really, no we can't. We can conclude that they were all written too late to be of much factual value and that the authors didn't know much about either the geography or the history of the time and places they wrote about.

So if they were written much later by people who had no connections to people that were there, how would they get the names right? Second, you gave one geographical concern regarding a chapter in Mark that really isn't a concern at all, and you are making that as the big white hope for your entire objection.

Nonsense.

---

[Thumpalumpacus]

Stopped reading at the first lie.

In other words "I stopped reading because I want to remain ignorant and die and ultimately stand face to face with the Almighty, the one of whom I rejected for x amount of years on earth."

That's pretty funny, but no, Speedbag, I've encountered these heavenly threats long before I had the misfortune of reading your garbage.

I stopped reading because you're a dishonest little twat. Even if your god was real, his choice of you as an emissary would impugn his judgement and alleged perfection. It's like sending a turd to a restaurant reviewer -- the shit ain't gonna end up well.

I thought lying was a sin. Anyone got a handy-dandy biblical reference for that?

How is giving a personal opinion a lie?

Because you stated that something occurred when it didn't occur. 'Twasn't an opinion you proffered; you tried to spin your ignominy into success.

I'll wait while you get your dictionary out.

Kinda reminds me of what is going on here...you can acknowledge the fact that Jesus is Lord and Savior because the Holy Spirit is eating away at you on the inside...or you can acknowledge the fact that Jesus is Lord and Savior on judgement day when you stand before him...I really don't give a shit...but you are going to acknowledge him.

That's pretty funny. It's a shame life isn't a Steven Seagal movie, but don't let me disturb your little fantasy. As an aside, I'm not surprised at all that the cultural referents in your head are from third-rate B-flick actors. It explains much about why you find the Bible credible.

So, don't let me stop you; keep redefining lowbrow, my little Speedbag. I'll stop in here every so often, when I need a sparring partner to warm me up for a serious discussion.

[robvalue]

When's deist paladin gonna own up to this one too :p