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

[Jackalope]

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.

That's your opinion.

("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.

We're aware of that.

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.

Appeal to popularity, and there are 5+ billion who are not, so you can't even claim any kind of a majority. I'm talking about the people who are convinced in THIS thread, by YOUR argument. Stop moving the goalposts.

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??

Beats the hell out of me. But what I note, is that without exception, not a single one of them showed their work either - and so that claim is not taken seriously.

If you can *prove* that the majority of historians accept the claim, it just might be taken as more than certain people's opinion. You claimed you could. You failed.

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.

So? I acknowledge that *a* man may have existed that the myths are based upon. So what? You claimed you could make a case for demonstrating it's truth. A historical Jesus is plausible, but not proven, and it's wholly irrelevant, because you aren't arguing towards the historical Jesus, you're arguing for a *divine* Jesus. IOW, you're moving the goalposts again, and hoping we won't notice. Nice try.

Do you even know what evidence is?

Do you?

Evasion noted.

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.

I'm pretty sure that a given person is an authority on what would be required to prove a particular claim to them.

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.
[/quote]


"pimp"? Did you just call me pimp? LOL

Than stop claiming you proved what is merely your opinion, as you did in the OP of Part 2 before we merged it. It's intellectually dishonest, but we've come to expect that - as is refusing to consider material that is presented to them, as you did in this thread not long ago.

To be perfectly clear, I couldn't give a flying fuck whether a person existed who's life the gospels is based on (the so-called "historical Jesus"). I do care about honest epistemology and intellectual integrity. All I've seen from you is opinion, assertion, and the same old tired inconclusive bullshit that hasn't changed a whit in the nearly thirty years I've been doing this (obviously, not here).

[The Valkyrie]

---

said the guy who made a positive claim about having settled the matter of Jesus's existence ... only to backtrack and say that it was his opinion.

You're so stupid you don't even realize you got fished into this position deliberately. Thank you for agreeing with my point.

Oh -- and I believe your god is a figment of your imagination.

Five or six posts later, and you still can't give me any evidence to back up the claim that "God didn't do anything"...instead of giving me what I asked for, I am getting continual rhetoric.

---

Guess what, you are not the only idiot out there.

Apparently I am not the only idiot in here, either.

Truth is not a popularity contest

---

Hey, I have no problems admitting that the 2 billion Christians in this world could be wrong...but they again, they also could be right
Yeah, they could be right.

So could the strange little man who lives down the road from me who thinks the universe was created by fairies spinning gold and silver with jewels.

But without evidence that is testable, something an all powerful being could do very easily and lay to rest all doubt, I have no reason to accept any of the claims.

[His_Majesty]

What you have there is suppose, suppose, suppose.

If you don't like the idea of rational responses to YOUR objections, then you shouldn't be objecting.

If you have to: suppose away all the obvious problems by inventing eyewitness sources even though your authors don't claim them

Bullshit. You asked who were the witnesses to the exchange with Jesus and the thieves on the cross, and I gave you the names of those that were near the cross during those exchanges (according to the narrative)...which would make them eyewitnesses.

But you've demonstrated that you are good at ignoring what I say to spew your crap. I mean, I CLEARLY and DIRECTLY answered exactly what you are maintaining DIDN'T happen, and you clearly and DIRECTLY ignored the crap out of it

; suppose extraordinarily long lived authors to make them contemporaries

I gave you at least five men who lived past the life expectancy of their time..now that was about two posts ago...and when you responded, I noticed you didn't respond to that particular point I made...and now, two posts later, you are reiterating that same point as if I never addressed it two posts ago. Pathetic.

And then you say "extraordinarily long lived"...well, those five men I mentioned also lived extraordinarily long, but we will just sweep that shit under the rug, huh? Just put on the skeptic hat when it comes to the Bible, huh?

Bullshit.

, which still does not make their accounts contemporary

Yes it does. If the eyewitnesses are still alive to tell the story 40 years later, they are STILL contemporary, Jenny.

; assume events must of happened when there is no evidence for them on the grounds that finding evidence would be unlikely; assume that a dead man spent 40 days explaining it all because a non-contemporary source says a dead man visited for 40 days----- then you don't have any evidence. And if you don't have evidence, you don't have proof.

Huh?

What you have is faith. Fine with me. Have faith. But don't come bleating about how it proves anything, because it doesn't.

The entire genre of history is based on faith, you don't know anything about history, all you know is what you were told...so whatever you believed happened in history, you believe it happened based on faith.

[abaris]

Bullshit. You asked who were the witnesses to the exchange with Jesus and the thieves on the cross, and I gave you the names of those that were near the cross during those exchanges (according to the narrative)...which would make them eyewitnesses.

Pity they're not around to be questioned. Pity also they're not in any way historical figures. They're playing on the same field as Harry Potter witnessing the return of Voldemort.

[FatAndFaithless]

More of this false equivalence bullshit? "Not having 100% certainty = faith so my faith is just as valid as the rest of history"?

Get that shit outta here.

[Cyberman]

Admins: can we please delete the roflol emoticon? I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing the damn thing.

And H_M: if you have a problem with the operational staff and the way we run this forum, please come right out and detail your concerns so they can be addressed. If you continue to post snide comments in the way you have been doing, it might be construed as flaming and/or similarly obstructive behaviour and dealt with accordingly.

To use one of your favourite arguments, the vast majority of the member base is perfectly happy with Staff decision making.

[Jackalope]

Admins: can we please delete the roflol emoticon? I'm sick to the back teeth of seeing the damn thing.

Install adblock plus, right click it, select block, and you'll never see it again.

And H_M: if you have a problem with the operational staff and the way we run this forum, please come right out and detail your concerns so they can be addressed. If you continue to post snide comments in the way you have been doing, it might be construed as flaming and/or similarly obstructive behaviour and dealt with accordingly.

To use one of your favourite arguments, the vast majority of the member base is perfectly happy with Staff decision making.

I couldn't agree more.

[Jenny A]

This is such a concise display of your general lack of understanding of how logic, evidence, and proof work.

---

No, it is a rejection of your claim.

---

Um it is both, by rejecting my claim, he made a claim of knowledge. So he walked and chewed gum at the same time.

Sorry, "A" not proven is not equivalent to "A" disproved. Not proven is not a claim of knowledge.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Not in and of itself no. But coupled with reasons for why such evidence would exist were the thing so, it can be evidence of absence. For example, absence of a birth certificate for John Doe in the county records of State X is evidence that John Doe was not born there. And it makes it very likely he was not. But it can never be absolute proof he was not born there because it is not possible to prove a negative.

It is logically impossible to prove a negative.

. . .
Just because you don't see evidence for something doesn't make it a negative . . .

To prove a negative in this context is not as you seem to think, to prove something without evidence. To prove a negative is to prove that something does not exist. It is not possible to prove that something does not exist.

Have you ever been behind the sun? So how do you know that my God isn't behind the sun?? There is no way you can wiggle out of it, either...you've never been behind the sun, so you simply don't know...plain and simple...so for you to sit there and make these absolute statements, these claims of knowledge, is fallacious.

You just gave a practical example of why a negative cannot be proven.
You can't prove there aren't invisible purple nothings on the other side of the sun. But that doesn't mean they do exist. Your god is an invisible purple nothing. It's lack of existence can't be proven because it is not possible to prove a negative. But you can't prove god's existence (and neither can much, much, much, brighter men then you). Therefore until evidence to the contrary is produced, I will not believe in the existence of god or invisible purple nothings.

---

The entire genre of history is based on faith, you don't know anything about history, all you know is what you were told...so whatever you believed happened in history, you believe it happened based on faith.

Yes, we can only evaluate what we can read. But we don't give it all the same value. We pay attention to the likelihood of the source's veracity, which is something you obviously do not do.

You just finished arguing that because five people lived to more than average age, that the writers of the gospels must also have lived to more than average age. You argued further that they just happened to wait until the extreme old age to write down what must have been the most important events of their times. There is no evidence of that and it is an extreme unlikelihood. And the authors themselves make no such claims. That is absurd.

[Cyberman]

Time = history.

Luke 2:1 "In those days...."

In those days = periods of time...which = history.

Time = history.

Lucas Ep. 1-6 "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."

A long time ago = periods of time...which = history.

(And if you could manage to stay on your feet, H_M, that'd be very much appreciated.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

The entire genre of history is based on faith, you don't know anything about history, all you know is what you were told...so whatever you believed happened in history, you believe it happened based on faith.

As many ignorant things you have written -- and they're legion, they flow from your fingertips like sewage from a pipe -- this is without a doubt the stupidest thing you've ever written.

Here, in this forum, I mean. I don't for a moment doubt any more that you've surpassed this somewhere ... you could say that I have faith in you.

What a dolt.