Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

Atheists are making bold claim.

Which atheists? What claim? If you're going to troll at least offer something beyond such obvious sophistry.

 

[Sheldon]

But Jesus Christ comes from Bible. If you put Bible in doubt, about calling Jesus God, then you put Bible in doubt. Hence, you cannot use word Jesus Christ, because its source is doubtful.

Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ

It appears you are either again wording your religious bombast very poorly, or you are very wrong?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Holy Spirit, brother.

The Holy Spirit can’t keep the story straight?

 

[questfortruth]

The Holy Spirit can’t keep the story straight?

God likes Bible. You are not smarter than the Smartest one.

 

[Spirit of Light]

God likes Bible. You are not smarter than the Smartest one.

How do you know what God like or not?

 

[Spirit of Light]

@questfortruth i dont understand why you run away when someone ask you questions

 

[leroy]

It is possible that a few people witnessed something that they believed was Jesus risen from the dead. However, we cannot know for certain.

Ofcourse not.....we are talking about ancient history.......nothing can be known for certain. .... but given the evidence we can stablish with high degree of certainty that the disciples (and others) saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection......agree? ... (if tbis is what scholars claim, unddr what basis would you disagree?)

Given this lack of knowledge, the lack of any independent corroborative evidence, the existing belief that such an event was required to fulfil prophesy, and the impossibility of the event, it is unreasonable to insist that it did happen, or even that it probably happened.

Again most scholars agree on that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus. ...... so if you disagree with scholars its fare to ask.....in your opinion.what are they missing? What do you know that they fail to grasp?


Your facts in red are wrong , we do have multiple independent sources for the appearances......
The appearance to Peter is independently attested by Paul and Luke, the appearance to the Twelve by Luke and John and Paul, We also have independent witness to Galilean appearances in Mark, Matthew, and John, as well as to the women in Matthew and John.

The apostoles where not expecting a resurrection, resurrections in this context where very "anti Jewish " and some witnesses where not even christian / they thought Jesus was a fraud

 

[questfortruth]

How do you know what God like or not?

I am talking about my Church's knowledge about Jesus.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I am talking about my Church's knowledge about Jesus.

Yes, they have one understanding of God...but that does not make it the only correct answer. Or?

 

[leroy]

*sigh*
You must be doing this deliberately. No one is that dense...

The stegosaurus information is verifiable. It can be and has been independently checked. If you doubt its veracity, you can go over the information yourself.

These are your rules, not mine , you said that any information recived by someoneelse is hearasay ......so by those standards the labeling of the stegosaurus is hearsay.

Did he? Who were they?

Paul James John and other 500 individuals.

That still leaves his account as hearsay because he heard about it from someone else and that original account cannot be checked and verified

Yes the original source can be checkedand and verified...... we have lther independent sources claiming the same things.
.

So what? Thousands of people were proclaiming the election was stolen days after the event. By your argument, this is evidence that it was stolen. Surely you can see the fatal flaw in your claim?

1 nobody claimed to have seen someone steeling the election.

2 nobody was willing to die for that belief


If you provide examples of 1 and 2 then sure we can stablish as fact that some people saw something that they interpreted as a fraudulent activity intended to steel the elections.

 

[leroy]

Scientologists believe that when L. Ron Hubbard died in 1986, what happened was that Hubbard considered his body an "impediment" and "dropped his body" so he could continue his research on other planets.

Do you consider this "conclusive evidence" that L. Ron Hubbard is alive on another planet despite having died?

Care to explain why is this analogous to anything i ve said?

 

[leroy]

As historical documents, they fall because much of the contents are extraordinary claims of magic with no support or corroboration.

Maybe, but the resurrection is the exception, we do have support and corroboration for this event

E] No they don't. Whether or not the gospels are historically accurate, and to what degree is a whole field of study in itself.

Maybe, but all scholars agree that there is some historical stuff in the gospels........including the fact that early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Care to explain why is this analogous to anything i ve said?

You say that very soon after Jesus's death, Christians believed in the Resurrection, and that this is "convincing evidence" that the Resurrection is true... despite those Christians holding the belief not witnessing the Resurrection themselves.

By the same token, very soon after L. Ron Hubbard's death, Scientologists believed that L. Ron Hubbard is alive on another planet.

If you see a difference, what is it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Maybe, but the resurrection is the exception, we do have support and corroboration for this event

What corroboration?

 

[leroy]

Wrong again.
There is no such "material". Ludemann merely suggests that Paul was referencing a myth that was already in circulation. It is possible that Paul's account was the first time it was ever written down. We have no way of knowing, either way.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that the material dates to within 2 or 3 years after the crucifixion.

If today you right a book about the holocaust and you include quotes from sources written in t 1948.....then your book would be 2022 but people could say that is has material that dates within 3 years after the holocaust...... (the same happens with Paul )

 

[leroy]

leroy said: ↑
The NT proves with high degree of certainty that:
1 Jesus died on the cross
2 was buried
3 the tomb as found empty
4 early Christians saw something that they interpreted as a resurrection.
5 Paul and James became christian after the crusifixtion

Circular logic.
The NT makes those claims, so you can't use those claims as evidence that those claims are true. This is pretty basic stuff.

Of course it isord.

So do you deny the historicity of these facts?

 

[leroy]

But the four Gospels are of unknown authorship.

So what ? They where written by well informed authors / who cares if Luke was written by a man named Luke or uf he had an other name?

Moreover, there are other gospels that early church leaders decided didn't paint the picture they wanted to promote, so they just omitted them.

So what ? Whats your point ?

 

[questfortruth]

Yes, they have one understanding of God...but that does not make it the only correct answer. Or?

For me it makes. Knowledge of a person is the knowledge of his Religion and its God. Believe me, atheists have a god too. Because they have knowledge, their god of Disbelief tells them all they need to know. He told them, that there is neither satan nor god.

 

[leroy]

You say that very soon after Jesus's death, Christians believed in the Resurrection,


and that this is "convincing evidence" that the Resurrection is true.

No,but its convincing evidence that the resurrection is not a legend nor a rumour nor a telephone game type of thing that developed through time. /





This evidence by itself doesn't exclude the possibility of a deliberate lie, or hallucinations


..

despite those Christians holding the belief not witnessing the Resurrection themselves.

Well they claimed that they did witnesses the event

[E]By the same token, very soon after L. Ron Hubbard's death, Scientologists believed that L. Ron Hubbard is alive on another planet.

If you see a difference, what is it?

No idea who this Ron guy is, and no idea what your point is .

If the guy who made the claim about the other planet, claims to be a witness and claims to have seen ron in this other planet..... and was willing to die in support for that claim.......then sure we can stablish as fact that he was not lying and that he saw something that he genuinely interpreted as having seen Ron in an other planet.

In the same way we can stablish that early Christians saw saw something that they interpreted as having seen the risen Jesus.

 

[questfortruth]

This evidence by itself doesn't exclude the possibility of a deliberate lie, or hallucinations

Shall I be sorry, that Jesus lefts no excuse for us to go to hell? If Jesus is not proven God, we have excuse of disbelief. But no, no such possibility, Jesus very well cares for our safety: