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

[The Valkyrie]

Why does there need to be Christian apologetics?

Perhaps on account of a deep seated and well justified sense of guilt?

When something claiming to be the perfect word of a perfect being needs apologetics to explain it, it shows that the word is fundamentally flawed.

[Whateverist]

It was ever thus.

[Esquilax]

You think I cannot read the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum? I cannot see the bias in the words that are expressed? I'm somehow blind to the disgust many atheists here have towards religions?

You don't know any of the people here, and you cannot read the contents of their minds. You have no way of determining whether the revulsion some of us have toward religion is the result of legitimate determinations they have made based on personal experiences and observations, or whether it is due to the unthinking bias you're claiming. Disliking, even hating christianity, does not necessarily stem from bias; you cannot bring up a negative position on the religion as the result of an illegitimate, unthinking rationalization, because you don't know.

[DeistPaladin]

Earl Doherty?

I never mentioned his name specifically nor did I have him in mind.

This guy seems to have done a thorough exegesis of the NT to suggest that the original Jesus was not an earthly figure.

[Free]

You think I cannot read the anti-Christian rhetoric on this forum? I cannot see the bias in the words that are expressed? I'm somehow blind to the disgust many atheists here have towards religions?

You don't know any of the people here, and you cannot read the contents of their minds.

Who said I could read the contents of their mind? Why do you suggest something that is impossible as if it's something I would be capable of doing?

I don't need to read minds, since many of them poor out the contents of their minds on this forum.

You have no way of determining whether the revulsion some of us have toward religion is the result of legitimate determinations they have made based on personal experiences and observations, or whether it is due to the unthinking bias you're claiming.

Either way, the revulsion exists and is obvious. POINT.

Disliking, even hating christianity, does not necessarily stem from bias; you cannot bring up a negative position on the religion as the result of an illegitimate, unthinking rationalization, because you don't know.

Again, am I not capable of reading their posts? I am not speaking of bias in general, but specifically anti-Christian bias.

And are you trying to tell me that it doesn't exist here? Are you trying to say that it is completely unreasonable when someone on your forums says something to the effect of "I hate Christianity" that I cannot reasonably conclude that they are biased against it?

Many comments on this forum regarding Christianity and religion are obviously biased since they are designed to influence in a particular, typically unfair direction.

For fuck sakes this is an atheist site, and you want to pretend there's no bias against religion here?

---

Earl Doherty?

I never mentioned his name specifically nor did I have him in mind.

This guy seems to have done a thorough exegesis of the NT to suggest that the original Jesus was not an earthly figure.

Yes, I have seen that video, and yes he is promoting Earl Doherty's position.

[DeistPaladin]

Again, the Trinity doctrine is not a concept of the three sharing the same "being".

Fine, if we agree these are different beings, then you agree that you are a polytheist.

Three divine beings = three gods = polytheism.

It is a title which represents who he is ...

I've argued with many apologists and you are so far the only one who refers to "God" as a title. The dictionary itself is unaware of your unique definition of the term.

Even allowing for your redefinition, you lose. You've redefined "God" to mean "your pantheon". Your pantheon contains three separate beings. These beings have all the features we associate with gods (immortal, powerful, etc.) and they "share a divine nature" according to you. This makes them gods. Your pantheon has three gods.

You're a polytheist, like it or not.

Try as you might, you can't make 3 = 1.

and it [the term God] can sometimes be used synonymously as a name for the "Father".

So he IS the same being as his father? If he assumes the same name he is either masquarading as his father (a liar) or he is the one and the same with his father (same being).

But either way, I am through with you on this subject.

Hey, don't blame me because your philosophy is incoherent causing you frustration when I won't accept your vapid nonsense "three persons in one god" attempt at an answer.

---

Yes, I have seen that video, and yes he is promoting Earl Doherty's position.

Fine. Then demolish it if the case is so flimsy as you seem to think.

Dismissing it with a hand waving gesture is a vapid ad hominem.

[Strider]

Again, am I not capable of reading their posts? I am not speaking of bias in general, but specifically anti-Christian bias.

Christianity certainly takes the most flack around here, but is that really surprising? I'm guessing that the vast majority of the forum members are either from North America or Europe, with a few other nationalities thrown in for good measure. The dominant religion is Christianity in these regions so it's only natural that the lion's share of attention in the forums is focused on it. I don't think it's fair to paint in such broad strokes and say that the entire board has an anti-Christian bias though. Yeah, it is discussed the most, but that's only because it is the religion that affects the vast majority of us the most.

And to be honest, many individuals are biased against your religion for very valid reasons. Christianity has infiltrated the political arena and now forms the basis for efforts to shape and enact laws. I have no issue with Christianity in and of itself. Believe whatever you want to believe. It's cool with me even if I don't agree with it. Hell, I'll even drink a beer with you. The problem comes when people start using Christianity to impose their beliefs on me and the society I am a part of.

[Free]

Again, the Trinity doctrine is not a concept of the three sharing the same "being".

Fine, if we agree these are different beings, then you agree that you are a polytheist.

Three divine beings = three gods = polytheism.

It is a title which represents who he is ...

I've argued with many apologists and you are so far the only one who refers to "God" as a title. The dictionary itself is unaware of your unique definition of the term.

Even allowing for your redefinition, you lose. You've redefined "God" to mean "your pantheon". Your pantheon contains three separate beings. These beings have all the features we associate with gods (immortal, powerful, etc.) and they "share a divine nature" according to you. This makes them gods. Your pantheon has three gods.

You're a polytheist, like it or not.

Try as you might, you can't make 3 = 1.

and it [the term God] can sometimes be used synonymously as a name for the "Father".

So he IS the same being as his father? If he assumes the same name he is either masquarading as his father (a liar) or he is the one and the same with his father (same being).

But either way, I am through with you on this subject.

Hey, don't blame me because your philosophy is incoherent causing you frustration when I won't accept your vapid nonsense "three persons in one god" attempt at an answer.

---

Yes, I have seen that video, and yes he is promoting Earl Doherty's position.

Fine. Then demolish it if the case is so flimsy as you seem to think.

Dismissing it with a hand waving gesture is a vapid ad hominem.

Hey, you are making the positive claim that whatever is in this video somehow reflects the truth. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to dissect this video, point by point, and put it in a post on this forum and I will show you what's wrong with it.

If you think I am going to do the work for you by stripping apart this video, good luck with that.

You presented it as evidence, so now you can prove the truth of it, if any truth exists.

---

Again, am I not capable of reading their posts? I am not speaking of bias in general, but specifically anti-Christian bias.

Christianity certainly takes the most flack around here, but is that really surprising?

I am glad you agree. Thank you for your intellectual honesty on this point.

I don't think it's fair to paint in such broad strokes and say that the entire board his an anti-Christian bias though. Yeah, it is discussed the most, but that's only because it is the religion that affects the vast majority of us the most.

This was pointed out to me earlier, and i agreed and apologized.

And to be honest, many individuals are biased against your religion for very valid reasons. Christianity has infiltrated the political arena and now forms the basis for efforts to shape and enact laws. I have no issue with Christianity in and of itself. Believe whatever you want to believe. It's cool with me even if I don't agree with it. Hell, I'll even drink a beer with you. The problem comes when people start using Christianity to impose their beliefs on me and the society I am a part of.

I understand this. Whenever the JWs come to the door, I play the atheist card just so they will fuck off and leave me alone.

Atheism DOES have its benefits!

[Minimalist]

Like I said, bring me his best argument. Just one.

Like I said, when you have 'evidence' that Humphreys is wrong bring it on. Your opinions are as fucking worthless as any other jesus freak.

[DeistPaladin]

Hey, you are making the positive claim ...

I asked you if you could present chapter and verse where Paul speaks of an earthly Jesus crucified within his lifetime.

Can you do this, yes or no?

It's a simple request.

And by the way, the burden of proof NEVER lies with the skeptic on any issue. It is ALWAYS upon the person who believes "X" to be true.