Evidence: The Gathering

[Whateverist]

Nice.

[Nope]

Randy said all this. (sorry, I accidentally erased his name)

Fact 1
After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in his personal tomb. This is significant because it would have been difficult for the disciples to make up the story of an empty tomb when everyone knew where the tomb was located.
1. Jesus’ burial is attested in the very old tradition quoted by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians.
“For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.” (1 Co 15:3-5)
Paul “received” this account from Peter within the first five years of Jesus’ crucifixion making the possibility of legend or myth very unlikely.
2. The account of the burial is part of very old source material used by Mark in writing his gospel. The passion narrative, in particular, is thought to be from an even earlier account that was used by all of the gospel writers.
3. As a member of the Jewish court that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention.
4. No competing burial story exists.

Fact 2
On the Sunday following the crucifixion, the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his female followers.
1. The empty tomb story is part of the very old source material used by Mark.
2. The old tradition cited by Paul in 1 Corinthians implies the fact of the empty tomb.
3. Mark’s story is simple and lacks signs of legendary embellishment.
4. The fact that women’s testimony was worthless in first century Palestine strengthens the case that women were the first to discover the empty tomb. Why would any account use the suspect testimony of women if it were not an accurate recounting of what really happened?
5. The earliest Jewish allegations that the disciples had stolen Jesus’ body presupposes that the tomb was empty.

Fact 3
On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups experienced appearances of Jesus alive after his death.
1. The list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances (which is quoted by Paul and vouchsafed by his personal acquaintance with many of the people involved), guarantees that such appearances occurred. These included appearances to Peter, to the Apostles, to 500 people at one time, and to James.
2. The appearance traditions in the gospels provide multiple, independent attestation to these appearances.
3. Researchers have noticed signs of historical credibility in the specific appearances; for example, the unexpected activity of the disciples’ fishing prior to Jesus’ appearance by the Lake of Tiberius or the otherwise inexplicable conversion of James.

Fact 4
The disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite having every reason not to believe it.
1. Their leader was dead, and Jews had no belief in a dying (and rising) Messiah.
2. According to Jewish law, Jesus’ execution as a criminal showed him to be a heretic and a man literally under the curse of God.
3. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead before the general resurrection at the end of the world.
4. The disciples were transformed from a dispirited, fearful group into a bold and fearless force willing to take on the world.

Fact 5
The conversion of Paul

Fact 6
The conversion of James

Fact 7
The Jews who followed Jesus abandoned the Sabbath and chose the first day of the week, Sunday, as their holy day.
1. Why would Jews abandon the Sabbath day instituted by God unless something very significant had happened on Sunday?

Fact 8
The Apostles began to preach the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where He had been killed.
1. They did not return to Galilee and begin preaching to people who had no knowledge of the facts concerning Jesus’ crucifixion; they began preaching right under the noses of those who were responsible for His death.
2. Anyone wanting to disprove the resurrection would only have to open the nearby tomb to display the corpse or skeleton.
3. No one on either side of the issue denied that Jesus’ tomb was empty; as stated previously, the Jews claimed that the disciples stole the body.

[/quote]

Why can't you understand that atheists don't accept your bible as reliable proof of anything? All you have done is write out the bible stories about Jesus. So? I don't believe the bible and until you can prove that the book is true, I am going to look at it like I do any mythological tale.

The outside sources simply state what Christians as a group believe and are not first hand witness accounts to Jesus' life.

[loganonekenobi]

Let's just throw this out there and have fun with it.
would this person be okay with me running test in the medical laboratory for his diagnosis based on the way that evidence in given to prove god,hell,afterlilfe?

I'll bet not.

say he has a high sodium level. I might repeat it to make sure before i give it to the doctor however by this post's standards of science i would instead find out that he's a black male which is known for high blood pressure and so conclude that the no retest is neccessary since other evidence shows that it should be true. No retest needed.

this is the evidence that this poster's standards are falling on and i dare say even more shaky than the example I gave.

[Mister Agenda]

Pick a single "proof" Randy, preferably the best one.

Negative, Ghost Rider. The pattern is full.

(I already have a lot on my plate.)

You've got enough time to post 20 'arguments' but not enough to elaborate on one? More like you're already aware that each one is made out of holes, and you know that not one can stand up to any kind of scrutiny. Which makes this a good point at which for you to cut and run without supporting the validity of even one of the arguments you posted.

[KevinM1]

The outside sources simply state what Christians as a group believe and are not first hand witness accounts to Jesus' life.

Exactly right. The external sources merely provide context in a, "Hey, this is what those goat fuckers down there believe in" way. There's nothing in them that says, "Well, since those goat fuckers believe in those myths, they must be true." To attempt to describe them as sticking up for the veracity of the set of myths you happen to believe in is laughably dishonest.

[abaris]

Which makes this a good point at which for you to cut and run without supporting the validity of even one of the arguments you posted.

Shit and run, that's what he always does when challenged with something his apologetic handbooks can't answer. I'm starting to suspect we're dealing with a very real loony here. One who seriously believes to collect brownie points with his lord when spreading what's called the word in his circles.

[Neo-Scholastic]

No one who actually understands the arguments Aquinas of this forum so its not surprising that they reflexively belief Wikipedia entries that have been edited by equally ignorant militant skeptics.

Good show, Randy.

[Minimalist]

Aquinas was 8+ centuries after the Council of Nicaea.  Who gives a shit what he wrote?  He is as far removed from the formations of the church as we are from Richard the Lionhearted.

Give up on your moldy old horseshit.

[Crossless2.0]

Chad, two questions:

Do you seriously believe that" Copy/paste Randy" understands Aquinas?

When you give reach-arounds, do fellow Christians get a discount?

[abaris]

Aquinas was 8+ centuries after the Council of Nicaea.  Who gives a shit what he wrote?  He is as far removed from the formations of the church as we are from Richard the Lionhearted.

Give up on your moldy old horseshit.

13th century clergyman. Need I say more, given the social environment he grew up with?