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

[Jackalope]

*Psssst! You spelled "Nazareth" wrong :p

It was the town of Narereth in Babylon, not the infamous Nazareth that the carpenter chappie came from . . .

*didn't come from

[His_Majesty]

I'm sorry, what? That isn't what this thread is about. This is about whether or not your precious Jesus was resurrected or not

He was.

("The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)", is your thread title, is it not?) The question is related to the number of people who believe THAT claim, versus those who do not - and that *is* in fact what you original question was.

I'm lost.

The question was related to the effectiveness of your argument. You claimed that it was successful. If it were, you ought to be able to point to at least one reader who was convinced. Yet, you can't.

But there are over 2 billion people that are ALREADY convinced.

No, you presented evidence that a few people repeated the same claim. What you didn't do is present evidence that the claim was *in fact true*.

So why would three non-Christians make such a claim?? It isn't as if they are Christians and WANT it to be true...they are NOT Christians, yet the are honest with themselves and acknowledging that the vast majority of historians believe in the historical Jesus....and you can acknowledge that Jesus of Nazareth existed and still not be a Christian...acknowledging JC existed doesn't make you a Christian even more than me acknowledging that Mohammad existed (which I do) makes me a Muslim...or acknowledging that Joseph Smith existed makes me a Mormon.

Do you even know what evidence is?

Do you?

You should, several people told you what would be required to prove that claim in that thread.

Several people? Man please...what these people say doesn't have any more virtue or credibility than what I say...I don't know who lied to you and told you that these people on here are "Team Credibility", or the "Virtue Bunch"...because they are clearly NOT in my eyes.

Your case is weak, kid.

To who? To you? Thanks for your opinion. My opinion is my case is strong, and the objections against my case is weak. That is my opinion...you gave me yours, and I gave you mines, pimp.

[LastPoet]

But there are over 2 billion people that are ALREADY convinced.

Guess what, you are not the only idiot out there. Truth is not a popularity contest

[Jenny A]

[His_Majesty]

When you find a successful forum that operates as a democracy let me know. You signed up, you agree with our enforcement of the rules by default.

You don't like it? You know where the door is. This thread will be merged with the other one because basically they're the same thread. There was no convincing case presented or defended in part 1. And as such continuing with the delusion that there was is spam. And that's the end of the conversation.

Yeah, continue to flex your muscles and play God of the forum. Not everyone with power is fit to rule.

[abaris]

I'm sorry, what? That isn't what this thread is about. This is about whether or not your precious Jesus was resurrected or not

He was.

Wow, now I'm convinced. You've made your case with that brilliant piece of logic and reasoning.

[His_Majesty]

My friend said something interesting, which I heard again on an atheist video.

If religion had anything to do with what is true, if it dealt with facts about reality, then over time you would expect some sort of consensus to be made. This is our experience with everything else that deals with facts and reality. There may be some disagreements, or areas where no one yet knows for sure and are making hypotheses, but those educated on the subject all converge rather than diverge about what is actually true.

However, religious "facts" couldn't be much more diverse. The fact that there's several different religions which are entirely contradictory is evidence enough, but even within the most popular religion, you have thousands of different opinions on the same issues.

So the most logical thing to conclude is that religion does not deal with facts and reality. There is no convergence, even when the only actual sources in reality (bible and such) have remained exactly the same for a long time. The very fact that believers are asked to accept things "on faith", that is, without evidence, shows that facts and reality are not involved. You can "have faith" in anything, anything at all. That in no way demonstrates that it is true.

Consider this. Say I could go back in time, and alter a passage in the bible. If you have faith that bible is true no matter what, you'd have to believe what I wrote in it. And I could write anything. So, unless you are using some filter to decide what is actually true and what isn't, you are literally prepared to believe anything.

I have so much to say about this I can hardly contain myself.

[Crossless2.0]

I have so much to say about this I can hardly contain myself.

Please try.

[abaris]

Please try.

No, don't.

[Crossless2.0]

Please try.

No, don't.

Don't what? Contain himself? Whose side are you on? There's just so much a person can take.