There is NO Historical Evidence for Jesus

[leroy]

I addressed both. But were you arguing that the demigod of the New Testament was raised by generic god different from the one I've told you has been ruled out? You don't believe that some other god or gods resurrected Jesus, so why are we discussing one?

My point is that you don’t have to appeal to a God that created the world in six days……. Just

1| A god

2 that could produce miracles

3 that produced the specific miracle of resurrecting a man

My point is that given point “1” … points “2” and “3” become very probable…………………..and since you don’t seem have any conclusive evidence against “1” nor good reasons to reject “1” the probability of being a god shouldn’t be too low……… this is why I am suggesting an intrinsic probability of 50% (which seems a good and fair starting point)………. If you have any good arguments against the existence of a god, then the 50% would become lower.

It confuses me when you capitalize God. The god people of your faith call "God" doesn't exist. No interventionalist god has been detected, and we wouldn't expect to know about gods that don't intervene, i.e.., leave revelation, appear on earth, perform miracles, answer prayers, etc.,

Those are secondary issues, once we agree on the existence of a god, who made the specific miracles of resurrecting a man, we can discuss if this god also answers to prays, or any of the stuff that you mentioned.

All I am suggesting is to go one step at the time.

I don't know the details of the early history of the church, but being a pest to local authorities doesn't constitute flourishing. The church would not have flourished under Paul, just grown from a mustard seed to an acorn. It was the swords of the Roman Legions, the Crusaders, and the Conquistadores that made Christianity a world religion. The Catholic Church scattered the countryside with cathedrals and parish churches for centuries, stocking them with a hierarchy of professional clergy. Later, it was missionaries including the Gideons putting Bibles in every hotel room and those traveling to exotic locales to convert the indigenes. Then televangelists, and last year, multi-million dollar Super Bowl ads for Jesus. That's how a church flourishes.

Ok Christianity was a local pest as you claim………….. but even then, why would this “pest” be a thing if all we have is a guy name Paul inventing arbitrary stories?

Why did Christianity became more popular after Jesus died?.............mesianic movements tend to die with their “lider”

The ultimate point is that obviously something “extraordinary happened” after Jeuss died, and scholars recognize this. weather if it was a real miracle or something else is a different topic. But something “hard to explain” did happened.

Here's a nice example of what you mean by truth. People dying for a belief doesn't make the belief true.

Correct, but people dying for their believe show that they honestly think that their believe is true………….Paul and the apostles dying for their believes show that they didn’t made the resurrection story up, they didn’t lied, they honestly and sincerely saw something that they interpreted as a “resurrection”


You are failing to see that this is a cumulative case.

Take evolution for example, obviously the existence of vestigial organs by themselves don’t show that evolution (common ancestry) is true.

It is the cumulative evidences that come from different lines, that show that evolution is likely to be true.,

 

[ppp]

So you say..which doesn't change the facts..
How Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum.and that's a stated fact of history down through the ages.

He didn't change the facts. He acknowledged that Christians were persecuted at points during the Roman empire. He just didn't pretend that was the only fact.

 

[lukethethird]

So you say..which doesn't change the facts..
How Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum.and that's a stated fact of history down through the ages.

It's overstated. Christians were not singled out, all kinds of people were prosecuted, Christians simply overplay the martyr card.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's overstated. Christians were not singled out, all kinds of people were prosecuted, Christians simply overplay the martyr card.

You sure don't know much about the history of Christianity m

Back a little over 2000 years ago.
Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum. By wild animals.. all because Christians would not denounce their faith.
And that's history.

Even those people who were followers of Jesus Christ while was here on earth..
Were being persecuted put to death for not denounce their faith.

 

[lukethethird]

You sure don't know much about the history of Christianity m

Back a little over 2000 years ago.
Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum. By wild animals.. all because Christians would not denounce their faith.
And that's history.

Even those people who were followers of Jesus Christ while was here on earth..
Were being persecuted put to death for not denounce their faith.

Sure they were, in your imagination.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Sure they were, in your imagination.

At least I go by the history of the
Roman Colosseum 2000 years ago.
Which you show yourself in not knowing much about anything.

 

[lukethethird]

At least I go by the history of the
Roman Colosseum 2000 years ago.
Which you show yourself in not knowing much about anything.

I acknowledge the stories that Christians make up, am I expected to believe them?

 

[Orbit]

At least I go by the history of the
Roman Colosseum 2000 years ago.
Which you show yourself in not knowing much about anything.

And the Christians mercilessly persecuted the pagans. See the story of Hypatia, and the Inquisition.

 

[Faithofchristian]

And the Christians mercilessly persecuted the pagans. See the story of Hypatia, and the Inquisition

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire began during the reign of Constantine the Great ( r. 306–337) in the military colony of Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem), when he destroyed a pagan temple for the purpose of constructing a Christian church.

Therefore it was Constantine the great Roman emperor.who Persecuted of pagans .

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Where is that written at.
God created the world in 6 days

It's written in Genesis - six days of creation followed by a day of rest. It's also church doctrine. It's also the basis for a Commandment in Exodus.

It's you trying to get out of the historical evidence of Jesus Christ did exist.

I don't care if Jesus existed. Nothing changes for me either way. My question was, how much of that story can be removed and what's left still be called a historical Jesus.

So you say..which doesn't change the facts..
How Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum.and that's a stated fact of history down through the ages.

I also don't care about whether that is truth or legend for the same reason. Neither the existence of Christ nor reports of resurrection witnessed in scripture nor the death of zealous followers mean he rose from the dead, but the fact that we have no evidence that such a thing ever occurred or is possible, it almost certainly didn't occur, and if it had, we would have no way of knowing that. It's an unfalsifiable claim, which is what most of religious belef is.

My point is that you don’t have to appeal to a God that created the world in six days

Why are you pursuing this? You referred to a specific resurrection attributed to a specific god whose existence has been ruled out. This line of inquiry has been exhausted.

1| A god

2 that could produce miracles

3 that produced the specific miracle of resurrecting a man

OK, if you want to leave Christianity and speak of other gods, I've already agreed that a noninterventionist god was possible, but also irrelevant to a discussion of an intervention like resurrection, and that no estimate of the likelihood of such a thing existing can't be estimated. All we can say is that we don't experience it, which would be expected of noninterventionist gods like the deist god, and that makes claims about it unscientific, unfalsifiable, and irrelevant. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted as well.

As for a god that resurrects, all we can say is that we don't know for a fact that it never happened but have no better reason to believe that it did than these weak arguments here, and so I don't. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted.

My point is that given point “1” … points “2” and “3” become very probable…………………..and since you don’t seem have any conclusive evidence against “1” nor good reasons to reject “1” the probability of being a god shouldn’t be too low……… this is why I am suggesting an intrinsic probability of 50% (which seems a good and fair starting point)………. If you have any good arguments against the existence of a god, then the 50% would become lower.

Disagree. I don't concede point 1. Also, I'm not trying to calculate the probability that resurrection occurred. I'm saying that absent sufficient evidence and even in the presence of these arguments, I don't believe a resurrection occurred, and I can pretty well guarantee that unless somebody comes up with some compelling evidence, that won't change, and it is probably correct.

Those are secondary issues, once we agree on the existence of a god, who made the specific miracles of resurrecting a man, we can discuss if this god also answers to prays, or any of the stuff that you mentioned. All I am suggesting is to go one step at the time.

We're done. The god said to have resurrected Jesus doesn't exist, we have no reason to believe that a different interventionalist god exists or ever resurrected Jesus or anybody else, and we don't care about other kinds of gods.

Ok Christianity was a local pest as you claim………….. but even then, why would this “pest” be a thing if all we have is a guy name Paul inventing arbitrary stories?

I don't know. You seem to think that this argues for a resurrection having actually occurred. You can't do that with words alone.

Why did Christianity became more popular after Jesus died?

I explained how that happened, but it doesn't matter why just like it doesn't matter why Islam become more popular after Muhammad died. I repeat: Words alone will never be enough to make a compelling case for human resurrection after three days of death.

people dying for their believe show that they honestly think that their believe is true

Doesn't matter.

You are failing to see that this is a cumulative case.

All you have are words - hearsay.

It is the cumulative evidences that come from different lines, that show that evolution is likely to be true.,

Evolution has physical evidence in its support. You don't seem to understand how critical that is for the critical thinker. I appreciate your interest and effort, but let me emphasize again that without physical evidence that resurrection is even possible let alone occurred, you will NEVER make an empiricist believe that it has. NEVER. You should know this by now. If you want to continue in order to see the rebuttal to specific claims or answers to questions, that's fine. I'm happy to oblige you. But at this point, I believe I've made my entire case. What's left for you to do except repeat claims already rebutted and rejected?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That simply shows your intellectual hypocrisy, your 6AD date doesn’t comes from Josephus directly , it comes form a website (I bet an antichristian site) that claims to be quoting from Josephus.

So if you had a problem with my quote, you should also have a problem with your evidence



You can’t demand ridiculously high standards of evidence, if you are not willing to meet those standards for your claims.

I didn’t asked for the original quote form Josephus because I knew it was a ridiculous and useless requirement , but we can play by your rules.



You keep repeating that lie over and over again.

If I where in “corrections only” you would have the courtesy of quoting my words and explain why are they wrong (and therefore require correction)……………. You can’t do that because you know that the few mistakes that I have made in this thread have been corrected and acknowledge by myself.

LOL!! The 6 CE date comes from multiple sources. This has been explained to you again and again. I know, you cannot afford to let yourself understand. Where Quirinius was and when is well recorded. And not just by Josephus. Maybe someone else will be curious, but most that are know how to check for themselves. Why can't you do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say..which doesn't change the facts..
How Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum.and that's a stated fact of history down through the ages.

If it was then why can't you find any historical sources that support your claims? Your claim was that they were offered to be freed if they renounced their faith. Were early Christians persecuted? Yes. Were they given a chance to deny their faith? There does not appear to be any evidence for that.

 

[Augustus]

Jesus belongs to a class of fictional beings

Or deified men

Next, Romulus was a man living during the time of his writings, he dies, rose again and so on. It was all fiction

That isn't true and you have given no sources anyways

If it wasn’t true you’d be able to name some examples but you can’t.

Name a single purely mythical god whose biography resembles that of a human but with some magical bits and whose deification and cultic following began pretty much overlapping with his purported life and that if it’s early adherents.

Deified humans on the other hand commonly are deified during their lives or shortly after death:

Antinous, Hong Xuquan, Haile Selassie, Julius and Augustus Caesar, etc.

You keep giving Romulus, who was deified centuries after his purported human life as an example of someone who was deified around the time of their purported life. This is nonsense.

So try again, or accept that a mythical Jesus would appear to be completely unique in having these characteristics and it better matches the category of deified humans.

Given that we would expect both a deified human or a mythical god to rely on local cultural tropes of divinity, the fact Jesus would be unique among pure myths in this regard is more pertinent to historicity than the fact he takes on local tropes of divinity.

David Litwa, who you keep referring to, doesn’t see adoption of mythical tropes as being unique to mythical figures:

I have made the claim that early Christians imagined and depicted Jesus with some of the basic traits common to other Mediterranean divinities and deified men… What they indicate is that in Christian literature, the historical human being called Jesus of Nazareth received deification.

We cannot know what Paul means in that passage. In context he does need to distinguish between regular christians who he calls "brothers in the Lord" in other passages. He does not use the Greek word for biological brother. At best we cannot know so this does not count as a historicity clue. There is a much longer and detailed discussion on this topic in journals and books.

James brother of Jesus might not mean brother so it doesn’t count.

James brother of Jesus might be a different James brother of a different Jesus or a fabrication so it doesn’t count.

That there are no instances of mythical figures being deified in near real time doesn’t count.

Etc.

All evidence counts, you judge based on the totality of evidence, not by simply saying whatever Richard Carrier dislikes "doesn't count" no matter how many other scholars disagree.

We can construct alternative narratives for almost everything in ancient history, that doesn’t mean other more parsimonious explanations “don’t count“.

Yes there could have been a man who was used, the evidence is 3 to 1 in favor of total myth according to the latest historicity study done by a PhD in the field. This looked at all of the evidence. It has nothing to do with what a non-expert "thinks" about a defied human becoming mythified.

I understand that you are his number one fan, but the highly subjective opinion of one 'independent scholar' whose income depends on begging mythicist fans for donations, and the agreement of another minor faculty member at a decent university does not establish historical fact and settle the issue beyond doubt.

Of course, even a "non expert" like you could think for themselves and simply name one of the other completely mythical gods who was created in near real-time, failing that you could just repeat what's on his blog again if there is anything.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You sure don't know much about the history of Christianity m

Back a little over 2000 years ago.
Christians were put to death in the Roman Colosseum. By wild animals.. all because Christians would not denounce their faith.
And that's history.

Even those people who were followers of Jesus Christ while was here on earth..
Were being persecuted put to death for not denounce their faith.

Wow! Early Christians had time machines!

And you need to support your claims that they were killed because they would not renounce their faith. They were killed because they were Christians, but then again so were others killed for various reasons. Renunciation did not appear to be a get out of the Coliseum Free Card.

 

[leroy]

It's written in Genesis - six days of creation followed by a day of rest. It's also church doctrine. It's also the basis for a Commandment in Exodus.

I don't care if Jesus existed. Nothing changes for me either way. My question was, how much of that story can be removed and what's left still be called a historical Jesus.

I also don't care about whether that is truth or legend for the same reason. Neither the existence of Christ nor reports of resurrection witnessed in scripture nor the death of zealous followers mean he rose from the dead, but the fact that we have no evidence that such a thing ever occurred or is possible, it almost certainly didn't occur, and if it had, we would have no way of knowing that. It's an unfalsifiable claim, which is what most of religious belef is.

Why are you pursuing this? You referred to a specific resurrection attributed to a specific god whose existence has been ruled out. This line of inquiry has been exhausted.

OK, if you want to leave Christianity and speak of other gods, I've already agreed that a noninterventionist god was possible, but also irrelevant to a discussion of an intervention like resurrection, and that no estimate of the likelihood of such a thing existing can't be estimated. All we can say is that we don't experience it, which would be expected of noninterventionist gods like the deist god, and that makes claims about it unscientific, unfalsifiable, and irrelevant. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted as well.

As for a god that resurrects, all we can say is that we don't know for a fact that it never happened but have no better reason to believe that it did than these weak arguments here, and so I don't. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted.

Disagree. I don't concede point 1. Also, I'm not trying to calculate the probability that resurrection occurred. I'm saying that absent sufficient evidence and even in the presence of these arguments, I don't believe a resurrection occurred, and I can pretty well guarantee that unless somebody comes up with some compelling evidence, that won't change, and it is probably correct.

We're done. The god said to have resurrected Jesus doesn't exist, we have no reason to believe that a different interventionalist god exists or ever resurrected Jesus or anybody else, and we don't care about other kinds of gods.

I don't know. You seem to think that this argues for a resurrection having actually occurred. You can't do that with words alone.

I explained how that happened, but it doesn't matter why just like it doesn't matter why Islam become more popular after Muhammad died. I repeat: Words alone will never be enough to make a compelling case for human resurrection after three days of death.

Doesn't matter.

All you have are words - hearsay.

Evolution has physical evidence in its support. You don't seem to understand how critical that is for the critical thinker. I appreciate your interest and effort, but let me emphasize again that without physical evidence that resurrection is even possible let alone occurred, you will NEVER make an empiricist believe that it has. NEVER. You should know this by now. If you want to continue in order to see the rebuttal to specific claims or answers to questions, that's fine. I'm happy to oblige you. But at this point, I believe I've made my entire case. What's left for you to do except repeat claims already rebutted and rejected?

Before committing a straw man, I´ll start by asking, what exactly do you mean by Empiricist?

For example according to ancient historians (Plutarch and Arian for example) Alexander the Grate had a father named Philip …… as en empiricist do you accept this historical claim? Why?

Please consider that this is an honest question

 

[leroy]

LOL!! The 6 CE date comes from multiple sources. This has been explained to you again and again. I know, you cannot afford to let yourself understand. Where Quirinius was and when is well recorded. And not just by Josephus. Maybe someone else will be curious, but most that are know how to check for themselves. Why can't you do that?

LOL!! The 6 CE date comes from multiple sources.

And why don’t you quote them?................. Because you are obviously making that up

I mean you @SkepticThinker and have been making a big deal because I provided a quote with eclipses,….. but in the other hand you are not even willing to name the sources that you claim excist.

I mean a quote with ellipses is much, much much better than claiming “the sources are there because I say so”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Though there was some persecution of Christians in the Roman empire it was not all that common. It was sporadic in both time and place. As to widespread claims that Christians did not recant that is simply not true. There are various sources that refute that claim. But this one goes a bit further. It is an article about a historian that wrote a book on how the myth of Christian persecution arose. Were some early Christians martyred? Yes, without doubt. But even some of the stories that claim to be true have severe problems when looked at with the eyes of a historian:

"The Myth of Persecution": Early Christians weren't persecuted

The Romans did not target, hunt or massacre Jesus' followers, says a historian of the early church

www.salon.com

 

[Subduction Zone]

And why don’t you quote them?................. Because you are obviously making that up

I mean you @SkepticThinker and have been making a big deal because I provided a quote with eclipses,….. but in the other hand you are not even willing to name the sources that you claim excist.

I mean a quote with ellipses is much, much much better than claiming “the sources are there because I say so”

I have. And you had no response when I did; Or at best dishonest replies. Instead of going to historical sources, you went to apologists. The reason that I point out that it was Josephus that was the local source of when Quirinius held his census and why is because he was not only the best source for that particular event, the census itself, but also because he is the one historic source that supports the existence of Jesus. Though that work has clear signs that it was tampered with. You lose the argument for secular support for the existence of Jesus Other sources will tell you what early Christians believed, but they do not specially support his existence. To deny Josephus you deny that there was secular support for the existence of Jesus.

Now if you want to see an article about a historian that has personally studied the writings of people like Josephus in their original Latin I give you this rather comprehensive article:

Richard Carrier Quirinius » Internet Infidels

He, unlike the sources that you have used, has published in various professional well respected peer reviewed journals.

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's written in Genesis - six days of creation followed by a day of rest. It's also church doctrine. It's also the basis for a Commandment in Exodus.

I don't care if Jesus existed. Nothing changes for me either way. My question was, how much of that story can be removed and what's left still be called a historical Jesus.

I also don't care about whether that is truth or legend for the same reason. Neither the existence of Christ nor reports of resurrection witnessed in scripture nor the death of zealous followers mean he rose from the dead, but the fact that we have no evidence that such a thing ever occurred or is possible, it almost certainly didn't occur, and if it had, we would have no way of knowing that. It's an unfalsifiable claim, which is what most of religious belef is.

Why are you pursuing this? You referred to a specific resurrection attributed to a specific god whose existence has been ruled out. This line of inquiry has been exhausted.

OK, if you want to leave Christianity and speak of other gods, I've already agreed that a noninterventionist god was possible, but also irrelevant to a discussion of an intervention like resurrection, and that no estimate of the likelihood of such a thing existing can't be estimated. All we can say is that we don't experience it, which would be expected of noninterventionist gods like the deist god, and that makes claims about it unscientific, unfalsifiable, and irrelevant. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted as well.

As for a god that resurrects, all we can say is that we don't know for a fact that it never happened but have no better reason to believe that it did than these weak arguments here, and so I don't. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted.

Disagree. I don't concede point 1. Also, I'm not trying to calculate the probability that resurrection occurred. I'm saying that absent sufficient evidence and even in the presence of these arguments, I don't believe a resurrection occurred, and I can pretty well guarantee that unless somebody comes up with some compelling evidence, that won't change, and it is probably correct.

We're done. The god said to have resurrected Jesus doesn't exist, we have no reason to believe that a different interventionalist god exists or ever resurrected Jesus or anybody else, and we don't care about other kinds of gods.

I don't know. You seem to think that this argues for a resurrection having actually occurred. You can't do that with words alone.

I explained how that happened, but it doesn't matter why just like it doesn't matter why Islam become more popular after Muhammad died. I repeat: Words alone will never be enough to make a compelling case for human resurrection after three days of death.

Doesn't matter.

All you have are words - hearsay.

Evolution has physical evidence in its support. You don't seem to understand how critical that is for the critical thinker. I appreciate your interest and effort, but let me emphasize again that without physical evidence that resurrection is even possible let alone occurred, you will NEVER make an empiricist believe that it has. NEVER. You should know this by now. If you want to continue in order to see the rebuttal to specific claims or answers to questions, that's fine. I'm happy to oblige you. But at this point, I believe I've made my entire case. What's left for you to do except repeat claims already rebutted and rejected?

What does Genesis

It's written in Genesis - six days of creation followed by a day of rest. It's also church doctrine. It's also the basis for a Commandment in Exodus.

I don't care if Jesus existed. Nothing changes for me either way. My question was, how much of that story can be removed and what's left still be called a historical Jesus.

I also don't care about whether that is truth or legend for the same reason. Neither the existence of Christ nor reports of resurrection witnessed in scripture nor the death of zealous followers mean he rose from the dead, but the fact that we have no evidence that such a thing ever occurred or is possible, it almost certainly didn't occur, and if it had, we would have no way of knowing that. It's an unfalsifiable claim, which is what most of religious belef is.

Why are you pursuing this? You referred to a specific resurrection attributed to a specific god whose existence has been ruled out. This line of inquiry has been exhausted.

OK, if you want to leave Christianity and speak of other gods, I've already agreed that a noninterventionist god was possible, but also irrelevant to a discussion of an intervention like resurrection, and that no estimate of the likelihood of such a thing existing can't be estimated. All we can say is that we don't experience it, which would be expected of noninterventionist gods like the deist god, and that makes claims about it unscientific, unfalsifiable, and irrelevant. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted as well.

As for a god that resurrects, all we can say is that we don't know for a fact that it never happened but have no better reason to believe that it did than these weak arguments here, and so I don't. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted.

Disagree. I don't concede point 1. Also, I'm not trying to calculate the probability that resurrection occurred. I'm saying that absent sufficient evidence and even in the presence of these arguments, I don't believe a resurrection occurred, and I can pretty well guarantee that unless somebody comes up with some compelling evidence, that won't change, and it is probably correct.

We're done. The god said to have resurrected Jesus doesn't exist, we have no reason to believe that a different interventionalist god exists or ever resurrected Jesus or anybody else, and we don't care about other kinds of gods.

I don't know. You seem to think that this argues for a resurrection having actually occurred. You can't do that with words alone.

I explained how that happened, but it doesn't matter why just like it doesn't matter why Islam become more popular after Muhammad died. I repeat: Words alone will never be enough to make a compelling case for human resurrection after three days of death.

Doesn't matter.

All you have are words - hearsay.

Evolution has physical evidence in its support. You don't seem to understand how critical that is for the critical thinker. I appreciate your interest and effort, but let me emphasize again that without physical evidence that resurrection is even possible let alone occurred, you will NEVER make an empiricist believe that it has. NEVER. You should know this by now. If you want to continue in order to see the rebuttal to specific claims or answers to questions, that's fine. I'm happy to oblige you. But at this point, I believe I've made my entire case. What's left for you to do except repeat claims already rebutted and rejected?

There's nothing there in.Genesis stating God created the world..
Not only that..
What does Genesis creation week.
Have to do with.the historical evidence of Jesus Christ

I thought this post was about
The historical evidence of Jesus Christ...
I know I entered the right room.
Maybe your in the wrong room

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's written in Genesis - six days of creation followed by a day of rest. It's also church doctrine. It's also the basis for a Commandment in Exodus.

I don't care if Jesus existed. Nothing changes for me either way. My question was, how much of that story can be removed and what's left still be called a historical Jesus.

I also don't care about whether that is truth or legend for the same reason. Neither the existence of Christ nor reports of resurrection witnessed in scripture nor the death of zealous followers mean he rose from the dead, but the fact that we have no evidence that such a thing ever occurred or is possible, it almost certainly didn't occur, and if it had, we would have no way of knowing that. It's an unfalsifiable claim, which is what most of religious belef is.

Why are you pursuing this? You referred to a specific resurrection attributed to a specific god whose existence has been ruled out. This line of inquiry has been exhausted.

OK, if you want to leave Christianity and speak of other gods, I've already agreed that a noninterventionist god was possible, but also irrelevant to a discussion of an intervention like resurrection, and that no estimate of the likelihood of such a thing existing can't be estimated. All we can say is that we don't experience it, which would be expected of noninterventionist gods like the deist god, and that makes claims about it unscientific, unfalsifiable, and irrelevant. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted as well.

As for a god that resurrects, all we can say is that we don't know for a fact that it never happened but have no better reason to believe that it did than these weak arguments here, and so I don't. And now this line of inquiry has been exhausted.

Disagree. I don't concede point 1. Also, I'm not trying to calculate the probability that resurrection occurred. I'm saying that absent sufficient evidence and even in the presence of these arguments, I don't believe a resurrection occurred, and I can pretty well guarantee that unless somebody comes up with some compelling evidence, that won't change, and it is probably correct.

We're done. The god said to have resurrected Jesus doesn't exist, we have no reason to believe that a different interventionalist god exists or ever resurrected Jesus or anybody else, and we don't care about other kinds of gods.

I don't know. You seem to think that this argues for a resurrection having actually occurred. You can't do that with words alone.

I explained how that happened, but it doesn't matter why just like it doesn't matter why Islam become more popular after Muhammad died. I repeat: Words alone will never be enough to make a compelling case for human resurrection after three days of death.

Doesn't matter.

All you have are words - hearsay.

Evolution has physical evidence in its support. You don't seem to understand how critical that is for the critical thinker. I appreciate your interest and effort, but let me emphasize again that without physical evidence that resurrection is even possible let alone occurred, you will NEVER make an empiricist believe that it has. NEVER. You should know this by now. If you want to continue in order to see the rebuttal to specific claims or answers to questions, that's fine. I'm happy to oblige you. But at this point, I believe I've made my entire case. What's left for you to do except repeat claims already rebutted and rejected?

What does Genesis

I acknowledge the stories that Christians make up, am I expected to believe them?

Nope not at all .
At least not by this Christian.
Whether you believe something or not. that's totally up to you .
I'm not here to push anything on anyone..
Not like other Christians will.do.