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

[Free]

It's not desperation. Aside from the distances, Philo was a Hellenized Jew, and Hellenized Jews were generally ostracized by the orthodox Jews in Judea. Therefore, news may not have traveled as well as you think.

Also, your argument may work for the Christian version of Jesus who walked on water, rose from the dead, etc, for such feats would indeed spread like wild-fire in those times.

But your argument utterly fails against a mere historical person, who's fame would be limited to his immediate vicinity.

I don't give a shit about that but in his catalog of the crimes of Pilate it seems remarkable that Philo would not have mentioned the crucifixion of one who "multitudes" of jews were hailing as god.

Ummm catalog of the crimes of Pilate? It wasn't much, and Philo's Embassy to Gaus does not chronologically jibe with the crucifixion of Jesus anyways.

Again, some of your argument might work if Jesus was a myth, but again fails against a historical person. If he was merely a historical person, nobody would be thinking he was a god.

Also, Jesus as a historical person who's fame was limited to his own vicinity- and if hated by the Jewish Sanhedrin and leaders in general as the gospels suggest- why would anyone think that a Jew such as Philo would list his crucifixion among the crimes of Pilate?

The Jews wanted Jesus dead, and they wanted the Romans to kill him, so why do you think it is somehow "reasonable" for Philo to complain about it on his list of the crimes of Pilate?

[dyresand]

I don't give a shit about that but in his catalog of the crimes of Pilate it seems remarkable that Philo would not have mentioned the crucifixion of one who "multitudes" of jews were hailing as god.

Ummm catalog of the crimes of Pilate? It wasn't much, and Philo's Embassy to Gaus does not chronologically jibe with the crucifixion of Jesus anyways.

Again, some of your argument might work if Jesus was a myth, but again fails against a historical person. If he was merely a historical person, nobody would be thinking he was a god.

Also, Jesus as a historical person who's fame was limited to his own vicinity- and if hated by the Jewish Sanhedrin and leaders in general as the gospels suggest- why would anyone think that a Jew such as Philo would list his crucifixion among the crimes of Pilate?

The Jews wanted Jesus dead, and they wanted the Romans to kill him, so why do you think it is somehow "reasonable" for Philo to complain about it on his list of the crimes of Pilate?

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.


Source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::

[robvalue]

Religion is special, you don't need evidence, arguments or logic. You just need good old blind faith in what your mum and dad shovelled into your head as a vulnerable child.

And no desire to learn the truth about anything.

[Free]

Ummm catalog of the crimes of Pilate? It wasn't much, and Philo's Embassy to Gaus does not chronologically jibe with the crucifixion of Jesus anyways.

Again, some of your argument might work if Jesus was a myth, but again fails against a historical person. If he was merely a historical person, nobody would be thinking he was a god.

Also, Jesus as a historical person who's fame was limited to his own vicinity- and if hated by the Jewish Sanhedrin and leaders in general as the gospels suggest- why would anyone think that a Jew such as Philo would list his crucifixion among the crimes of Pilate?

The Jews wanted Jesus dead, and they wanted the Romans to kill him, so why do you think it is somehow "reasonable" for Philo to complain about it on his list of the crimes of Pilate?

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.


Source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::

A long massive argument from silence is still not evidence. In fact, every last speculative/persuasive argument and argument from silence in here fails the test of reason, as not one of them is legitimate.

They are all fallacies, and provide no evidence to support a myth. In fact, I will pick one at random and show you why it's not a legitimate argument:

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony,

If you were referring to the criminal court system, you might have a point. But it is not a crime to consider Jesus as a historical person, therefore if any court of law were to be used it would be a civil court of law.

Civil courts of law do indeed allow hearsay evidence.

And that is just 1 example of the lack of honest reasoning and rationale put into arguments such as these, and that is why they fail. Those who make such arguments are avoiding intellectual honesty, and have also committed the logical fallacy known as The Fallacy of Exclusion since they purposely exclude other options such as a civil court of law.

[dyresand]

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.

Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay does not provide good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.

If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.

Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.

Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.


Source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::

A long massive argument from silence is still not evidence. In fact, every last speculative/persuasive argument and argument from silence in here fails the test of reason, as not one of them is legitimate.

They are all fallacies, and provide no evidence to support a myth. In fact, I will pick one at random and show you why it's not a legitimate argument:

Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony,

If you were referring to the criminal court system, you might have a point. But it is not a crime to consider Jesus as a historical person, therefore if any court of law were to be used it would be a civil court of law.

Civil courts of law do indeed allow hearsay evidence.

And that is just 1 example of the lack of honest reasoning and rationale put into arguments such as these, and that is why they fail.

LYING FOR THE CHURCH

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told them.

In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation."

In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it."

Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable evidence?

source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::

[Free]

A long massive argument from silence is still not evidence. In fact, every last speculative/persuasive argument and argument from silence in here fails the test of reason, as not one of them is legitimate.

They are all fallacies, and provide no evidence to support a myth. In fact, I will pick one at random and show you why it's not a legitimate argument:


If you were referring to the criminal court system, you might have a point. But it is not a crime to consider Jesus as a historical person, therefore if any court of law were to be used it would be a civil court of law.

Civil courts of law do indeed allow hearsay evidence.

And that is just 1 example of the lack of honest reasoning and rationale put into arguments such as these, and that is why they fail.

LYING FOR THE CHURCH

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told them.

In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation."

In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it."

Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable evidence?

source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::

And how does any of this in anyway demonstrate proof that Jesus was a myth? It does absolutely nothing. It proves nothing. It is just another smoke and mirror Mythicist argument.

Will you continue to copy and paste those pathetic arguments?

[dyresand]

LYING FOR THE CHURCH

The editing and formation of the Bible came from members of the early Christian Church. Since the fathers of the Church possessed the scriptoria and determined what would appear in the Bible, there occurred plenty of opportunity and motive to change, modify, or create texts that might bolster the position of the Church or the members of the Church themselves.

The orthodox Church also fought against competing Christian cults. Irenaeus, who determined the inclusion of the four (now canonical) gospels, wrote his infamous book, "Against the Heresies." According to Romer, "Irenaeus' great book not only became the yardstick of major heresies and their refutations, the starting-point of later inquisitions, but simply by saying what Christianity was not it also, in a curious inverted way, became a definition of the orthodox faith." [Romer] If a Jesus did exist, perhaps eyewitness writings got burnt along with them because of their heretical nature. We will never know.

In attempting to salvage the Bible the respected revisionist and scholar, Bruce Metzger has written extensively on the problems of the New Testament. In his book, "The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Metzger addresses: Errors arising from faulty eyesight; Errors arising from faulty hearing; Errors of the mind; Errors of judgment; Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties; and Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations. [Metzger]

The Church had such power over people, that to question the Church could result in death. Regardless of what the Church claimed, most people simply believed what their priests told them.

In letter LII To Nepotian, Jerome writes about his teacher, Gregory of Nazianzus when he asked him to explain a phrase in Luke, Nazianzus evaded his request by saying “I will tell you about it in church, and there, when all the people applaud me, you will be forced against your will to know what you do not know at all. For, if you alone remain silent, every one will put you down for a fool." Jerome responds with, "There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation."

In the 5th century, John Chrysostom in his "Treatise on the Priesthood, Book 1," wrote, "And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."

Ignatius Loyola of the 16th century wrote in his Spiritual Exercises: "To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it."

Martin Luther opined: "What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church … a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."

With such admission to accepting lies, the burning of heretical texts, Bible errors and alterations, how could any honest scholar take any book from the New Testament as absolute, much less using extraneous texts that support a Church's intransigent and biased position, as reliable evidence?

source:: http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm ::

And how does any of this in anyway demonstrate proof that Jesus was a myth? It does absolutely nothing. It proves nothing. It is just another smoke and mirror Mythicist argument.

Will you continue to copy and paste those pathetic arguments?

Who do you think made up Jesus this all ties in and its full circle.

[Minimalist]

Also, Jesus as a historical person who's fame was limited to his own vicinity

Oh, here we go again. The Great Xtian Paradox, trotted out for another whirl around the dance floor by desperate believer trying to do CPR on the corpse of their 'god.'

Fucking Jesus was SOOOOO important that the priests had to break every rule in their own book to hold a trial on Passover because thy couldn't wait ONE MORE FUCKING DAY to deal with this dangerous rabble-rouser but...at the same time... he was so insignificant that no one alive at that time even bothered to take note of him.

See what I mean when I say I'm tired of schooling every jesus freak who comes along spouting the same old nonsense. You aren't any different than the rest....except you are brazen about editing your own stories.

[Free]

And how does any of this in anyway demonstrate proof that Jesus was a myth? It does absolutely nothing. It proves nothing. It is just another smoke and mirror Mythicist argument.

Will you continue to copy and paste those pathetic arguments?

Who do you think made up Jesus this all ties in and its full circle.

Do you understand the difference between a persuasive argument and actual tangible evidence?

Here are the definitions:

Persuasive Writing:

Persuasive writing, is a piece of work in which the writer uses words to convince the reader that the writer's opinion is correct in regards to an issue. Persuasive writing sometimes involves persuading the reader to perform an action, or it may simply consist of an argument or several arguments to align the reader with the writer’s point of view.

That is what you are attempting to do above, and the argument above is not persuasive at all.

Now here is what tangible evidence is:

Tangible Evidence:

Tangible Evidence is an evidence which can be treated as fact; real or concrete. It is capable of being touched or felt and have a real substance, a tangible object.

That is what you need to do.

You are providing a very poorly scripted persuasive argument and confusing it with tangible evidence.

Decisions are made on the evidence, not on poorly scripted persuasive arguments.

[DeistPaladin]

It has been one big lexicon party up in this joint for the last few pages.

So "Godhead" is a funny way of saying "Trinity" then. Why didn't you just say so?

Dude, Zeus was born...he began to exist...his existence isn't necessary. So before he existed, he had no power, no immortality.

Beside my point. My point is that sharing attributes doesn't make you the same being. It makes you a similar being perhaps, but it doesn't magically turn 3 into 1.

The Trinity is the doctrine of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit sharing a divine nature of Deity. One God, three persons which the title of "God" applies to.

So "God" is simply a title and not a type of being like everyone else uses the word to mean.

See dictionary.com's definition of "God", nowhere does "it's just a title" appear in the definition of "God".

noun
1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
Expand
verb (used with object), godded, godding. (lowercase)
9. to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
interjection
10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like):
God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?

But don't let that stop you from coming up with your own definitions of the word. So there are three persons jointly holding the title.

Now most people use the word "pantheon" where you use the word "God".

lowercase) the gods of a particular mythology considered collectively.

So there are three beings in your pantheon (what you call "God" most people call "pantheon". Ergo, three gods. Ergo polytheism.

Here's a Sesame Street video that will help you learn to count to three since you seem to be having such problems with it:

If you don't understand it

Nobody understands it. You've just created your own version where the word "God" is redefined to be just a title held by multiple entities.

Most people use the word "pantheon". You can use whatever word you like but it doesn't change the fact that there are three (3) of these divine beings (separate beings, you've made clear that have a "divine nature" (gods) and so you have three (3) gods.

"One and two and three...".