What are the chances of Jesus...

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

Do me a favor and learn how to use the quote system. It is extremely frustrating when people make their commentaries in a different color.

please stop doing that with the commentaries.RationalAtheist

I find it frustrating when being bombarded with a quote chained wall of babble, where points made can be easily missed.

There are GS terms of use over quoting and chaining. You are not asking me to break the rules now, are you?

I'd prefer it if you'd split posts more, rather than babble on about a range of things, evading questions and ducking debates.

I also resent your inference that I can not quote chain, despite our lengthy exchange here. I also explained why I was not prepared to reply in the format you supplied in my response.

Your apporach does nothing to forward your own argument. Perhaps this is because you have no evidence or clarity of thought on which to base one. At least I am glad to have caused you some frustration. Job done.

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

notconspiracy

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

Do me a favor and learn how to use the quote system. It is extremely frustrating when people make their commentaries in a different color.

please stop doing that with the commentaries.notconspiracy

I find it frustrating when being bombarded with a quote chained wall of babble, where points made can be easily missed.

There are GS terms of use over quoting and chaining. You are not asking me to break the rules now, are you?

I'd prefer it if you'd split posts more, rather than babble on about a range of things, evading questions and ducking debates.

I also resent your inference that I can not quote chain, despite our lengthy exchange here. I also explained why I was not prepared to reply in the format you supplied in my response.

Your apporach does nothing to forward your own argument. Perhaps this is because you have no evidence or clarity of thought on which to base one. At least I am glad to have caused you some frustration. Job done.

Do you have one? You have not contributed any evidence to support your assertions yet.

You have admitted that you don't know who wrote the gospels, have you not?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

RationalAtheist

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

2: citing histories that ignore Jesus is a fallacy called "argument from silence" historians dont write about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

"There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things." I seem to have been doing this fine.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="Ilived"]being another one of those crazy paranoid people who claimed to be the messiah?notconspiracy

This is only shown through testimony of blind followers.. There were alot of messiahs then, some believers claimed they can heal wounds and diease as well.. Penn and Teller go into depth with this.. This is not to say Jesus may or may not be the messiah.. I just find the reasoning behind why you think so to be flawed. You make it sound like you saw it your self.

1: Jesus was crucified

2: Jesus was entombed. This tomb was later found to be empty

3: Jesus appeared to the 12

4: Jesus appeared to James, who was a skeptic

5: Jesus appeared to Paul

6: The disciples believed the resurrection

7: Christianity rapidly spread throughout the Roman empire

These 7 facts, well 6 facts the 1st is just a necessary prerequisite, need to be explained. I submit the resurrection as an explanation. do you have any other?

There was a highly trained roman soldier guarding his tomb which had a massive boulder blocking the tomb door

The roman soldier ended up fleeing because he saw an angel

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

Do me a favor and learn how to use the quote system. It is extremely frustrating when people make their commentaries in a different color.

please stop doing that with the commentaries. RationalAtheist

I find it frustrating when being bombarded with a quote chained wall of babble, where points made can be easily missed.

There are GS terms of use over quoting and chaining. You are not asking me to break the rules now, are you?

I'd prefer it if you'd split posts more, rather than babble on about a range of things, evading questions and ducking debates.

I also resent your inference that I can not quote chain, despite our lengthy exchange here. I also explained why I was not prepared to reply in the format you supplied in my response.

Your apporach does nothing to forward your own argument. Perhaps this is because you have no evidence or clarity of thought on which to base one. At least I am glad to have caused you some frustration. Job done.

Do you have one? You have not contributed any evidence to support your assertions yet.

You have admitted that you don't know who wrote the gospels, have you not?

Come on man seriously. Dont change subjects

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

notconspiracy

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

2: citing histories that ignore Jesus is a fallacy called "argument from silence" historians dont write about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

"There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things." I seem to have been doing this fine.

Actually they know almost completely which people wrote what parts of the bible.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

notconspiracy

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

2: citing histories that ignore Jesus is a fallacy called "argument from silence" historians dont write about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

"There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things." I seem to have been doing this fine.

So the gospels are of unknown origin. Bang goes all your evidence.

Your assertion that the authors are the authors is clearly miguided, as the majority view of Christian theologens is that nearly all the gospels were not written by those to whom they were entitled.

2 - where do you get this idea of a fallacy from. Roman cover ups? Gnostic defience? Another likely scenareo for unreported events is that they did not occur. The Roman beaurocracy at the time was able to record events that clearly challenge the stories from the scriptures. The beurocracy produced solid written dated evidence.

You have not been doing fine, We have not began to discuss why we believe what we do - we are still trying to establish the basis for your beliefs - and after too many pages - for tonight - with you - I give up.

Guys don't bother.. He odviously believes in things like Noah's Ark as being fact, from this stance alone this means regardless of what you provide in the argument, he thinks the little material he has brought to the argument is undisputable fact with out reasonable doubt which it isn't in most peoples eyes. Also the thing he keeps posting isn't even his own argument its from some one else that he keeps copying and pasting.. Yet he wants to listen to our arguments instead of the things we posted for other peoples arguments.. Awfully hypocritical, in the end it doesn't matter.. Don't bother.. Hopefully he does go into a real formal debate for this, so he finally realizes how paper thin his case is and why FAITH is needed. And hopefully people don't listen to this guy to form their beliefs.sSubZerOo

Hopefully people dont listen to THIS guy and form their beliefs.

Guys don't bother.. He odviously believes in things like Noah's Ark as being fact, from this stance alone this means regardless of what you provide in the argument, he thinks the little material he has brought to the argument is undisputable fact with out reasonable doubt which it isn't in most peoples eyes. Also the thing he keeps posting isn't even his own argument its from some one else that he keeps copying and pasting.. Yet he wants to listen to our arguments instead of the things we posted for other peoples arguments.. Awfully hypocritical, in the end it doesn't matter.. Don't bother.. Hopefully he does go into a real formal debate for this, so he finally realizes how paper thin his case is and why FAITH is needed. And hopefully people don't listen to this guy to form their beliefs.sSubZerOo

second, I have, repeat HAVE posted evidence, and you have not, repeat NOT addressed the actual substance of my argument.

third, I have presented this in numerous debates with people, however they actually were aware of what the New Testament is, instead of you, who dismisses the Gospel record solely because they were decided later to be called "scripture".

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

RationalAtheist

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

2: citing histories that ignore Jesus is a fallacy called "argument from silence" historians dont write about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

"There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things." I seem to have been doing this fine.

So the gospels are of unknown origin. Bang goes all your evidence.

Your assertion that the authors are the authors is clearly miguided, as the majority view of Christian theologens is that nearly all the gospels were not written by those to whom they were entitled.

2 - where do you get this idea of a fallacy from. Roman cover ups? Gnostic defience? Another likely scenareo for unreported events is that they did not occur. The Roman beaurocracy at the time was able to record events that clearly challenge the stories from the scriptures. The beurocracy produced solid written dated evidence.

You have not been doing fine, We have not began to discuss why we believe what we do - we are still trying to establish the basis for your beliefs - and after too many pages - for tonight - with you - I give up.

Damit the we do know who wrote the gospels. I dont know why he said we dont cause we do.

Dude seriously you are wrong in many of the NT the authors specifically said or gave completely obvious hints at who they were

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

RationalAtheist

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

2: citing histories that ignore Jesus is a fallacy called "argument from silence" historians dont write about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

"There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things." I seem to have been doing this fine.

So the gospels are of unknown origin. Bang goes all your evidence.

Your assertion that the authors are the authors is clearly miguided, as the majority view of Christian theologens is that nearly all the gospels were not written by those to whom they were entitled.

2 - where do you get this idea of a fallacy from. Roman cover ups? Gnostic defience? Another likely scenareo for unreported events is that they did not occur. The Roman beaurocracy at the time was able to record events that clearly challenge the stories from the scriptures. The beurocracy produced solid written dated evidence.

You have not been doing fine, We have not began to discuss why we believe what we do - we are still trying to establish the basis for your beliefs - and after too many pages - for tonight - with you - I give up.

Damit the we do know who wrote the gospels. I dont know why he said we dont cause we do.

Dude seriously you are wrong in many of the NT the authors specifically said or gave completely obvious hints at who they were

being another one of those crazy paranoid people who claimed to be the messiah?Ilived

0. I don't think jesus was a crazy nut who ended up killing himself and many others.

[QUOTE="Ilived"]being another one of those crazy paranoid people who claimed to be the messiah?notconspiracy

He probably was a cleric that revived himself, trying to bring peace to the world, but he missed too much rules of the planet.. I don't like christianity but like Jesus...

Damit the we do know who wrote the gospels. I dont know why he said we dont cause we do.

Dude seriously you are wrong in many of the NT the authors specifically said or gave completely obvious hints at who they were

awsomnes2tehmax

OK - so who wrote the Gospels and when?

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

RationalAtheist

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

2: citing histories that ignore Jesus is a fallacy called "argument from silence" historians dont write about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

"There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things." I seem to have been doing this fine.

So the gospels are of unknown origin. Bang goes all your evidence.

Your assertion that the authors are the authors is clearly miguided, as the majority view of Christian theologens is that nearly all the gospels were not written by those to whom they were entitled.

2 - where do you get this idea of a fallacy from. Roman cover ups? Gnostic defience? Another likely scenareo for unreported events is that they did not occur. The Roman beaurocracy at the time was able to record events that clearly challenge the stories from the scriptures. The beurocracy produced solid written dated evidence.

You have not been doing fine, We have not began to discuss why we believe what we do - we are still trying to establish the basis for your beliefs - and after too many pages - for tonight - with you - I give up.

second: could you cite a source for most scholars regarding the traditional authors as not the authors of the Gospels? and could you cite the reasons why?

third: You have written records that say "Jesus, or Christus did NOT exist"? because I happen to know that any historian that mentions Jesus attests to his existence.

You give up? *sigh of extreme frustration* I dont think you are actually understanding my argument.

and I can give you evidence outside the Gospels that proves the 6 facts.

1: Jesus' crucifixion: Tacitus writes this in his annals, and Josephus writes about this in his Antiquities.

2: Empty tomb: 3 lines of evidence, A: Jerusalem factor. the first place where the disciples spread chrsitianity was Jerusalem. Jesus had been publically crucified just days earlier. If the tomb were not empty, the Pharisees could have produced the body and falsified christianity
B: Enemy attestation. The only argument proposed by detractors of Christianity was that The body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb, or that there were grave robbers. They all imply that the tomb was found to be empty
C: Testimony of Women. the first people to witness the empty tomb were women according to the Gospel records. the Gospel authors would not have fabricated the story if they used such an embarrasing witness
3: appearence to the twelve: This is documented in a creed which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15.

4: appearence to James. Also documented in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Josephus also talks about the Martyrdom of James, brother of Jesus

5: Appearence to Paul (road to damascus?) discussed in the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul alludes to this in his epistle to the Galatians (I think it was galatia)

6: Belief of the disciples. This is undisputed. They were martyred for their faith. One has to explain the origin of this belief, or WHY they believed it.

[QUOTE="awsomnes2tehmax"]Damit the we do know who wrote the gospels. I dont know why he said we dont cause we do.

Dude seriously you are wrong in many of the NT the authors specifically said or gave completely obvious hints at who they were

RationalAtheist

OK - so who wrote the Gospels and when?

[QUOTE="awsomnes2tehmax"]Damit the we do know who wrote the gospels. I dont know why he said we dont cause we do.

Dude seriously you are wrong in many of the NT the authors specifically said or gave completely obvious hints at who they were

RationalAtheist

OK - so who wrote the Gospels and when?

There are multiple gospels

The gospels were written by the disciples matthew mark luke and john

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

(precis)loads and loads of stuff (/precis)

notconspiracy

Listen, all this stuff you write - it does not make sense.

You say that the authership of the gospels in unknown, then you say it is known in the 2nd century.

See you don't make any sense at all.

You say my links don't include alternative histories that ignored Jesus. You deny this, although its clearly there in the link.

etc, etc.

Remember I said you would not read my links? I was right...

There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things.

2: citing histories that ignore Jesus is a fallacy called "argument from silence" historians dont write about EVERYONE and EVERYTHING.

"There is no point discussing things with you as you seem unable to discuss things." I seem to have been doing this fine.

So the gospels are of unknown origin. Bang goes all your evidence.

Your assertion that the authors are the authors is clearly miguided, as the majority view of Christian theologens is that nearly all the gospels were not written by those to whom they were entitled.

2 - where do you get this idea of a fallacy from. Roman cover ups? Gnostic defience? Another likely scenareo for unreported events is that they did not occur. The Roman beaurocracy at the time was able to record events that clearly challenge the stories from the scriptures. The beurocracy produced solid written dated evidence.

You have not been doing fine, We have not began to discuss why we believe what we do - we are still trying to establish the basis for your beliefs - and after too many pages - for tonight - with you - I give up.

second: could you cite a source for most scholars regarding the traditional authors as not the authors of the Gospels? and could you cite the reasons why?

third: You have written records that say "Jesus, or Christus did NOT exist"? because I happen to know that any historian that mentions Jesus attests to his existence.

You give up? *sigh of extreme frustration* I dont think you are actually understanding my argument.

and I can give you evidence outside the Gospels that proves the 6 facts.

1: Jesus' crucifixion: Tacitus writes this in his annals, and Josephus writes about this in his Antiquities.

2: Empty tomb: 3 lines of evidence, A: Jerusalem factor. the first place where the disciples spread chrsitianity was Jerusalem. Jesus had been publically crucified just days earlier. If the tomb were not empty, the Pharisees could have produced the body and falsified christianity
B: Enemy attestation. The only argument proposed by detractors of Christianity was that The body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb, or that there were grave robbers. They all imply that the tomb was found to be empty
C: Testimony of Women. the first people to witness the empty tomb were women according to the Gospel records. the Gospel authors would not have fabricated the story if they used such an embarrasing witness
3: appearence to the twelve: This is documented in a creed which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15.

4: appearence to James. Also documented in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Josephus also talks about the Martyrdom of James, brother of Jesus

5: Appearence to Paul (road to damascus?) discussed in the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul alludes to this in his epistle to the Galatians (I think it was galatia)

6: Belief of the disciples. This is undisputed. They were martyred for their faith. One has to explain the origin of this belief, or WHY they believed it.

Exactly why would some be martyred for something that wasnt true

religion stuff...its mostly only belief..not fact.....so if u believe....then thats you....if you dont..oh well.homie13_9

he just gave you plently of evidence and you are still unwilling to even look at it?

He just gave you some facts and THAT is what the faith is based on

The annals are also unknown. are you willing to throw those out?

second: could you cite a source for most scholars regarding the traditional authors as not the authors of the Gospels? and could you cite the reasons why?

third: You have written records that say "Jesus, or Christus did NOT exist"? because I happen to know that any historian that mentions Jesus attests to his existence.

You give up? *sigh of extreme frustration* I dont think you are actually understanding my argument.

and I can give you evidence outside the Gospels that proves the 6 facts.

1: Jesus' crucifixion: Tacitus writes this in his annals, and Josephus writes about this in his Antiquities.

2: Empty tomb: 3 lines of evidence, A: Jerusalem factor. the first place where the disciples spread chrsitianity was Jerusalem. Jesus had been publically crucified just days earlier. If the tomb were not empty, the Pharisees could have produced the body and falsified christianity
B: Enemy attestation. The only argument proposed by detractors of Christianity was that The body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb, or that there were grave robbers. They all imply that the tomb was found to be empty
C: Testimony of Women. the first people to witness the empty tomb were women according to the Gospel records. the Gospel authors would not have fabricated the story if they used such an embarrasing witness
3: appearence to the twelve: This is documented in a creed which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15.

4: appearence to James. Also documented in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Josephus also talks about the Martyrdom of James, brother of Jesus

5: Appearence to Paul (road to damascus?) discussed in the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul alludes to this in his epistle to the Galatians (I think it was galatia)

6: Belief of the disciples. This is undisputed. They were martyred for their faith. One has to explain the origin of this belief, or WHY they believed it.

notconspiracy

If its of unknown origin, can it be credit-worthy? I'd say no.

1. Links please to this evidence.

2. Supposition is not evidence. Jerusalem is the centre of Judasim. B. Its not the only reason. Ther are many others - animals, robbers, it not happening, etc. The Pharises could have falsified the dead and mutilated body. All suppposition. No evidence. Accounts sll come from gospels.

3. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent. C. Accounts do not all say first to see was women.

4. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent.

5. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent.

6. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent.

You said you'd give me evidence outside the gospels. Clearly - you have not

The annals are also unknown. are you willing to throw those out?

second: could you cite a source for most scholars regarding the traditional authors as not the authors of the Gospels? and could you cite the reasons why?

third: You have written records that say "Jesus, or Christus did NOT exist"? because I happen to know that any historian that mentions Jesus attests to his existence.

You give up? *sigh of extreme frustration* I dont think you are actually understanding my argument.

and I can give you evidence outside the Gospels that proves the 6 facts.

1: Jesus' crucifixion: Tacitus writes this in his annals, and Josephus writes about this in his Antiquities.

2: Empty tomb: 3 lines of evidence, A: Jerusalem factor. the first place where the disciples spread chrsitianity was Jerusalem. Jesus had been publically crucified just days earlier. If the tomb were not empty, the Pharisees could have produced the body and falsified christianity
B: Enemy attestation. The only argument proposed by detractors of Christianity was that The body of Jesus was stolen from the tomb, or that there were grave robbers. They all imply that the tomb was found to be empty
C: Testimony of Women. the first people to witness the empty tomb were women according to the Gospel records. the Gospel authors would not have fabricated the story if they used such an embarrasing witness
3: appearence to the twelve: This is documented in a creed which Paul quotes in 1 Corinthians 15.

4: appearence to James. Also documented in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Josephus also talks about the Martyrdom of James, brother of Jesus

5: Appearence to Paul (road to damascus?) discussed in the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul alludes to this in his epistle to the Galatians (I think it was galatia)

6: Belief of the disciples. This is undisputed. They were martyred for their faith. One has to explain the origin of this belief, or WHY they believed it.

notconspiracy

If its of unknown origin, can it be credit-worthy? I'd say no.

1. Links please to this evidence.RationalAtheist

Josephus says in the antiquities: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
In this passage there are quite a few later interpolations, but most scholars regard it as partially genuine. Also the term "wise man" is often used by Josephus, indicating that Josephus does talk about Jesus in this passage

Tacitus says in the Annals: Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular

The passage is highly critical of Jesus and is written in the same form the rest of the annals, thus making it highly unlikely that this passage was an interpolation by a later christian scribe.

2. Supposition is not evidence. Jerusalem is the centre of Judasim. RationalAtheist

Jerusalem is the centre of Judaism, this does not matter. Its a fact that this was the first place the disciples preached

B. Its not the only reason. Ther are many others - animals, robbers, it not happening, etc. RationalAtheist

so you admit the tomb was empty?

The Pharises could have falsified the dead and mutilated body. All suppposition. No evidence. Accounts sll come from gospels.RationalAtheist

no, actually the disciples did preach first in Jerusalem. this information is found in Acts of the Apostles written by Luke.

3. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent. C. Accounts do not all say first to see was women.RationalAtheist

again, this suggests that the Gospel authors did not fabricate the empty tomb story, and yes they all do record that the first witnesses to the empty tomb WERE women.

4. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent.RationalAtheist

no, actually it is quoted in the bible. and I said it was independent from the GOSPELS. we do know for sure who wrote the 1st epistle to Corinth.

5. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent.RationalAtheist

*insert previous statement*

6. Comes from the bible - I thought you said this evidence was supposed to be independent.RationalAtheist

I said independent of the Gospels, not of the canon.

You said you'd give me evidence outside the gospels. Clearly - you have not

RationalAtheist

Richard Carrier's critique of the resseruction story hereblackmagesm

Can you not read?blackmagesm

[QUOTE="blackmagesm"]Can you not read?notconspiracy

[QUOTE="blackmagesm"]Can you not read?notconspiracy

They aren't my arguments, but it is an article that is related to the subject matter written by a person who is a large part of the resseruction debate. I could care less if you respond to it.

[QUOTE="blackmagesm"]Can you not read?notconspiracy

You ignoramus.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="blackmagesm"]Can you not read?FritzNietzsche

anyway, If you want to argue, then actually explain your argument. If you cant do that, Im not going to waste my time with you.

notconspiracy

You twist my words. I asked for evidence independent of the bible. You have given me 2 uncited passeges from people born after Jesus' alledged death. You seem to try and trap me with differences between gospels and cannon. Aside from a 170AD ruling by a French bishop, what has that got to do with this discussion? Where is the evidence?

Among other reasons, I say "it not happening" is an equally plauisble reason for the empty tomb. You retort with "So you admit the tomb was empty?". How can you jump to such a dumb conclucion? I think this shows how your mind works. Despite me offering alternative explanations, giving you links and outlining my case, your responses only serve to indicate you don't even bother considering other people's replies to you.

How can you arguw with someone who states that because accounts of the resurrection are different, it confirms that it actually happened, as there would be differences, wouldn't there?

Enjoy your faith!

[QUOTE="FritzNietzsche"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="blackmagesm"]Can you not read?notconspiracy

anyway, If you want to argue, then actually explain your argument. If you cant do that, Im not going to waste my time with you.

notconspiracy

You twist my words. I asked for evidence independent of the bible. You have given me 2 uncited passeges from people born after Jesus' alledged death. You seem to try and trap me with differences between gospels and cannon. Aside from a 170AD ruling by a French bishop, what has that got to do with this discussion? Where is the evidence?

Among other reasons, I say "it not happening" is an equally plauisble reason for the empty tomb. You retort with "So you admit the tomb was empty?". How can you jump to such a dumb conclucion? I think this shows how your mind works. Despite me offering alternative explanations, giving you links and outlining my case, your responses only serve to indicate you don't even bother considering other people's replies to you.

How can you arguw with someone who states that because accounts of the resurrection are different, it confirms that it actually happened, as there would be differences, wouldn't there?

Enjoy your faith!

RationalAtheist

second, I cited the passages. the Antiquities and the Annals.

the one from Josephus is in chapter 3 verse 3, and the one from the annals is from chapter 15, verse 44.

Second, you offered explanation other than "the disciples stole it" I assumed that by offering explanations for the tomb being found to be empty, that you admitted that the tomb was empty. Do you think that the tomb was in fact not empty?

Fourth, I didn't say "the Gospels say the resurrection happened, therefore it happened" I said "This set of data (the 5 facts) require an explanation. I submit the resurrection as the most plausible explanation.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

[QUOTE="FritzNietzsche"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="blackmagesm"]Can you not read?FritzNietzsche

anyway, If you want to argue, then actually explain your argument. If you cant do that, Im not going to waste my time with you.

[QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

notconspiracy

You twist my words. I asked for evidence independent of the bible. You have given me 2 uncited passeges from people born after Jesus' alledged death. You seem to try and trap me with differences between gospels and cannon. Aside from a 170AD ruling by a French bishop, what has that got to do with this discussion? Where is the evidence?

Among other reasons, I say "it not happening" is an equally plauisble reason for the empty tomb. You retort with "So you admit the tomb was empty?". How can you jump to such a dumb conclucion? I think this shows how your mind works. Despite me offering alternative explanations, giving you links and outlining my case, your responses only serve to indicate you don't even bother considering other people's replies to you.

How can you arguw with someone who states that because accounts of the resurrection are different, it confirms that it actually happened, as there would be differences, wouldn't there?

Enjoy your faith!

notconspiracy

second, I cited the passages. the Antiquities and the Annals.

the one from Josephus is in chapter 3 verse 3, and the one from the annals is from chapter 15, verse 44.

Second, you offered explanation other than "the disciples stole it" I assumed that by offering explanations for the tomb being found to be empty, that you admitted that the tomb was empty. Do you think that the tomb was in fact not empty?

Fourth, I didn't say "the Gospels say the resurrection happened, therefore it happened" I said "This set of data (the 5 facts) require an explanation. I submit the resurrection as the most plausible explanation.

The authenticity of both those journals is questionable - They both wrongly denote Piltes occupation. Surely reason for shared source or dubious additions by a Christian scribe.

I'm also offering the possibility that there was no tomb. Only hearsay from unknown sources implies this happened.

What set of data - what facts? These are your assertions - your unfounded beliefs...

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="RationalAtheist"]

notconspiracy

You twist my words. I asked for evidence independent of the bible. You have given me 2 uncited passeges from people born after Jesus' alledged death. You seem to try and trap me with differences between gospels and cannon. Aside from a 170AD ruling by a French bishop, what has that got to do with this discussion? Where is the evidence?

Among other reasons, I say "it not happening" is an equally plauisble reason for the empty tomb. You retort with "So you admit the tomb was empty?". How can you jump to such a dumb conclucion? I think this shows how your mind works. Despite me offering alternative explanations, giving you links and outlining my case, your responses only serve to indicate you don't even bother considering other people's replies to you.

How can you arguw with someone who states that because accounts of the resurrection are different, it confirms that it actually happened, as there would be differences, wouldn't there?

Enjoy your faith!

RationalAtheist

second, I cited the passages. the Antiquities and the Annals.

the one from Josephus is in chapter 3 verse 3, and the one from the annals is from chapter 15, verse 44.

Second, you offered explanation other than "the disciples stole it" I assumed that by offering explanations for the tomb being found to be empty, that you admitted that the tomb was empty. Do you think that the tomb was in fact not empty?

Fourth, I didn't say "the Gospels say the resurrection happened, therefore it happened" I said "This set of data (the 5 facts) require an explanation. I submit the resurrection as the most plausible explanation.

The authenticity of both those journals is questionable - They both wrongly denote Piltes occupation. Surely reason for shared source or dubious additions by a Christian scribe.

I'm also offering the possibility that there was no tomb. Only hearsay from unknown sources implies this happened.

What set of data - what facts? These are your assertions - your unfounded beliefs...

second: no tomb? and hearsay sources? If you dismiss the Gospels as mere hearsay then you have to also dismiss the Annals, the Twelve caesars, and the Antiquities as hearsay (basically, ya gotta throw out a LOT of ancient history). Also, why would the enemies of Christianity attest to the empty tomb if this were in fact questionable?

and no, those were not "assertions". I actually took the time to back up those evidences.

im sure he was going to make the EXACT SAME argument, or something that bears a very close resemblance.

anyway, If you want to argue, then actually explain your argument. If you cant do that, Im not going to waste my time with you.

notconspiracy

Yah I'm sure you could tell that from my entire 8 word post :roll:

wrong occupation? OOOOH! I've heard this argument before. so you're saying he was actually a prefect, not a procurator? well Philo also makes this mistake. More than likely he held both titles.

second: no tomb? and hearsay sources? If you dismiss the Gospels as mere hearsay then you have to also dismiss the Annals, the Twelve caesars, and the Antiquities as hearsay (basically, ya gotta throw out a LOT of ancient history). Also, why would the enemies of Christianity attest to the empty tomb if this were in fact questionable?

and no, those were not "assertions". I actually took the time to back up those evidences.

notconspiracy

No it was an incorrect title.

Why dismiss the annals and the antiquities in dismissing the gospels? They cross-reference with other ancient texts.

Again, the tomb could have been placed by a Christian scribe. Is it mentioned outside of the bible?

Seeing as the only evidence you have to back up your assertions (it is that way round) is based on possibly corrupt and disputed authorship (as discussed above), you can not make any concrete conclusions based on it.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]wrong occupation? OOOOH! I've heard this argument before. so you're saying he was actually a prefect, not a procurator? well Philo also makes this mistake. More than likely he held both titles.

second: no tomb? and hearsay sources? If you dismiss the Gospels as mere hearsay then you have to also dismiss the Annals, the Twelve caesars, and the Antiquities as hearsay (basically, ya gotta throw out a LOT of ancient history). Also, why would the enemies of Christianity attest to the empty tomb if this were in fact questionable?

and no, those were not "assertions". I actually took the time to back up those evidences.

RationalAtheist

No it was an incorrect title.

Why dismiss the annals and the antiquities in dismissing the gospels? They cross-reference with other ancient texts.

Again, the tomb could have been placed by a Christian scribe. Is it mentioned outside of the bible?

Seeing as the only evidence you have to back up your assertions (it is that way round) is based on possibly corrupt and disputed authorship (as discussed above), you can not make any concrete conclusions based on it.

second, You would have to dismiss the Annals and Antiquities because you claim that they are mere hearsay. Most of what we know about 1st century Palestine comes from the Antiquities. Most of what we know about Tiberius and Augustus comes from the Lives of the twelve Caesars by Suetonius and The Annals from Tacitus. If you dismiss the Gospels solely because they are hearsay, then you have to dismiss most of ancient history as mere hearsay.

Next, All the Gospels talk about an empty tomb. All of the church fathers are refuting the argument that the disciples stole the body, therefore it was really the only argument proposed by the enemies of Jesus. Why would all the enemies of Christianity imply that the tomb was in fact empty if this fact were questionable?

Next you asked for it being mentioned outside the bible. Why does being canonizes makes render a document unreliable?

Lastly, you say that it is possibly corrupt.

ANY ancient document can be corrupt. are you willing to throw out all of ancient history now?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Guys don't bother.. He odviously believes in things like Noah's Ark as being fact, from this stance alone this means regardless of what you provide in the argument, he thinks the little material he has brought to the argument is undisputable fact with out reasonable doubt which it isn't in most peoples eyes. Also the thing he keeps posting isn't even his own argument its from some one else that he keeps copying and pasting.. Yet he wants to listen to our arguments instead of the things we posted for other peoples arguments.. Awfully hypocritical, in the end it doesn't matter.. Don't bother.. Hopefully he does go into a real formal debate for this, so he finally realizes how paper thin his case is and why FAITH is needed. And hopefully people don't listen to this guy to form their beliefs.notconspiracy

You have yet to dispute them and you narrowly avodied the question completely.. Why do I ask this question? Because it will show how bias you are.. That even with facts thrown into your face going against Noah's Ark being 100% true, you will refuse it. Which means there is entirely no point to argue Jesus at hand, because if your this bias upon Christanity there is no reason to argue.. Ad Hominem has nothign to do with it.. And I am glad you are trying to realize what logical fallacies are.. Yet you fail to realze your entire arguement is begging the question.

second, I have, repeat HAVE posted evidence, and you have not, repeat NOT addressed the actual substance of my argument.

No you posted the only sources where Jesus's resurrection are in. Do you understand what being beyond a reasonable doubt is?

Why then is there numerous craze on UFOs and aliens.. Where hundreds of thousands of people across the planet have claimed to be abducted or seen a UFO/alien? Even alot of well educated people have claimed to see them, or even police officers who hold the respect of the community.. We have numerous books on this.. YET the community hasn't found a single piece of physical evidence ot prove such outragous claims.. Which basically is not accepted widely. What makes this any different then Jesus's Divinity?

third, I have presented this in numerous debates with people, however they actually were aware of what the New Testament is, instead of you, who dismisses the Gospel record solely because they were decided later to be called "scripture".

No you basically have been going back to the same text over and over again. The point being is this.

I honestly would like to believe you.. It would be great if it is true. But you have provided not enough evidence to prove this.. You gave me texts that we do not have the originals to. From authors we do not know who they are. Nor do we know if these authors put their own bias upon it instead of objectively saying what they saw.. Even then a supposed miraculous event such as lightening was considered the power of the gods. Education was not very high in that time period.

And about historical text.. No one takes it as 100% facts.. There are many many versions on numerous ancient historical events.. Some are widely agreed but none are 100% accurate.. And also take note that none of the accepted historical accuracies in really event has had naything to do with the super natural. To be perfectly frank we have seen and heard this exact same thing over again in mythology.. What makes this different? Eye witnesses? Who were they? Did you know who they were? Were they educated men? Can you say for certain that the texts were not changed in any way shape or form? That is the point you can't make it a absolute certainity.. No one here is argueing whether Jesus is divine or not.. We are just trying to point out to you that Jesus's divinity can't be proven with the scrutiny of today's standards.. This makes it even worse when Jesus defies the law of physics.. When you make a extreme claim like a being having god like powers, you have to prove this.. Because we can prove milions of times over that every one has to follow physics and the laws of nature. When taking that into mind it is most logical to see that the simpliest answer is often the most logical answer.

And intill you have something more then texts (a dubious low amount at that) you can not prove their authenicity on, then faith is what makes you believe.. Not factual evidence. If this were true the science and history communities would accept Jesus's divinity.. And they do not. That is because there is reasonable doubt.. This is by no means stating that your beliefs are wrong, you just can't prove it is true with reasoning, evidence, etc etc. Thus why faith is needed.. After all wasn't that the whole test that Jesus gave us was to have faith?

And I say again.. Do you or do you not believe in Noah's Ark as being 100% true as stated in the Bible. Please just answer the question.

[QUOTE="lovemenow"]

actually..no im not..but i am getting sleepy..i found a video with in 5 sec of typing it in..here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNFBZvZIP0w

before you watch it..just know this

1.this proves that posting a video that you feel furthers your view actually looks stupid from the other side especially when you know its biased..

2.i never seen this video and i dont care for it.

.3.i have yet to hear YOUR argument on the matter..and no im not avoiding an argument i just want to hear YOUR argument in your own words.. so i can debate with you..not some guy in a video

C_Town_Soul

nope i fully watched one and halfed the other because he got into his rant..1.regardless if i like the video or not i was proving a point..you don't know that guy in the video you showed me so how can anything he say be valid..he showed 2 books that he read on the case for Jesus existence,and said.. and i quote,"Dont be fooled by the thickness of these books ,their case is actually paper thin'"..now you tell me..how would you yourself know that without doing your own research..you wouldnt because you obviously took his word for it cause it went toward what you already wanted to believe..his reaserch was hinder by his obvious bias toward christans..i watch another video he made ..where in it he threw a bible across the room..then within the same video he spoke of how he hated the run around Christians he spoke to gave him on homsexuality..then came out and said the only Christan that told the truth..is the bigoted one that gave him a stupid response..its funny how any other view from a Christan was a lie to him except the one that suited his view on Christans..nothing he has said has enlightened me cause i can see right through people like him...but back to our debate..i'll go back and read your post ..sorry if i missed your points in this debate..really dude do your own research and dont be swayed by people like him..they have no life which is why they spend nearly everyday hating what others Cherish.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Guys don't bother.. He odviously believes in things like Noah's Ark as being fact, from this stance alone this means regardless of what you provide in the argument, he thinks the little material he has brought to the argument is undisputable fact with out reasonable doubt which it isn't in most peoples eyes. Also the thing he keeps posting isn't even his own argument its from some one else that he keeps copying and pasting.. Yet he wants to listen to our arguments instead of the things we posted for other peoples arguments.. Awfully hypocritical, in the end it doesn't matter.. Don't bother.. Hopefully he does go into a real formal debate for this, so he finally realizes how paper thin his case is and why FAITH is needed. And hopefully people don't listen to this guy to form their beliefs.sSubZerOo

You have yet to dispute them and you narrowly avodied the question completely.. Why do I ask this question? Because it will show how bias you are.. That even with facts thrown into your face going against Noah's Ark being 100% true, you will refuse it. Which means there is entirely no point to argue Jesus at hand, because if your this bias upon Christanity there is no reason to argue.. Ad Hominem has nothign to do with it.. And I am glad you are trying to realize what logical fallacies are.. Yet you fail to realze your entire arguement is begging the question.

second, I have, repeat HAVE posted evidence, and you have not, repeat NOT addressed the actual substance of my argument.

No you posted the only sources where Jesus's resurrection are in. Do you understand what being beyond a reasonable doubt is?

Why then is there numerous craze on UFOs and aliens.. Where hundreds of thousands of people across the planet have claimed to be abducted or seen a UFO/alien? Even alot of well educated people have claimed to see them, or even police officers who hold the respect of the community.. We have numerous books on this.. YET the community hasn't found a single piece of physical evidence ot prove such outragous claims.. Which basically is not accepted widely. What makes this any different then Jesus's Divinity?

third, I have presented this in numerous debates with people, however they actually were aware of what the New Testament is, instead of you, who dismisses the Gospel record solely because they were decided later to be called "scripture".

No you basically have been going back to the same text over and over again. The point being is this.

I honestly would like to believe you.. It would be great if it is true. But you have provided not enough evidence to prove this.. You gave me texts that we do not have the originals to. From authors we do not know who they are. Nor do we know if these authors put their own bias upon it instead of objectively saying what they saw.. Even then a supposed miraculous event such as lightening was considered the power of the gods. Education was not very high in that time period.

And about historical text.. No one takes it as 100% facts.. There are many many versions on numerous ancient historical events.. Some are widely agreed but none are 100% accurate.. And also take note that none of the accepted historical accuracies in really event has had naything to do with the super natural. To be perfectly frank we have seen and heard this exact same thing over again in mythology.. What makes this different? Eye witnesses? Who were they? Did you know who they were? Were they educated men? Can you say for certain that the texts were not changed in any way shape or form? That is the point you can't make it a absolute certainity.. No one here is argueing whether Jesus is divine or not.. We are just trying to point out to you that Jesus's divinity can't be proven with the scrutiny of today's standards.. This makes it even worse when Jesus defies the law of physics.. When you make a extreme claim like a being having god like powers, you have to prove this.. Because we can prove milions of times over that every one has to follow physics and the laws of nature. When taking that into mind it is most logical to see that the simpliest answer is often the most logical answer.

And intill you have something more then texts (a dubious low amount at that) you can not prove their authenicity on, then faith is what makes you believe.. Not factual evidence. If this were true the science and history communities would accept Jesus's divinity.. And they do not. That is because there is reasonable doubt.. This is by no means stating that your beliefs are wrong, you just can't prove it is true with reasoning, evidence, etc etc. Thus why faith is needed.. After all wasn't that the whole test that Jesus gave us was to have faith?

And I say again.. Do you or do you not believe in Noah's Ark as being 100% true as stated in the Bible. Please just answer the question.

still adds nothing to the discussion.

asubzero, I dont think you are quite understanding my argument. I am not saying "The Gospels say there was a resurrection, therefore it happened" That is not my argument. I am using the Gospels as sources for facts which are sometimes cited in the Gospels. For instance, Jesus' crucifixion, or the first witnesses to the tomb being women. However, the other facts which support a resurrection come from other historians, or other parts of the canon. I will rearticulate my argument right from the beginnning

My argument will simply be the argument from best explanation, as in one has to offer an explanation for a set of data. For this particular set of data, I submit the resurrection as the best explanation. The following evidences are:

1: Jesus' crucifixion

2: The empty tomb

3: The appearence to James

4: The appearence to Paul

5: The appearence to the twelve.

6: The disciples' belief in the resurrection

now when I use the word "appear" I simply mean they saw him. James saw the risen Jesus, Paul saw the risen jesus, the twelve saw the risen Jesus.

Im gonna take a wild guess and say that he wasnt the messiah. Oh wait, I dont believe in anything the Bible says!!hillelslovak

See here is the problem... I believe you with the crusifiction and such and the possibility he exist.. Its not a huge stretch.. It is a huge stretch though to claim he was divine.. 2000 years ago they did not have the recording of evidence we have today.. When something supernatural happens we need more evidence then just testimony... We need phyiscal facts. Because as it stands when you put in comparison that

A) We have centuries worth of people following the laws of physics.. Well really thousands of years..

B) During that time period, every religion had this kind of claims as well as eyewitnesses. But as far as eyewitnesses other then that there really isn't much you can say about it.

C) We have really very little data on Jesus compared to numerous other pieces of history. Really all we have is holy workings that there are numerous versions on.

D) These religious texts went through numerous dark ages in mankind.. Ages where it was not a democracy.. Where laws were done by the church and corruption was at all time high.. Copyists made errors, it is a certainty. But it is also possible for them to place their own bias with it. Mankind is imperfect as well as immoral.. I don't think its that much of a stretch to put in the possibility that none of these text are 100% authentic.. For all we know the divine powers Jesus had were completely different from what were written in the books.

E) Not a single piece of history has been accepted with super natural elements put into it as being accept by being factual.

See here is the point. When some one claims they have a dragon in their backyard. And we have numerous eyewitnesses that claim this.. People are not going to believe intill they see physical proof for them selves.. With out physical proof popularity in belief is all you have.. This does not make it factual.. For instance are we to assume UFOs and aliens exist and they are amongst us? With the numerous testimonies by your reasoning we should. Because there would be no way these many people would see it, including people that are well educated and respected. But along behold there is no official acceptance.. Why? Because we have no hardcore proof in it..

This is the point.. The divinity of Jesus can not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? because aside from eyewitnesses we can't prove anything.. And now a days people will not accept supposed unknown eyewitnesses and authors, over physics. We have been shown time and time agian that witnesses can lie, they can exgerrate, they can misintperet what they saw.. Authors are the exact same. But physics does not yield.. A man can not walk on water of his own power.. Physics has shown that to be true.. Yet again I am not saying that Jesus is divine or not, I just think your missing the entire point all together.. Because isn't Chrisitnaity and religion in general about faith? That you have faith in your beliefs that can't be proven? That you believe in god because of your faith, not because of phyiscal evidence? Wasn't that the whole point for accepting Jesus, is having faith in him with no need of evidence?

I have nothing against Christainity or any religion in general.. I just do not like when certain amazing events are treated as fact with as little evidence as possible, as if its something like gravity.