Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[abaris]

Despite his views on the divinity of Jesus, he is invaluable as a witness to the historical existence of Jesus and the gospels as historical sources.

If he were a historian, which, according to his own page you linked, he isn't. If his views were undisputed. He's just one and I give you that the results of his research are interesting, but far from being considered fact by the scientific community at large.

[robvalue]

So you respond to the accusation that you're conflating historical and magic Jesus by doing the exact same thing again and adding an appeal to authority fallacy. Historians are not an authority on supernatural events. No one is. That is the problem.

You just don't care about integrity at all, do you?

That's crap and you know it.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has posted more sourced material than I have. The majority of the posts in this thread have come from empty-headed individuals such as yourself simply popping off anything and everything that comes to mind on the spur of the moment. You are easily among the worst offenders in this regard.

Your posts are emotional and not rational.

You know damn well Ehrman does not believe in the ressurection for one second, so even your intended fallacy is dishonest. Do you have any idea what you are doing?

More poorly reasoned crap from you. Duh, of course I know what Ehrman's position on the resurrection is...that's what makes him such an outstanding source for me to quote. He's a hostile witness, rob...ever heard of the concept? Despite his views on the divinity of Jesus, he is invaluable as a witness to the historical existence of Jesus and the gospels as historical sources.

And since you have never read a book on the subject, you are flummoxed as to how to put together a coherent argument to refute Ehrman.

My response to Crossless1 shows that REAL scholars (as opposed to idiots on the Internet and this forum especially) agree that Jesus really existed.

This directly refutes Crossless1's allegations that Jesus was a myth.

What you replied to was us talking about you conflating historical and magical Jesus. Do you even read what you reply to?

[Crossless2.0]

Randy: "My response to Crossless1 shows that REAL scholars (as opposed to idiots on the Internet and this forum especially) agree that Jesus really existed.
This directly refutes Crossless1's allegations that Jesus was a myth."

So, despite my specifically telling you days ago that I'm not a Jesus-myther, you pull this out of your ass? Get your shit together, Randy. As Rob said, you continue to conflate a possible historical Jesus with the Christ character of your book. That doesn't speak well of your integrity.

[robvalue]

Care to give some examples of what I popped off in the heat of the moment, in an empty headed way?

I've pretty much just constantly pointed out your errors.

[Losty]

Let's say we find an empty grave now on 2015. Would we suspect a resurrection or grave robbers? Just wondering.

The latter. Unless we had:

1. A promise to rise from the dead beforehand.
2. Verification of death.
3. Witnesses who saw the person alive afterward.
4. Conversion of both skeptics and enemies resulting from appearances.

You know, the kind of stuff Christians have...

I didn't know you had any of that outside of the bible, which obviously doesn't count as it is no more credible than any other story book. How can you have a verification of death when there's no verification of life? Have I been out so long that Christians got all this cool stuff while I was gone or are you just being goofy?

[robvalue]

Conversions. I can't believe conversions are being posited as evidence. And conversions which are part of the story, ie. the claim.

A fairly new dark matter vid covers this!

http://youtu.be/Ofca4uUU0_I

[IATIA]

2. Verification of death.

And that would be ... ?


(corrected quote source)

[Dystopia]

2. Verification of death.

And that would be ... ?

Evidence! It it's testimonial, then at least we should expect records of people we know actually existed attesting that this or that really happened.

[Randy Carson]

That's crap and you know it.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has posted more sourced material than I have. The majority of the posts in this thread have come from empty-headed individuals such as yourself simply popping off anything and everything that comes to mind on the spur of the moment. You are easily among the worst offenders in this regard.

Your posts are emotional and not rational.


More poorly reasoned crap from you. Duh, of course I know what Ehrman's position on the resurrection is...that's what makes him such an outstanding source for me to quote. He's a hostile witness, rob...ever heard of the concept? Despite his views on the divinity of Jesus, he is invaluable as a witness to the historical existence of Jesus and the gospels as historical sources.

And since you have never read a book on the subject, you are flummoxed as to how to put together a coherent argument to refute Ehrman.

My response to Crossless1 shows that REAL scholars (as opposed to idiots on the Internet and this forum especially) agree that Jesus really existed.

This directly refutes Crossless1's allegations that Jesus was a myth.

What you replied to was us talking about you conflating historical and magical Jesus. Do you even read what you reply to?

I do and I did - more clearly than you, obviously. Crossless1 wrote:

"What else can he do (aside from being honest about the nature of his source material)? If he were to stop conflating the two, he'd have little choice but to recognize that there is no sensible foundation to his religion [emphasis added[. Christianity depends on this conflation and True Believers like Randy will fight tooth and nail to avoid facing up to that. The Gospels must depict history; it can't be otherwise for them [emphasis added]. It's not a conclusion he arrived at rationally, despite his smokescreen of alleged "facts". It's his starting point."

In the first highlighted sentence, he alleges that there is "no sensible foundation" to Christianity. This is an assertion that there is no historical basis for it.

In the second highlighted sentence, he uses sarcasm saying, "The Gospels must[emphasis added} depict history" as if to say that "Well, we skeptics all know that the Gospels are really BS, but for the Christian, it must be true, 'it can't be otherwise"".

So, you see, rob, my response, which defended the historical aspects of Jesus and the Gospels, was dead on.

[pocaracas]

So you respond to the accusation that you're conflating historical and magic Jesus by doing the exact same thing again and adding an appeal to authority fallacy. Historians are not an authority on supernatural events. No one is. That is the problem.

You just don't care about integrity at all, do you?

That's crap and you know it.

NO ONE and I mean NO ONE has posted more sourced material than I have. The majority of the posts in this thread have come from empty-headed individuals such as yourself simply popping off anything and everything that comes to mind on the spur of the moment. You are easily among the worst offenders in this regard.

Your posts are emotional and not rational.

Thanks for the part that involves me... -.-'

Care to tell us all what Ehrman claims can be extracted from the gospels as historical?
And why is it that, even given those historical bits, he refuses to acknowledge that the resurrection story is an account of reality?