Jesus Resurrection

[Riders]

Bart D. Ehrman

is a Atheist who got his degree in divinity and became a bible scholar and later on became an atheist is a bible scholar and now writes books claiming that Jesus is a Pagan myth like I believe BWAHAHAHA and he is a bible scholar.

 

[Milton Platt]

Why would the apostles (e.g. witnesses of the resurrection ) die for there claims to it then?

Why do Muslims and Hindus die for their beliefs? Why did Nazis die for their beliefs? Why did Norsemen die for Thor? If people dying for what they believe in is evidence of truth, then at a minimum, you must be a pantheist.

 

[Riders]

What do the leading secular historians say about Jesus?

This is actually a sight literally written by a Christian scholar on the historicity of Jesus. He claims while most historians and scholars agree Jesus existed only a few don't I don't know that I agree wit that but for the sake of argument Ill go a long with it.

But he says most scholars and historians agree he existed taught and was reported to do miracle although some believe he did miracles some did not but admits that half the scholars and historians who believe Jesus existed does not believe in the the resurrection or the facts about Jesus working miracles or virgin birth,

I rest my case and he names 3 historians on there who Atheists who believe Jesus existed but not in the resurrection.

He may count this as proof for Christians but it is not, to me unless they believe in the resurrection and the whole story it is proof for my belief. 2 Historians who believe he existed but was not raised from the dead in my mind is proof that I'm right.

Christians try to use that as proof of Jesus but I've already stated I'm open the idea tat a guy named Jesus preached and ministered.
So this is a web sight done by a Christian scholar who lists historians who dont believe in the resurrection to me that's all I need to hear.

 

[Riders]

Heres 2 more historians who say Jesus did not exist and a growing group of historians and scholars are starting to say the man did not even exist as said in this web sight.

Reza Aslan, Nailed: Ten Christian Myths That Show Jesus Never Existed at All by David Fitzgerald, and How Jesus Became God by Bart Ehrman.

Reza and David are both historians stating he did not exist.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In other words you don't know who the 8th son of Jesse is and whether he is older or younger than King David.
One simple bible question and you're had it.

Would you like some more biblical questions that you cant answer, in order to prove just how ignorant to the scriptures you godless mob are?

Here is what the actual authors of the Gospel of John had to say; John 21: 24; in reference to John the beloved Disciple, the authors say, "He is the disciple who spoke of these things, the one who wrote them down; and WE know that what he said is true."

I tend to not pay too much attention to the.mythical parts of the Bible. And cherry picking the book of John is not a good debating technique. You should try to learn why biblical scholars say it was not the apostle John. It was written too late to be by John, and it was written in Koine Greek. The apostle John almost certainly did not write in that language. You would need to present evidence he did. Most out the date of its being written at 90-110 CE. That would have been well past his time. Only rather desperate sources claim that John wrote it.

 

[leroy]

What facts? You stated that there are all these scholars the majority of all scholars accept the truth of Jesus that he was resurrected. You did not provide any proof at all just stated it. You can just make statements and claim it as truth without any proof. Back it up with proof.


The majority of all scholars do not accept Jesus resurrection , did you know there are smart scholars here who are Atheist and belong to other religions.

Here I have proof that its not true. The original UU church of Dallas Tx according to the leadership of UU in Dallas who all have religious degrees, the original UU of Dallas was started by scholars and theological students who had masters degree and bachelors degree of divinity who were really all atheist .

They were Atheist scholars at Baylor because most knew Jesus was not real but thought it was the only to teach society what was right.


You keep announcing that all these scholars teach what your saying but the truth is that I went to UU for 10 years and most fo them many of our UU folks are nerds, usually a lot of them are teachers historians and math and computer nerds.

Most of the folks at Dallas UU are scholars scientists people like that. But you have not provided any proof. Making a statement does not make it true.

I said that the majority of scholars accept these facts:



-Jesus died on the cross

- Was buried on a Tomb

- the tomb was found empty

- apostoles (and others) had post mortem apierences of Jesus.

- they honestly and sincerly belived that these experiences where real. (They didnt lie)

These are historical facts accepted by nearly all scholars (including non Christians)

My suggestion is that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those facts. Feel free to provide a better explanation

I would also like to know; do you conceder yourself a strong atheist, a weak atheist, an agnostic or what?

 

[leroy]

Paul had a a vision. That is not seeing. Does he ever quote the apostles about what they saw? I know that he got to know them. He is the one that claims that 500 people saw Jesus, not too convincing since he himself never saw him in the first place.

Once again, I saw Elvis in a vision and over 500 people have seen him since he supposedly died. I can even site a well respected news source

Given that you are not willing to die for that belief, I would say that you are lying.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Given that you are not willing to die for that belief, I would say that you are lying.

Please, martyrs are a dime a dozen and do not prove anything. In fact the tale of early Christian martyrs is a mixture of myth and dishonesty. Yes, there were some real martyrs. But most of the so called martyrs were only victims of persecution at best. If you want examples of people willing to die for their beliefs for a false religion examples of those abound.

 

[leroy]

Please, martyrs are a dime a dozen and do not prove anything. In fact the tale of early Christian martyrs is a mixture of myth and dishonesty. Yes, there were some real martyrs. But most of the so called martyrs were only victims of persecution at best. If you want examples of people willing to die for their beliefs for a false religion examples of those abound.

Sure people are willing to die for a lie all the time. But nobody would die in the name of something that they know is a lie.

The fact that they were willing to die, does not automatically prove the resurrection but it proves that they honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection (they were not lying)

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure people are willing to die for a lie all the time. But nobody would die in the name of something that they know is a lie.

The fact that they were willing to die, does not automatically prove the resurrection but it proves that they honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection (they were not lying)

How do you know? People are delusional quite often. What you call "a lie" may be simply a belief in a cause on the part of martyrs. There are no exceptional Christian martyrs. At least not exceptional compared to other religions. You need a better argument. The "look at the martyrs" one is a failed argument from your side. The Jim Jones Massacre is an example of "martyrs" mixed in with victims. There were quite a few true believers there. The execution of the others could not have occurred without martyrs for the cause.

 

[Riders]

I said that the majority of scholars accept these facts:



-Jesus died on the cross

- Was buried on a Tomb

- the tomb was found empty

- apostoles (and others) had post mortem apierences of Jesus.

- they honestly and sincerly belived that these experiences where real. (They didnt lie)

These are historical facts accepted by nearly all scholars (including non Christians)

My suggestion is that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those facts. Feel free to provide a better explanation

I would also like to know; do you conceder yourself a strong atheist, a weak atheist, an agnostic or what?

That doesn't cut it, and if the majority of scholars did accept all of that i would not e able to provide a list of those who do not here a whole entire movement of historians who are now saying that Jesus was a myth and infact did not exist and I have a web sight for that and thats what my list of historians say.

So I provided proof that there sa whole lot of scholars who say he did not exist. You wont believe it thats your deal. But there a who;e entire movement saying he was a myth and books being written about it by historians

 

[Riders]

How do you know? People are delusional quite often. What you call "a lie" may be simply a belief in a cause on the part of martyrs. There are no exceptional Christian martyrs. At least not exceptional compared to other religions. You need a better argument. The "look at the martyrs" one is a failed argument from your side. The Jim Jones Massacre is an example of "martyrs" mixed in with victims. There were quite a few true believers there. The execution of the

I said that the majority of scholars accept these facts:



-Jesus died on the cross

- Was buried on a Tomb

- the tomb was found empty

- apostoles (and others) had post mortem apierences of Jesus.

- they honestly and sincerly belived that these experiences where real. (They didnt lie)

These are historical facts accepted by nearly all scholars (including non Christians)

My suggestion is that Jesus rising from the dead is the best explanation for those facts. Feel free to provide a better explanation

I would also like to know; do you conceder yourself a strong atheist, a weak atheist, an agnostic or what?

others could not have occurred without martyrs for the cause.

Your web sight written by the Christian says most accept that Jesus lived, I already said I]m open to the idea that a guy named Jesus lived. A lot of them don't believe he as risen from the dead, you can't count that as proof that most Scholars believe in jesus as proof for the Christian religion when your own web sight says quite a few do not believe he was not resurrected.

So its not proof and a lot of historians disagree with that sense there is a whole entire mythology movement about Jesus growing where a lot of Scholar don't believe he existed and I already provided proof whole list of historians who don't agree with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your web sight written by the Christian says most accept that Jesus lived, I already said I]m open to the idea that a guy named Jesus lived. A lot of them don't believe he as risen from the dead, you can't count that as proof that most Scholars believe in jesus as proof for the Christian religion when your own web sight says quite a few do not believe he was not resurrected.

So its not proof and a lot of historians disagree with that sense there is a whole entire mythology movement about Jesus growing where a lot of Scholar don't believe he existed and I already provided proof whole list of historians who don't agree with you.

you might want to fix your quote. It looks as if you were responding to me.

 

[Riders]

you might want to fix your quote. It looks as if you were responding to me.

Oh sorry about that. Im sick right now.

 

[leroy]

How do you know? People are delusional quite often. What you call "a lie" may be simply a belief in a cause on the part of martyrs. There are no exceptional Christian martyrs. At least not exceptional compared to other religions. You need a better argument. The "look at the martyrs" one is a failed argument from your side. The Jim Jones Massacre is an example of "martyrs" mixed in with victims. There were quite a few true believers there. The execution of the others could not have occurred without martyrs for the cause.

Someone who is being delusional is not a liar, he would only be “someone who is wrong”

The apostles honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection, the where not lyiers, do you concede this point, yes or no?.......ohhhhh I forgot you don’t answer to direct yes or no questions.

 

[leroy]

That doesn't cut it, and if the majority of scholars did accept all of that i would not e able to provide a list of those who do not here a whole entire movement of historians who are now saying that Jesus was a myth and infact did not exist and I have a web sight for that and thats what my list of historians say.

So I provided proof that there sa whole lot of scholars who say he did not exist. You wont believe it thats your deal. But there a who;e entire movement saying he was a myth and books being written about it by historians

I can also provide a list of PHD scientists that believe that the earth is 6,000yo but that wouldn’t change the fact that the consensus is that the earth is billions of years old.


Do you accept all of those facts? If not, why not? I can support any of them.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Someone who is being delusional is not a liar, he would only be “someone who is wrong”

The apostles honestly and sincerely believed in the resurrection, the where not lyiers, do you concede this point, yes or no?.......ohhhhh I forgot you don’t answer to direct yes or no questions.

Then why did you use the "something that they know is a lie" argument? One could always claim that that sort of person was delusional as an excuse.

And I do not answer dishonest yes or no questions. Once again, "Have you quit beating your wife yet". You do not know what the apostles honestly and sincerely believed. You ask questions that cannot be properly answered with a simple 'Yes or no' as you just did once again. The answer is more complicated than that. Ask me a proper direct yes or no question and that is the sort of answer you will get. For example "Is it raining where you are right now?" is a question that I could answer that way. The sort of question that you ask, not so much.

 

[Riders]

I can also provide a list of PHD scientists that believe that the earth is 6,000yo but that wouldn’t change the fact that the consensus is that the earth is billions of years old.


Do you accept all of those facts? If not, why not? I can support any of them.

Well I can the same about you saying all or most scholars believe in jesus its a statement that is not backed up. I have books and web sights that say historians have a mythological movement about Jesus so neither one of us are ahead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I can also provide a list of PHD scientists that believe that the earth is 6,000yo but that wouldn’t change the fact that the consensus is that the earth is billions of years old.


Do you accept all of those facts? If not, why not? I can support any of them.

Yes, you could provide a list of delusional and dishonest people that have that belief. That would not be reliable evidence for that belief since your scientists are easily shown to be wrong. That is unless you posit a dishonest God. Can your God be dishonest? Would he lie to you? If the answer is "No" then the Earth is billions of years old and life as we know it arose to its present state through the process of evolution. Nor were there ever only two people, nor was there ever a Flood of Noah. If your God can be dishonest then all bets are off. But then if your God can be dishonest why believe him when he promises salvation?

 

[leroy]

Then why did you use the "something that they know is a lie" argument? One could always claim that that sort of person was delusional as an excuse.

And I do not answer dishonest yes or no questions. Once again, "Have you quit beating your wife yet". You do not know what the apostles honestly and sincerely believed. You ask questions that cannot be properly answered with a simple 'Yes or no' as you just did once again. The answer is more complicated than that. Ask me a proper direct yes or no question and that is the sort of answer you will get. For example "Is it raining where you are right now?" is a question that I could answer that way. The sort of question that you ask, not so much.

Again this is only true in your own personal mind, most people would not consider the question dishonest.

I am not claiming 100% certainty, but why would someone die In the name of a myth that they themselves invented?


In your view where the apostles lying or where they simply mistaken when thy proclaimed the resurrection? …..is this a reasonable and honest question for you?