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

[His_Majesty]

The possibility... never forget that it's not established that such a man existed for real.

The vast majority agree that he did exist, pocaracas. Jesus of Nazareth's existence is about as certain as any other historical figure. Anyone that says otherwise comes from a very small percentage of historians, and secular individuals on atheist forums who don't have a freakin clue on what the historical consensus is regarding the subject matter...either way, it is the minority.

yeah.... so?

The further you get away from the timeline of the events, the more legendary hocus pocus will result. The belief in the Resurrection was something that was held extremely early, which makes it more trustworthy than crap written hundreds of years later.

derp... christian stuff is jewish stuff.
You ever seen the acronym INRI?
What does the last I stand for, huh?
I was showing you a story already in circulation about 100 years before J.C.'s alleged birth... a story which shares way too many details with the J.C. myth.
One more ember in the fire that destroys the credibility of those eyewitnesses still alive after the year 60AD.

Ummm, huh?

I know... that is why you believe in the fairy tale and I don't.

Well, believing that life came from nonlife and reptiles changed to birds, that is worse than a fairy tale...that is voodoo.

Could Luke... *gasp*... be lying about that?

Sure, but then again, so could any other person that has written anything regarding events in antiquity. So we shouldn't believe anything that was written at any time pre-camcorder/photo days.

A Lie that, if believed, would boost the credibility of the remainder of the story.... worth a shot... and see where it's brought him!

It could be a lie...but it also could be the truth..I will base my life on it being the truth, and you base your life on it being a lie...we will let the chips fall where they may

It's an analogy... I thought you people liked analogies...

We do, but the analogy has to bear some similarity to what it is being compared to.

Kinda like how Jehovah's Witnesses, who don't believe in life after death or a literal hell. But when you point out the fact that Jesus told a story of a man that died and went to hell (The rich man and Lazarus) and was tormented, witnesses will say "That was only a parable"....but if it there is no life after death or a literal hell, why would Jesus tell a parable about life after death and a literal hell???

Makes no sense.

ah... of course... yes... you keep telling yourself that.

History is the one telling me.

I would much easier believe the story of the Teacher of Righteousness, than J.C.

Then, like...believe it.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I object to this thread. Case 1 was never resolved, and a convincing case was never presented let alone defended.

This thread is effectively spam.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Actually, what you said was (emphasis mine):

Another point that can be made, a point that will likely be carried over to part 3 but is worth mentioning here...is the fact that whoever wrote the Gospels must have been living during the time, and in that region. How do we know this? 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 throws your reading comprehension argument out the window. By you standard, no one alive today can write competently about, for example, the French Revolution, because no one alive today was alive then. And to address your ad hoc amended argument (translation: 'Oh fuck, how do I get my foot out of my mouth THIS time??') It doesn't help your case by - as an afterthought - sticking in the bit about 'or talked to someone alive during that time' - no one alive today can possibly talk to an 18th century Frenchman.

The authors of the Gospel narratives were clearly NOT Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - virtually all historians agree on this point. The attributions of Gospel authorship are traditional, not factual.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

God doesn't make threats, he would rather make promises.

He actually doesn't do anything at all, because he is a figment of your imagination.

And Satan could of used a more brighter henchmen to frequent his self-made atheist forums to argue on behalf of atheism.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying YOU are Satan, I am just saying you work for him

If you're going to criticize someone for being dumb, it behooves you to ensure that your language doesn't contain dumb mistakes. I've highlighted a couple. There's one more in there, as well. Let's see if you're smart enough to pick it out.

I think it did occur..and of course it comes to no surprise that you don't agree with me.

... and not just me. The only thing you showed in that thread was that persistence and stupidity, when wedded in one person, can result in shitposting beyond all measure.

Seagal is the man.

Groovy

[robvalue]

I agree this is at best just a comedy routine now of how badly an argument can be made. Part 3 may just cause the Internet to kill itself.

---

If you're out there God, just show up already and stop being a twat? These apologists are dying out here!

[Thumpalumpacus]

The possibility... never forget that it's not established that such a man existed for real.

The vast majority agree that he did exist, pocaracas.

You never demonstrated this, and when I pointed it out, you admitted that you only had 12 historians.

Ignoring points even after you've admitted their salience is dishonest.

[His_Majesty]

Oh boy. Can't wait to not read that too.

Oh, the irony...if only "not reading" would also imply "not responding"...then, and only then, would life be truly worth living.

[Jenny A]

But the big questions remain. Why second hand hearsay is acceptable written decades after the events is acceptable proof;

Because perhaps those second hand sources were still living DECADES after the event.

"Because perhaps" . . is that really the best you can do?

The average lifespan in the first century was abysmal by today's standards. But if you lived past 10 years you'd live to about 46 or so on average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy That's based on classical Rome. Might be a little better or worse in Palestine a hundred years later, but not much. So no those decades later writers and witnesses are unlikely. Rather more unlikely than literate witnesses, if there was actually anything to witness.

And the Gospels are obviously not first hand accounts. They aren't written in the first person. They don't claim to be first hand accounts and the synoptic Gospels copy from each other way too much to have been independently written. Nor is there any indication that they are in anyway history as opposed to the recounting of legend. They read rather more like legend.

Kinda like how Reverend Jesse Jackson was present during the MLK assassination, and he is still alive almost five "decades" later and can still tell you what he saw.

Actually Jackson is instructive. Not because many people in the 1st Century lived nearly that long, but because of just what Jackson said and when. First of all, he didn't wait five decades to say boo about it did he? And his story has still grown in the telling over the last five decades. There's still a controversy about whether he was on the balcony (he wasn't). And yet he claims that MLK died in his arms.

why we would accept sources that contradict each fundamentally;

Because they don't.

Really? Here's a goodly long list of contradictions: http://infidels.org/library/modern/paul_...tions.html

why there are no first hand contemporary sources for such huge events. Got any real answers?

Because the average Joe couldn't read or write during those times, Jenny. If the average person in the U.S couldn't read or write, I wouldn't expect to see many facebook statuses coming from the U.S of A.

No we wouldn't expect that. But if we had no written sources for the assassination of MLK's until 1990, those of us who think would suspect it was legendary.

What happened is exactly what you would expect to happen, people could't read or write so they b began to spread.

You mean they spread the news orally? Possible. People have been spreading news orally since there have been people. But oral history is not very reliable and after a few decades it's hard to tell the facts from the legends. That's why we refer the centuries before humans learned to write as prehistoric.

All of which is beside the point. The fact that you or anyone else can come up with reasons why we don't have evidence, does not create evidence. To prove something you need real evidence, not just an explanation for why you don't have it.

And since you love asking questions, how about you answer this one: Why do you think Christianity spread so quickly and so far despite no "first hand" contemporary sources for such huge events?

Well first of all, you would expect Christianity to spread rapidly immediately, if that were the case. But there's no real evidence it did.

For a starting number, Acts 1:14-15 suggests that several months after the Crucifixion there were 120 Christians. Later, in Acts 4:4, a total of 5,000 believers is claimed. And, according to Acts 21:20, by the sixth decade of the first century there were “many thousands of Jews” in Jerusalem who now believed. These are not statistics. Had there been that many converts in Jerusalem, it would have been the first Christian city, since there probably were no more than twenty thousand inhabitants at this time… As Hans Conzelmann noted, these numbers are only “meant to render impressive the marvel that here the Lord himself is at work” [1973:63]. Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, “one must always remember that figures in antiquity… were part of rhetorical exercises” [1977:7-8] and were not really meant to be taken literally. Nor is this limited to antiquity. In 1984 a Toronto magazine claimed that there were 10,000 Hare Krishna members in that city. But when [researchers] checked on the matter, they found that the correct total was 80.3

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=95

[robvalue]

I think the ref needs to stop the fight.

[Thumpalumpacus]

then, and only then, would life be truly worth living.

Closet nihilist spotted, ITT.