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

[Free]

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.

Hey dude, you brought up his site. All I am asking from you is to bring me one good argument from it.

If you can't do that, then you are as useless as tits on a nun.

[DeistPaladin]

Hey dude, you brought up his site. All I am asking from you is to bring me one good argument from it.

If you can't do that, then you are as useless as tits on a nun.

Still waiting for you to cite chapter and verse where Paul confirms the historical Jesus. You did, after all, tell us that this proves your case.

Anytime now.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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

My revulsion against the Christian religion has nothing to do with any atheist lockstep mentality -- as if one actually exists.

My revulsion with the Christian religion arises from its tolerance of the evils perpetrated in its name, ranging from denial of civil rights to gays here in America to abetting the spread of AIDS in Africa by preaching against condom usage.

I don't mind Christians as people insofar as they don't try to force their religion on me -- indeed, most of my family are Christian and I love them dearly. But I despise religious doctrines that impose needless and sometimes mortal suffering upon people simply to please the strictures of an ideology that can be best described as amoral.

[Minimalist]

And so far everything he has written is superior to your "I love jesus" based horseshit.

The page begins with Decius' alleged persecution of xtians....(it was not...it was an empire-wide loyalty oath but jesus freaks, then as now, thought it was aimed at them.) Remember that Humphreys is backed by Candida Moss but let's hear what you've got from your library of church-inspired horseshit

[Free]

And so far everything he has written is superior to your "I love jesus" based horseshit.

The page begins with Decius' alleged persecution of xtians....(it was not...it was an empire-wide loyalty oath but jesus freaks, then as now, thought it was aimed at them.) Remember that Humphreys is backed by Candida Moss but let's hear what you've got from your library of church-inspired horseshit

I have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

For fucks says just copy and paste something, ONE THING. ANYTHING.

[Esquilax]

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.

What they pour out into this forum is, at best, dislike or hatred of christianity. When you accuse them of bias you speak not to the content of their position but the motive that underlies it, intimating that they didn't come to their beliefs through rational observations, or with any justification, but because they had decided to hate on christianity no matter what. An accusation of bias carries with it the idea that the position reached is an unfair and unjustified one, but since you have- as I pointed out- no way of determining what the given motivation is, you have no justification for accusing any of us of bias.

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

Not all revulsion is the result of bias. Sometimes it comes from a reasoned evaluation of the concept in question; I don't dislike child abuse, say, because I'm just biased against child abusers. I dislike it for reasons, reasons you both dismiss and diminish by throwing around accusations of bias.

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.

Why is it that just restating your initial fallacious point rebuts my argument? You aren't speaking of bias at all, you're speaking of dislike and relabelling it bias, which might make it easier to dismiss everything anyone has to say, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate determination.

You are seeing a position, in the posts on this forum, and then extrapolating a motivation from that, when none is stated and you have no means of determining one. That's what I take issue with.

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?

No, you can't make a justified accusation of bias based solely on the sentiment "I hate Christianity," because that gives you no indication of bias. It gives you an indication of hate, but in saying it's bias you're claiming that the position itself is the motivation, that there is no reason this hypothetical poster hates christianity other than that he decided to, that his position isn't based on facts or experience, but on an unthinking dogma. You don't get to do that for people you've never met.

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

If you think it's unfair then make the case for that. But don't just make blanket dismissals and disrespect the people involved by dictating to them what their motivations are; did the possibility that they might honestly believe what they're saying for reasons, and not as part of some internal crusade, not occur to you?

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

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. If you took the time to actually know us, though, I think you'd have a harder time justifying your insulting, glib dismissals of us so far. The great majority of us have christian loved ones, christians we respect and deal with every day, even christian posters here who were treated with a great deal of friendliness when they came to our board without being overly aggressive or presumptuous.

Yet further, many of us have shared our stories, detailed the reasons why we disbelieve at length varying from highly personal accounts of deconversion, to lifelong agnostics and atheists discussing the things they've seen which confirm or trouble their beliefs.

Not a one of us has just said "I hate christianity because I hate it, and that's why I'm an atheist." So perhaps you can see my frustration at people like you who walk into the board out of nowhere, and in less than a day presumes to know enough about people that I like a great deal, who have written more about their beliefs than I could possibly read in 24 hours, to dismiss them as nothing more than biased. To negate their stories and experiences as though they don't matter, and reduce their opinions to little more than the standard persecution fairytale that so seems to attract you lot. To assume they have nothing to say, because what they've said disagrees with what you believe more virulently than you'd like.

You're a believer, so you've probably never experienced this to the degree that many of us have, but what you're claiming here is indicative of the kind of erasure and dismissals some of us deal with even to this day. That's why this shit gets my goat so badly, because you don't even really realize what you're doing, or why what you're saying is a hideous overreach of boundaries.

You don't get to tell us what we believe or why. Stop trying to.

[Free]

Hey dude, you brought up his site. All I am asking from you is to bring me one good argument from it.

If you can't do that, then you are as useless as tits on a nun.

Still waiting for you to cite chapter and verse where Paul confirms the historical Jesus. You did, after all, tell us that this proves your case.

Anytime now.

I placed in a specific order so that you might have a chance at grasping the reality:



Jesus described as Christ and as flesh:

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Jesus was crucified:

1Co_1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him being crucified.

This flesh of Jesus Christ died:

1Th_2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, also driving us out and they do not please God and being contrary to all men,

Rom_5:6 For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Jesus Christ died during Paul's Time:

Rom_5:8 But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Most of this is just from 1 or 2 leters. This stuff is everywhere.

If you need more, i feel sorry for you.

---

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.

What they pour out into this forum is, at best, dislike or hatred of christianity. When you accuse them of bias you speak not to the content of their position but the motive that underlies it, intimating that they didn't come to their beliefs through rational observations, or with any justification, but because they had decided to hate on christianity no matter what. An accusation of bias carries with it the idea that the position reached is an unfair and unjustified one, but since you have- as I pointed out- no way of determining what the given motivation is, you have no justification for accusing any of us of bias.

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

Not all revulsion is the result of bias. Sometimes it comes from a reasoned evaluation of the concept in question; I don't dislike child abuse, say, because I'm just biased against child abusers. I dislike it for reasons, reasons you both dismiss and diminish by throwing around accusations of bias.

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

Why is it that just restating your initial fallacious point rebuts my argument? You aren't speaking of bias at all, you're speaking of dislike and relabelling it bias, which might make it easier to dismiss everything anyone has to say, but that doesn't mean it's a legitimate determination.

You are seeing a position, in the posts on this forum, and then extrapolating a motivation from that, when none is stated and you have no means of determining one. That's what I take issue with.

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?

No, you can't make a justified accusation of bias based solely on the sentiment "I hate Christianity," because that gives you no indication of bias. It gives you an indication of hate, but in saying it's bias you're claiming that the position itself is the motivation, that there is no reason this hypothetical poster hates christianity other than that he decided to, that his position isn't based on facts or experience, but on an unthinking dogma. You don't get to do that for people you've never met.

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

If you think it's unfair then make the case for that. But don't just make blanket dismissals and disrespect the people involved by dictating to them what their motivations are; did the possibility that they might honestly believe what they're saying for reasons, and not as part of some internal crusade, not occur to you?

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

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. If you took the time to actually know us, though, I think you'd have a harder time justifying your insulting, glib dismissals of us so far. The great majority of us have christian loved ones, christians we respect and deal with every day, even christian posters here who were treated with a great deal of friendliness when they came to our board without being overly aggressive or presumptuous.

Yet further, many of us have shared our stories, detailed the reasons why we disbelieve at length varying from highly personal accounts of deconversion, to lifelong agnostics and atheists discussing the things they've seen which confirm or trouble their beliefs.

Not a one of us has just said "I hate christianity because I hate it, and that's why I'm an atheist." So perhaps you can see my frustration at people like you who walk into the board out of nowhere, and in less than a day presumes to know enough about people that I like a great deal, who have written more about their beliefs than I could possibly read in 24 hours, to dismiss them as nothing more than biased. To negate their stories and experiences as though they don't matter, and reduce their opinions to little more than the standard persecution fairytale that so seems to attract you lot. To assume they have nothing to say, because what they've said disagrees with what you believe more virulently than you'd like.

You're a believer, so you've probably never experienced this to the degree that many of us have, but what you're claiming here is indicative of the kind of erasure and dismissals some of us deal with even to this day. That's why this shit gets my goat so badly, because you don't even really realize what you're doing, or why what you're saying is a hideous overreach of boundaries.

You don't get to tell us what we believe or why. Stop trying to.

You can't seem to admit that this site is full of atheists with bias against Christianity and theists.

Bias is simply this:

"Biased means one-sided, lacking a neutral viewpoint, not having an open mind."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias

In regards to religious issues, both atheists and theists employ this kind of bias.

Google This in Google's Advanced Search:

"I hate theists" -doesn't site:atheistforums.org/

"I Hate Christianity" site:atheistforums.org/

Then come talk to me. Enough said.

I have no clue why you would take this absolutely indefensible position. Bias exists everywhere, with everybody, to certain degrees. It is perfectly normal for people to be biased to some degree.

Here's a fine example of the hate you claim you don't have here:

https://atheistforums.org/thread-13724-p...#pid307644

Dude, that is very bad, but it's not the worst. No need to argue about this.

It's over.

[Natachan]

It's clear what he intended. He wanted to establish a historical Jesus in part one, which he failed to do. He then wanted to establish that the gospels were reliable sources in part two, which he failed to do, especially since this is impossible to do. Part three would have built on that to say that since the gospels are reliable accounts we should trust them when they talk of the resurrection.

Awww, aren't you a bright one?? First off, I could CARE LESS whether or not you people are convinced by the arguments..the point of me even joining this wonderful forum is not to get converts (although that would be fine), but to be able to answer objections to my faith, especially regarding something like the Resurrection which is admittedly difficult to prove due to the fact that the arguments that are given is based on historicity, which can be quite subjective.

The point of starting the thread was to sharpen my sword in this particular aspect of Christian apologetics...keeping the sword sharp...now whether or not you are convinced, I could care less, because it is obvious that you people don't give a shit about salvation OR Jesus Christ anyway.

Even if we had authentic letters from Pilate or ten more people that LIVED during the time and in that location that testified to Jesus, would you be a Christian then??? Can you honestly say that you would accept Jesus as Lord and Savior if that was the case? The probability of that happening is on the low scale, huh.

Honestly? Yes. I would be. The ENTIRETY of my deconversion was that there was nothing to differentiate Jesus from any other apocalyptic preacher with messianic presumptions at the time. I have yet to hear anything that changes that.

So it isn't about "compelling" evidence...it is about our jobs...my job is to present to you the best evidence for my case, and your job is to object to that case...plain and simple, and if that is the way it has to be, then let it be.

I have theological training. And you, sir, are a piss poor apologist. I understand fully the claim I am rejecting, probably better than you do. If you want to be a better apologist you do have to understand that it is important to put forth a good argument and strong evidence. I would still be a catholic if I had been able to find one shred of evidence that Jesus was divinely inspired, that he was unique, that he was in some way different from all the other claimants. Hell, this is in top of knowing that the gospels aren't historically accurate, I would still be catholic.

If you want to be a good apologist you still have to acknowledge that existence exists. That facts are facts. And that no book is infallible simply because it says it is.

But we are all responsible for our own eternal destiny, and the eternal afterlife destination that each of us will have is a lot longer than the finite amount of time we lived on earth denying the existence of God.

smiley removed for the sake if sanity think about that.

I see no reason to believe in an eternal afterlife, and I would not want it if it were offered. Eternity is a very long time. But even still, I see no reason to believe there is one.

As he has failed to provide compelling evidence of part one, and made no attempt at part two, I think that the matter should be closed out and this thread devoted to pictures of kittens.

I think the matter should continue, which will allow for more intellectual spankings of both you, and your counterparts on here.

You have failed to answer any valid point put to you, dodged and yammered, and made no significant contribution. If you have a valid piece of evidence that you can point to that would support your case, present it.

If you can present me with one reason that you might have some validity, I will listen. But so far you have not. And made it hard to read the posts you put up with those irritating smiley things. So until you have something valid to say:

[dyresand]

Hey dude, you brought up his site. All I am asking from you is to bring me one good argument from it.

If you can't do that, then you are as useless as tits on a nun.

Still waiting for you to cite chapter and verse where Paul confirms the historical Jesus. You did, after all, tell us that this proves your case.

Anytime now.

[Free]

Still waiting for you to cite chapter and verse where Paul confirms the historical Jesus. You did, after all, tell us that this proves your case.

Anytime now.

Bill was incorrect, and I say that as a fan of his. Here's why:

I placed the quotes of Paul in a specific order so that you form the train of thought.

Jesus described as Christ and as flesh:

Rom_1:3 about His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,

Jesus was crucified:

1Co_1:23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness.

1Co_2:2 For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ, and Him being crucified.

This flesh of Jesus Christ died:

1Th_2:15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, also driving us out and they do not please God and being contrary to all men,

Rom_5:6 For we yet being without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.

Jesus Christ died during Paul's Time:

Rom_5:8 But God commends His love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.

Therefore, the concept that Paul was thinking of Jesus as being some ethereal being existing in some ethereal kingdom just doesn't jibe with the evidence.

That entire concept is not scholarship, but rather a work of fiction.