He is Risen - The Evidence

[joelr]

You’re whole argument is dismissed and irrelevant
as well as all who agree with you, you’re disqualified because you don’t even know the definition of an Apostate, which Ehrman clearly is.
You said all non believing historians deny Jesus Christ actually lived? This is a false statement and would say most do, they probably have a problem with the resurrection.

No I said most historians find the gospels to be a myth. A mythological narrative around a man who was a teacher or Rabbi. Many scholars are moving to the full mythicist side because they are realizing the evidence for historicity was based on assumptions that are very weak.
Why Ehrman left Christianity has no bearing and he is just one of many scholars who know the gospels are fiction.

 

[joelr]

Apostate is the correct term for Ehrman, look up the definition.
This is what was posted by the person you reference:When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

That is a quote from Richard Carrier saying that "that Jesus" (the Gospel Jesus) didn't exist. That's what I said, the gospels are myth?
Notice the word "that" used twice meaning "the Jesus in the gospels".

 

[nPeace]

Then please say something.

You mean say something more.

In particular, demonstrate the reality of the supernatural.

Oh. Christians are supposed to be patient, kind, and yes, reasonable too.

So question. Why are you in the habit of creating a smoke screen on every thread?
For example, was that you, I spoke with here?
If it was, I have a few questions. 1) Did I answer your question? 2) Does my answer have to be what you want to hear? 3) does my answer have to satisfy you?
4) Then why are you blowing that smoke screen on this thread, rather than deal with the topic, or OP?

On this thread, I said in the OP, Persons are making the claim that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
In this thread, I will show that claim is false, and that it is both irrational, amd unreasonable, to demand particular expectations be met.
The following is looking at the facts reasonably.

I am repeating, as it's difficult to see through smoke, and you probably missed some things.
If you are here to address the topic of the thread, and the OP, all fine and good. If on the other hand you want to just distract with your usual smoke screen - because that's all it is... a distraction, and a strawman argument - then you are free to take that to another thread, or just hop back on the one in the link, and repeat your argument. See if you get an answer.
Am I being unreasonable, or is that fair, and reasonable?
If you think I am not being reasonable, then please explain how.

In the OP, there are some facts presented, which shows that there is evidence for the resurrection.
If you disagree, or have a problem with those facts, then the onus is on you to demonstrate they are indeed not factual.

You can't do that by arguing that you cannot prove a negative
Telling me what scholars think, or what you believe, does not do it either.
So you have a choice.
As a patient, kind and reasonable Christian, I have given you more than I think you deserve.

Your call.

 

[nPeace]

HA! You could try to hide the denial a little? That's how my nephew who's 10 argues? Don't demonstrate why they are incorrect, just hand wave and shout out they don't know anything. Ha.
Oh, "sit and form opinions"... demonstrably incorrect:

excavations
"Dever was director of the Harvard Semitic Museum–Hebrew Union College excavations at Gezer in 1966–1971, 1984 and 1990; director of the dig at Khirbet el-Kôm and Jebel Qacaqir (West Bank) 1967–1971; principal investigator at Tell el-Hayyat excavations (Jordan) 1981–1985, and assistant director, University of Arizona Expedition to Idalion, Cyprus, 1991, among other excavations.[5]"

You were fine with scholars when you thought they were in your camp? Poor form. You simply do not care about what is true.

"why they are incorrect"?
You have not shown that they are correct B.

"fine with scholars when you thought they were in your camp"?
LOL Dude, please.
The reason the poor scholars admitted that Jesus was a real historical character, and that he was baptized, and crucified, is because of the undeniable evidence. LOL
This is crazy.
...and yes, quite disturbing to hear, coming from someone who is so into scholarship.
I accepted the evidence, long before scholars did. I do not live for scholarly consensus. LOL

and here come the conspiracy theories. Like I haven't seen this over and over. Your religion can't possibly be a myth so what do we do about these scholars? Conspiracy theory! They are lying.
Problem is, (besides that it's illogical and crank to call entire fields of study all liars) they evaluate evidence. It isn't in secret. Everyone can see exactly what's found at what site and see why these are the most logical reasons.
Yet without looking at a case by case basis you just call them all liars. Pure delusion.

Dude. This is pathetic. It's stooping quite low too, imo.
I said this...
They know only that they believe what they decide to. It may not even be what they say, as they are not infallible and some do lie to themselves... and others, for their own purposes.

I'm not here to say who is a liar, but sometimes we ourselves don't even know why we lie.
Some do understand later though.
...and you took it and twisted it, as if it brought you some kind of sick pleasure.
It is a fact that scholars are infallible. Is it not?
It is a fact that they are not free from lies, in the same way you accuse the Gospel writers of conspiracy, and fraud. Is that not so?
So, it seems to me you are hell bent on a bias. I called no one a liar, but now I have every right to. You just told one big fat lie. That's disgusting.

But they were not lying when you thought they supported you beliefs? Weird to see how far people have to go to protect ancient beliefs that they were led to believe was true.

See above.

The theory was first. Over the following century evidence confirmed that the theory was correct.
This isn't a response to what I said however.
There are fossils of apes who began walking partially as the forrest turned to plains. Millions of years ago. Over many more millions of years the hominid fossils (hominid means ape who walks) slowly changed to taller, less body hair, over many species up until Heidelburgensis who look almost human, made tools, wore clothing, built shelters, had weapons.
Then homo-sapiens start showing up in the fossil record.
That happened. If you don't believe in evolution then like I said, some God magicced up humans, even though the current hominid was almost already humans? So that seems weird? Is that your theory? You said the body of evidence is empty? I do not understand?
All species have fossils of earlier forms. Going back far enough they become different species and so on. That happened.
Your idea is homo-sapien are so special God just manifested this new ape for some reason. Ok? We don't have evidence of any Gods and all religions are cultural myths so that doesn't look like a promising theory. But whatever, have fun with that.

Sure. You accept the ideas - Ideas.

I'm not putting forth my ideas. I find the Bible to a myth, violent, lacks spirituality, uses blood sacrifice, makes up a "sin-force" that everyone needs curing from or they cannot get into the afterlife. supports slavery, taking children/women as plunder, shuns freedom of religion and creates evangelical people who hate homosexuals and used to war with people not in their group before laws were put in place to prevent this.
But I'm using scholarship to back up my ideas that these stories are taken from other cultures which shows they are not inspired by a God but written by people. The claims of people speaking to Gods are no different than Muhammad claiming to speak for God
I'm not against "those who don't accept ideas". I'm putting forth evidence that helps show this religion is the same as all others. Not literal.
I'm against false claims backed up by circular logic, fallacies, denial (see above), planned ignorance (all scholars are liers??) and indoctrination using mind games, double talk and psuedo-scientific apologetics.
I would like to promote things that are true which is what evaluating evidence is for.


You are NOT doing the "SAME THING" where the Bible is concerned. Your 2 rebuttals:
1) entire field, all wrong
2)next group - telling lies
3)historian who's work I sourced = dog chewing bone

but somehow now you claim you are just doing the same thing? Evaluating evidence, looking at historical facts in a non-bias way. No that is not what you are doing. What this is is how people fool themselves into believing things that are not true.

All lies. Blatant lies.

Can you imagine arguing with a flat earther and starting with several fields of science to measure the earth, look at flight routes combined with speeds to determine if they flew over a flat surface or curved, and the flat earth person said - "science about flat earth is all wrong, flight patterns are lied about in flight logs because it's a conspiracy..". We wouldn't have flat earth if critical thinking was promoted. We also would not have the Trump conspiracy.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic in anything you said here.
Perhaps I am too disgusted at your tactics above.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You mean say something more.


Oh. Christians are supposed to be patient, kind, and yes, reasonable too.

So question. Why are you in the habit of creating a smoke screen on every thread?
For example, was that you, I spoke with here?
If it was, I have a few questions. 1) Did I answer your question? 2) Does my answer have to be what you want to hear? 3) does my answer have to satisfy you?
4) Then why are you blowing that smoke screen on this thread, rather than deal with the topic, or OP?

On this thread, I said in the OP, Persons are making the claim that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
In this thread, I will show that claim is false, and that it is both irrational, amd unreasonable, to demand particular expectations be met.
The following is looking at the facts reasonably.

I am repeating, as it's difficult to see through smoke, and you probably missed some things.
If you are here to address the topic of the thread, and the OP, all fine and good. If on the other hand you want to just distract with your usual smoke screen - because that's all it is... a distraction, and a strawman argument - then you are free to take that to another thread, or just hop back on the one in the link, and repeat your argument. See if you get an answer.
Am I being unreasonable, or is that fair, and reasonable?
If you think I am not being reasonable, then please explain how.

In the OP, there are some facts presented, which shows that there is evidence for the resurrection.
If you disagree, or have a problem with those facts, then the onus is on you to demonstrate they are indeed not factual.

You can't do that by arguing that you cannot prove a negative
Telling me what scholars think, or what you believe, does not do it either.
So you have a choice.
As a patient, kind amd reasonable Christian, I have given you more than I think you deserve.

Your call.

LOL!! Oh my getting the burden of proof backwards. No, when one presents "facts" that person must be willing to demonstrate that they are facts. Merely being written in a holy book does not make a claim a fact.

 

[Jose Fly]

This thread is a good illustration of something an old friend once told me.... apologetics aren't for converting non-believers, they're for shoring up the faith of those who already believe.

It's also a good example of the sorts of weak answers to basic questions that gave me my first indications that "something isn't right" with Christianity.

 

[nPeace]

This thread is a good illustration of something an old friend once told me.... apologetics aren't for converting non-believers, they're for shoring up the faith of those who already believe.

It's also a good example of the sorts of weak answers to basic questions that gave me my first indications that "something isn't right" with Christianity.

Seems that makes two camps with the same thoughts. Only in different focus.

 

[Jose Fly]

Seems that makes two camps with the same thoughts. Only in different focus.

I'd ask "How so", but sadly I expect that would go as poorly as other attempts to get you to reply to questions.

 

[nPeace]

I'd ask "How so", but sadly I expect that would go as poorly as other attempts to get you to reply to questions.

Atheists aren't for converting believers, they're for shoring up the disbelief of those who already are unbelievers.

They give weak answers to basic questions that demonstrate that "something isn't right" with Atheism.

I think that does not apply to all Atheist though, as some do try to convert believers, but their answers aren't any more sound.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Atheists aren't for converting believers, they're for shoring up the disbelief of those who already are unbelievers.

They give weak answers to basic questions that demonstrate that "something isn't right" with Atheism.

I think that does not apply to all Atheist though, as some do try to convert believers, but their answers aren't any more sound.

Please, what are these supposed "basic questions"?

 

[night912]

The resurrection - Evidence
Past
What we know : The Facts
It was the followers of Jesus who claimed that Jesus was risen.
The Bible says Jesus appeared - not to the Romans; not to the Jewish leaders, who wanted him dead, and would certainly have been happy to kill him a second time - but to his faithful followers.
Why did Jesus show himself only to his followers, and not the world? He wanted them to know that he was alive, as he promised he would be.
How did he go, undetected? Surely, if he was risen, people would know, and it would be widely reported. It would make "headline news".
No. Here is why...
(John 20:14-20) 14 After saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

Spoiler: Read further...

15 Jesus said to her: “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” She, thinking it was the gardener, said to him: “Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher!”) 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene came and brought the news to the disciples: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her. 19 When it was late that day, the first day of the week, and the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: “May you have peace.” 20 After saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord.

Luke 24:13-43 ; John 21:1-8

The Bible shows without any doubt, Jesus could not be recognized in person. Even his own relatives, and close associates, did not recognize him.
This is because Jesus was not raised in (with) a physically body, and he did not manifest in the same body he was put to death with.
So people passing Jesus, would not have been "Look! There is that man the Romans crucified."
This is a simple fact made in the Bible. Only Jesus follower had clear proof of Jesus' resurrection.
So only Jesus' followers were in a position to record that fact. No one else knew.

 

[blü 2]

You mean say something more.

You haven't addressed any of the problems I raised ─ compelling the conclusion that you can't.

So we're here.

There is no such thing as the supernatural in reality, only as concepts, things imagined in individual brains.

There is no eyewitness account of the resurrection.

There is not only no contemporary account of the resurrection but the first mention of it is ~20 years after the purported event, the first with any details but ending with an empty tomb is ~45 years after the purported event, the first with a resurrected Jesus is ~55 years after the purported event.

There is no independent account of the resurrection.

There are six accounts of the resurrection in the NT, and each of the six contradicts the other five in major ways.

In other words it's a forensic trainwreck.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic aware conscious human self presence.

I am a human living on a pre formed planet inside it's heavens.

Basic human commonsense advice.

Then there is science the theist liar. A human also.

The same liar doing the same lying that men have ever lied about. Stories about creation as themes for science.

Science by men tried to claim I knew how a planet formed and told the story.

Claiming the planets own history formed forming told him.

Yet he asks questions and gives self the answer claiming by human consciousness that form told him the advice.

Is the God theist.

I am not a scientist as a spiritual human I think about our first two human parents memories.

Knowing I was born a baby only.
Knowing I am never my own two parents life or two fully formed adult bodies.

As compared to a theist. Who constantly talks about when a human was not a human.

I am sane he seeks destruction of form. Self form human. Natural.

Basic human common sense.

You can't theory when a human did not exist as there is no information of a human who pre exists.

In reality presence of life.

As only life the living is present. Ignored.

Argument for a God. Heard man speaking voice in heavens. Witnessed human.phenomena in the living presence human life.

Science says pre form before life.

The heavens owns no pre form its mass is just mass without separated descriptions

Mass a status said holy.

Theism infers separation as if it is history. The heavens was not separated ever.

What lying in science was described for as human owned self destructive occult mentality versus natural God presence.

The argument no human can infer when a planet never existed as it's O separate mass formed it's natural form is historic to formed presence.

Real reason God science O earth existing present first was argued against occult science.

The occult self said God created bio life via a nuclear history.

The God scientist said a pre owned eternal never a human body spirit form changed its status into a human.

Explained as why gods were planets first as eternal X mass form separated from the eternal. Was not any reactive cosmic thesis.

Humans not mass are not reactive history of anything.

The argument in science where origin form emerged from knowing that pre form had existed first.

Humans only own presence after any natural mass in its owned mass firm existed first.

Humans never existed first which is where a conscious human thought places self in explanation theories.

 

[night912]

What lesson should people have learned, that keeps repeating itself?

What the Bible says, is true, but people keep denying it until they have no choice but to concede, when it is proven.

So do you admit that you are one of those people? If you don't deny what the bible says, then what you claim below contradicts this.

The Bible shows without any doubt, Jesus could not be recognized in person. Even his own relatives, and close associates, did not recognize him.
This is because perhaps the reason for interfering now is because there's a threat that can destroy the entire universe and everything in it.

If you claim that the bible is true and is evidence for the resurrection, then why would you disagree with what's said in the bible and not use it as evidence.

Here's what written in the bible that indicates that the story does claim that Jesus was resurrected with the same body that he died with:

John 20:19-20
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

The disciples saw someone who looks just like Jesus, but they need more evidence that he is Jesus and not just a lookalike impostor. So they want to see the scars from the wounds caused from the crucifixion. Only after seeing the scars, did they believe. We know that they were looking for the scars from what Thomas said.


John 20:24-28
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

So you see, even the author, someone from the ancient days where the average person has little understanding of the world compared to today's people, had enough of an understanding about rationality that he purposely wrote about the discples requiring evidence before believing something to be true. Thomas had a criterion that must be passed before it can be accepted as a justified belief.

Now for nPeace to think that the bible claimed that Jesus was resurrected without a living body and/or a different one after reading the story, then it's obvious that he either lacks some reading comprehension skills, being dishonest, never read the story in its entirety and context, or he is irrational to the point where is he incapable of thinking reasonably.

In conclusion, nPeace is not credible when it comes to him making a claim and saying that he has evidence to support his claim. So his explanations for his claims should not be taken too seriously and spend too much time on it. It can be easily dismissed. So do be too harsh on him for not comprehending your objections. You can't expect nPeace to go beyond his current maximum limits. But you also don't need to spend too much time with him in discussions where he makes arguments and claims. Don't over think on the things that he presents. If it's obvious to where you can quickly find fallacious statements, don't waste anymore time on it, just go ahead and dismiss it.

 

[Jose Fly]

Atheists aren't for converting believers, they're for shoring up the disbelief of those who already are unbelievers.

Um.....okay....

They give weak answers to basic questions that demonstrate that "something isn't right" with Atheism.

At least they give answers.

I think that does not apply to all Atheist though, as some do try to convert believers, but their answers aren't any more sound.

I'd ask why you're bringing up atheism here, but I'm pretty sure you won't answer that either.

 

[nPeace]

Um.....okay....


At least they give answers.


I'd ask why you're bringing up atheism here, but I'm pretty sure you won't answer that either.

It was a response to your bringing up a negative assertion on Christianity here.

 

[Jose Fly]

It was a response to your bringing up a negative assertion on Christianity here.

What does atheism have to do with that?

 

[rational experiences]

So do you admit that you are one of those people? If you don't deny what the bible says, then what you claim below contradicts this.



If you claim that the bible is true and is evidence for the resurrection, then why would you disagree with what's said in the bible and not use it as evidence.

Here's what written in the bible that indicates that the story does claim that Jesus was resurrected with the same body that he died with:

John 20:19-20
Jesus Appears to His Disciples
19 On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jewish leaders, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord.

The disciples saw someone who looks just like Jesus, but they need more evidence that he is Jesus and not just a lookalike impostor. So they want to see the scars from the wounds caused from the crucifixion. Only after seeing the scars, did they believe. We know that they were looking for the scars from what Thomas said.


John 20:24-28
Jesus Appears to Thomas
24 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

So you see, even the author, someone from the ancient days where the average person has little understanding of the world compared to today's people, had enough of an understanding about rationality that he purposely wrote about the discples requiring evidence before believing something to be true. Thomas had a criterion that must be passed before it can be accepted as a justified belief.

Now for nPeace to think that the bible claimed that Jesus was resurrected without a living body and/or a different one after reading the story, then it's obvious that he either lacks some reading comprehension skills, being dishonest, never read the story in its entirety and context, or he is irrational to the point where is he incapable of thinking reasonably.

In conclusion, nPeace is not credible when it comes to him making a claim and saying that he has evidence to support his claim. So his explanations for his claims should not be taken too seriously and spend too much time on it. It can be easily dismissed. So do be too harsh on him for not comprehending your objections. You can't expect nPeace to go beyond his current maximum limits. But you also don't need to spend too much time with him in discussions where he makes arguments and claims. Don't over think on the things that he presents. If it's obvious to where you can quickly find fallacious statements, don't waste anymore time on it, just go ahead and dismiss it.

Phenomena not meant to occur. Reasoning in reality.

Should it have occurred the question.

Conjured the science teaching. Natural owned it says scientist O earth but UFO radiation effect should not have been released.

No it should not have occurred. The science lie to reconfirm old info stating it new.

Law of God O changed is the preaching. Man broke gods natural law stone seal.

So you review resurrection. Info said brother the scientist sacrificed the innocent life. Brothers and sisters not scientists. Their live's attacked radiation to blood change effect.

Was life saved.. no. It was attacked constantly sacrificed. Same as today new born to adults dying from anything not natural. Natural being presence life and healthy.

Life was already living naturally the review was life survived.

Man adult life from baby genesis destroyed again. Same attack said Jewish Christian realisation. Jesus event.

So ice newly born baby gas spirit status God the earth ownership God teaching in sciences kept life stable by pressure being ice condition cooling of water and gases.

Ice...
Pressure as an important status asides cooling.

Ancient dinosaur water mass was held evaporating in hot gases cold blooded creatures in heavens. Act of beast evil.

Known. I caused it says man scientist by God history. Reactions.

Archaeologist motivation human by memory. I will dig up evidence that our brother had destroyed all life on earth. Machine parts found inside stone human artefacts in coal.

Claimed but we survived and returned from being dead as the scientist AI introduced possessed mind belief feedback.

After dinosaur life.

Memory he used to quote but the occult science is safe you can incinerate all life and then come back from the dead and do it again.......oh wait a minute my machine is destroyed I must rebuild it.

The exact human condition psychic spiritual family knew he was expressing as an occult belief in his magic self. I can kill myself by science then return to life resurrected. Science is safe he says. As that UFO radiation practice.

Reality what possession obsession in science human man psyche believed. He knew Jesus did not resurrect life nor return human life back to living.

His occult memory from first earth was historic life total destruction is the proven ideal he is using.

Proven before in the realisation of his Jesus quotes that he believed it was real. Ice the God body newly born baby in spirit term saved life on earth. Man only sacrificed irradiated his spirit.

Why the argument is a science argument.

Religion is not the origins of science owned the spiritual answer against science. Seemingly forgot who they represented in life.

Creation as a theme in any book is science.

 

[joelr]

"why they are incorrect"?
You have not shown that they are correct B.

So you cannot. When 2 of the leading biblical archeologists are explaining that the OT is not historical, wasn't meant to be historical and showing that the stories are literally enlarged versions of smaller events or mythizations of much more ordinary characters then that is what the evidence has demonstrated.
That is likely the truth.
I am interested in what is true. You can make ridiculous meaningless statements and continue to live in a fantasy world. Good for you.
But it has been demonstrated to excellent standards that the OT stories are foundation myths and greatly enlarged stories.

Two apologists at once I have a conversation with and both employ the same "head in the sand" tactic when presented with scholarship.
Except in your case you started out using scholars work because you thought it supported your beliefs. So you have no excuse when you just hide your eyes and say "they must be wrong"

This is crazy.
...and yes, quite disturbing to hear, coming from someone who is so into scholarship.
I accepted the evidence, long before scholars did. I do not live for scholarly consensus. LOL

Yes many people see religious "evidence" like Islam evidence, Mormon evidence, Scientology evidence, Hinduism evidence, Law of attraction evidence and accept it's true.
scholarship can give you a much wider perspective on the issue. One has to be open to non-bias research however. Once you decide something is true and are emotionally attached to it confirmation bias will not allow one to see obvious truths.

I can see religions are man-made archaic stories without scholarship. But scholarship can confirm that the stories are not original, written as fiction, has no evidence and many other lines of evidence that confirms these beliefs.

Dude. This is pathetic. It's stooping quite low too, imo.
I said this...
They know only that they believe what they decide to. It may not even be what they say, as they are not infallible and some do lie to themselves... and others, for their own purposes.

I'm not here to say who is a liar, but sometimes we ourselves don't even know why we lie.
Some do understand later though.
...and you took it and twisted it, as if it brought you some kind of sick pleasure.
It is a fact that scholars are infallible. Is it not?
It is a fact that they are not free from lies, in the same way you accuse the Gospel writers of conspiracy, and fraud. Is that not so?
So, it seems to me you are hell bent on a bias. I called no one a liar, but now I have every right to. You just told one big fat lie. That's disgusting.

Sorry no bias. I'm using a literal reading of your text. Let's see, how many times and ways do you call them liars?
1) some lie to themselves
2) some lie to others, for their own purposes
3) some lie but don't know they are lying until later

Yup, that pretty much covers every possible lie. You are definitely calling them liars. Funny you don't take all the apologetics and scholars you post and say it's wrong or lies for those reasons at all? Nope, it's just the scholars who find your religion to be false.
Historians evaluate evidence. They explain what the original Greek/Hebrew meant, what that meant in their society and thinking, how it compares to surrounding cultures and more. All of which they understand and are qualified to say.
So there are not many "lies" here. That is a conspiracy theory.


As to the gospel writers having a conspiracy or being fraud. I would not call it that but it is ficton.
You say that like there isn't MASSIVE precidence for this sort of thing?
The gospel writers have been shown to be sourcing Mark. They were writing religious fiction and myths to convey parables with inner meaning. You seem to forget this was also done with the 36 other gospels, the 15 Epistles we know are fake, the Gnostic gospels, Isalm's update, Mormonism's updates, The Ascention of Isaih and all non-canonical Jewish and Christian material, all other religions before and after Christianity.
That isn't "fraud". Are the Greek myths "fraud"? The gospels are exactly the same as all the other things I just mentioned, none of which are really fraud? Each gospel was written to be the "one" gospel.
Myths are not fraud. They are also not supposed to be taken literally. It is fiction with meaning and lessons.


I do have a bias. A bias to what is true.
You just took 2 archeologists and your counter argument was ......"they are wrong...."

And then you dare talk about me having bias??

See above.

Yeah, no, still weird. You are fine with scholars when you assumed they supported your beliefs but when they didn't you give a list of ways they are lying? That isn't even apologetics. It's just being dishonest.

Sure. You accept the ideas - Ideas.

No there are also fossils? What is it about fossils you don't understand??? Heidlebergensis also has tools and such buried with them. They had a culture.

All lies. Blatant lies.

Which thing is a lie? This is what you were responding to:

I'm not putting forth my ideas. I find the Bible to a myth, violent, lacks spirituality, uses blood sacrifice, makes up a "sin-force" that everyone needs curing from or they cannot get into the afterlife. supports slavery, taking children/women as plunder, shuns freedom of religion and creates evangelical people who hate homosexuals and used to war with people not in their group before laws were put in place to prevent this.
But I'm using scholarship to back up my ideas that these stories are taken from other cultures which shows they are not inspired by a God but written by people. The claims of people speaking to Gods are no different than Muhammad claiming to speak for God
I'm not against "those who don't accept ideas". I'm putting forth evidence that helps show this religion is the same as all others. Not literal.
I'm against false claims backed up by circular logic, fallacies, denial (see above), planned ignorance (all scholars are liers??) and indoctrination using mind games, double talk and psuedo-scientific apologetics.
I would like to promote things that are true which is what evaluating evidence is for.


You are NOT doing the "SAME THING" where the Bible is concerned. Your 2 rebuttals:
1) entire field, all wrong
2)next group - telling lies
3)historian who's work I sourced = dog chewing bone

but somehow now you claim you are just doing the same thing? Evaluating evidence, looking at historical facts in a non-bias way. No that is not what you are doing. What this is is how people fool themselves into believing things that are not true.


So first I just gave my opinion because you asked why don't I go by my thoughts on the Bible. So that cannot be a lie because they are just my thoughts? So you are already wrong?

Then I commented on how you are simply saying the scholars I source are wrong. Which you did do. Not only that but you STARTED THIS NEW POST WITH THE SAME THING. Calling William Denver and Carol Meyers wrong. No counter-argument, no anything. Just hand waving and covering your ears and shouting "wrong"?
So there are actually no lies here?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the logic in anything you said here.
Perhaps I am too disgusted at your tactics above.

The point was the tactics you have been using (they are getting worse) could be used to show flat Earth is true.
Just take all the science and say "Blatant lies", and "they didn't prove anything".

So, dishonesty #2 (or is it #3?), pretending to be disgusted. Attempting to manipulate the conversation to try and get me to be a liar was a terrible try. It's dishonest and most definitely incorrect. This entire response is a big fail. Do you have any actual evidence you can present instead of weird manipulative rants?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Persons are making the claim that there is no evidence for Jesus' resurrection.
In this thread, I will show that claim is false, and that it is both irrational, amd unreasonable, to demand particular expectations be met.
The following is looking at the facts reasonably.

First, it is important to mention the false claims...
The Christ myth theory, also known as the Jesus myth theory, Jesus mythicism, or the Jesus ahistoricity theory, is described by Bart Ehrman paraphrasing Earl Doherty, as the position that "..the historical Jesus did not exist. Or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity." It includes the view that the story of Jesus is largely mythological, and has little basis in historical fact. It is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines. It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies and deviates from the mainstream historical view.

There are three strands of mythicism, including the view that there may have been a historical Jesus, who lived in a dimly remembered past, and was fused with the mythological Christ of Paul. A second stance is that there was never a historical Jesus, only a mythological character, later historicized in the Gospels. A third view is that no conclusion can be made about a historical Jesus, and if there was one, nothing can be known about him.

This sound very similar to what critics say about most of the characters and events in the Bible.
They claim myths, based on what...
Most Christ mythicists follow a threefold argument: they question the reliability of the Pauline epistles and the Gospels to establish the historicity of Jesus; they note the lack of information on Jesus in non-Christian sources from the first and early second centuries; and they argue that early Christianity had syncretistic and mythological origins, as reflected in both the Pauline epistles and the gospels, with Jesus being a celestial being who was concretized in the Gospels. Therefore, Christianity was not founded on the shared memories of a man, but rather a shared mytheme.

Jesus - The man
What we know : The Facts
The Bible centuries ago, before modern acceptance, stated factually, that a Jewish man called Jesus the Christ / Messiah walked the earth; had followers; was put to death by the Romans.
It was not until recent, that critics of the Bible, finally conceded that there was indeed a man called Jesus Christ, who had followers, and was put to death by the Romans.
Virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed. Among these scholars was G. A. Wells, a well-known mythicist who changed his mind and ultimately believed in a minimal historical Jesus.

Most scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. Historian Michael Grant asserts that if conventional standards of historical textual criticism are applied to the New Testament, "we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned."
In other words, Michael is actually calling out the hypocrites.

The Bible had also stated how Jesus, was put to death, and that was also recently accepted by Bible critics.
Based on both Biblical, and extra-Biblical sources, the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

The lesson that should have been learned...
The Bible was telling the truth... again, even though it was not believed by critics.

The resurrection - Evidence
Past
What we know : The Facts
It was the followers of Jesus who claimed that Jesus was risen.
The Bible says Jesus appeared - not to the Romans; not to the Jewish leaders, who wanted him dead, and would certainly have been happy to kill him a second time - but to his faithful followers.
Why did Jesus show himself only to his followers, and not the world? He wanted them to know that he was alive, as he promised he would be.
How did he go, undetected? Surely, if he was risen, people would know, and it would be widely reported. It would make "headline news".
No. Here is why...
(John 20:14-20) 14 After saying this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, but she did not realize that it was Jesus.

Spoiler: Read further...

15 Jesus said to her: “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you looking for?” She, thinking it was the gardener, said to him: “Sir, if you have carried him off, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.” 16 Jesus said to her: “Mary!” On turning around, she said to him in Hebrew: “Rabboni!” (which means “Teacher!”) 17 Jesus said to her: “Stop clinging to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.’” 18 Mary Magdalene came and brought the news to the disciples: “I have seen the Lord!” And she told them what he had said to her. 19 When it was late that day, the first day of the week, and the doors were locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and said to them: “May you have peace.” 20 After saying this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced at seeing the Lord.

Luke 24:13-43 ; John 21:1-8

The Bible shows without any doubt, Jesus could not be recognized in person. Even his own relatives, and close associates, did not recognize him.
This is because Jesus was not raised in (with) a physically body, and he did not manifest in the same body he was put to death with.
So people passing Jesus, would not have been "Look! There is that man the Romans crucified."
This is a simple fact made in the Bible. Only Jesus follower had clear proof of Jesus' resurrection.
So only Jesus' followers were in a position to record that fact. No one else knew.

What lesson should people have learned, that keeps repeating itself?
What the Bible says, is true, but people keep denying it until they have no choice but to concede, when it is proven.

Present
What we know : The Facts
The Bible says... (Matthew 9:35-38) 35 And Jesus set out on a tour of all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the good news of the Kingdom and curing every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity. 36 On seeing the crowds, he felt pity for them, because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd. 37 Then he said to his disciples: “Yes, the harvest is great, but the workers are few. 38 Therefore, beg the Master of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest.”
(Luke 4:43) But he said to them: “I must also declare the good news of the Kingdom of God to other cities, because for this I was sent.”

Jesus preached about the kingdom of God, to the cities and villages.
Jesus' followers did the same. Jesus promised to be with his followers in this work, which they were to carry on. Matthew 24:14 ; Matthew 28:18-20

Today, millions of Christian followers of Jesus, are preaching the same message - the kingdom of God, in the same manner that Jesus did, throughout the entire globe, and amazing growth is seen as more disciples are added.

What is the evidence Jesus is with them?
In 33 CE, the evidence was seen in 1) the holy spirit empowering Jesus followers, and 2) the growth in the disciples, and their activity.
Today, the same is seen among his faithful followers.
While it is expected that there will be imitators, and counterfeits, this does not render the evidence void, just as fraud in science does not render the other evidence void.
This is reasonable, is it not?

Unreasonable demands and irrational expectations
Based on the above, it is unreasonable to demand that Jesus should have left any trace outside what we have - the testimony of those who witnessed Jesus alive after his murder.
It is irrational to expect that Jesus should somehow appear to unbelievers to prove to them that he live, and perhaps beg them to accept that fact.

The Bible says... (1 Corinthians 2:8-10) 8 It is this wisdom that none of the rulers of this system of things came to know, for if they had known it, they would not have executed the glorious Lord. 9 But just as it is written: “Eye has not seen and ear has not heard, nor have there been conceived in the heart of man the things that God has prepared for those who love him.” 10 For it is to us God has revealed them through his spirit, for the spirit searches into all things, even the deep things of God.
In other words, God does not care that the opponents of the Bible, do not believe. He cares only that those who know him, or want to know him, based on the available evidence, are blessed with more - knowledge, wisdom, and understanding.
Why?
The Bible says... (1 Corinthians 2:14) But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually.
To the proud person, the things of God are foolishness.

Imagine that you had some pearls of very high value, and you wanted to share them with everyone.
However, some people don't see the value in them. They take them and just throw them away, or pound them to dust, to make some kind of recreational drug. Would you give those people your pearls?
That would be like giving food to people who take it and bury it in the earth. Matthew 7:6

If you could predict what a person would do, you would be selective in whom you give good things to.
This is the way God deals. Because God knows the heart of man, he is selective in who receives truth.
That's reasonable, isn't it?

What other evidence for the resurrection of Jesus would there be?

So to sum up, your evidence basicly is "early christians / NT authors believed it"