The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[Inkubus]

If Jim Jones weren't divinely ordained, a couple hundred people wouldn't have killed themselves for him.

What?  Am I misunderstanding you somehow?  Are you saying that if some minor crazies killed themselves at the command of a major crazy, that validates the major crazies belief?

Please tell me that your post was some unusually obtuse snarky joke.

Yes. As always.

[Cavebear]

What?  Am I misunderstanding you somehow?  Are you saying that if some minor crazies killed themselves at the command of a major crazy, that validates the major crazies belief?

Please tell me that your post was some unusually obtuse snarky joke.

Yes. As always.

"Yes" to which? You lack some specificity here.

[jerry mcmasters]

If Jim Jones weren't divinely ordained, a couple hundred people wouldn't have killed themselves for him.

What?  Am I misunderstanding you somehow?  Are you saying that if some minor crazies killed themselves at the command of a major crazy, that validates the major crazies belief?

Please tell me that your post was some unusually obtuse snarky joke.

[SYZ]

How extremely rude. Abuse and insult me like anything, I don't respond in kind, then try to get me banned...

This argument is very similar to the "suicide by cop" motif
that's currently running in America.    And all too often it
proves to be prophetic.  

Think about it Xavier.

[SaxonX]

"That Jesus was crucified [under Pontius Pilate] is as certain as anything historical can ever be" ~ John Dominic Crossan of the Liberal Jesus Seminar.

Congrats a former Catholic priest (Biased actor) says Jesus was real i'm sure conclusion based on the evidence and not his own convictions and notion that Liberals Christians are less biased is absurd.

[Paleophyte]

How extremely rude. Abuse and insult me like anything, I don't respond in kind, then try to get me banned. So much for Atheists being kind and charitable or logical and relying only on reasoned argument. Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake. Anyway, do what you want.

You've been here 8 days, in which time you've started 6 threads, all of which have the same general tone of "Why Christianity is The Way and The Light". On average you've made 4 replies per thread, which is spammy, trollish, low engagement posting. That is waltzing perilously close to violating the "No Proselytizing" rule and will get you banned here just like it did at AF.

If you want to convince us that you're anything other than a low energy shitposter then pick one topic, preferably one of the ones that you've already started, and turn it into a meaningful discussion. If you aren't willing to do that then you might as well save the management the effort of polishing a tiny scratch out of the banhammer's shiny finish and just piss off. This forum does not exist for you to reaffirm your faith by witnessing at us. That sort of behaviour is simply rude, immature, and a sign of somebody who isn't very secure in their faith.

FWIW, I'm entirely content to sit back and watch the mods play out the rope while you fashion yourself a noose.

[Paleophyte]

Why do these theist fanatics keep coming here?  We obviously aren't very subject to conversion.

It isn't about us, it's about them. They need to reaffirm their faith by preaching at the heathens and getting their persecution jollies. It's immature and a sure sign that the poster is pretty insecure in their faith. If you have conviction you don't need spamming.

[Edible crust]

Why do these theist fanatics keep coming here?  We obviously aren't very subject to conversion.

It isn't about us, it's about them. They need to reaffirm their faith by preaching at the heathens and getting their persecution jollies. It's immature and a sure sign that the poster is pretty insecure in their faith. If you have conviction you don't need spamming.

I think he pulls his pud after posting a thread and hopes that Jesus isn't watching.

[Astreja]

How extremely rude. Abuse and insult me like anything, I don't respond in kind, then try to get me banned. So much for Atheists being kind and charitable or logical and relying only on reasoned argument. Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake. Anyway, do what you want.

You hypocrite!  You are an unrepentant serial bearer of false witness, slandering and insulting non-believers on multiple forums.  You have earned every single drop of the pushback you're getting from us - and more.  Much, much more.

Cease and desist with the insults against atheists, from this moment to the end of your days on Earth.  While you're at it, go to confession and tell your priest what you've done, and take your penance.

[brewerb]

^^^ It does bring POE's law to mind.

[SYZ]

How extremely rude. Abuse and insult me like anything, I don't respond in kind, then try to get me banned. So much for Atheists being kind and charitable or logical and relying only on reasoned argument. Its just words. If I'm wrong, it's nothing. If I'm right, then Heaven is at stake. Anyway, do what you want.

You've been here 8 days, in which time you've started 6 threads, all of which have the same general tone of "Why Christianity is The Way and The Light". On average you've made 4 replies per thread, which is spammy, trollish, low engagement posting. That is waltzing perilously close to violating the "No Proselytizing" rule and will get you banned here just like it did at AF...

I've already reported Xavier, but thus far no response from moderators.

       

https://atheistdiscussion.org/forums/sho...#pid435003

[Charladele]

We could just quit engaging with him... blink, blink.

[SYZ]

We could just quit engaging with him...  blink, blink.

I get what you're saying, but the problem is he simply
starts a new thread with some outlandish religious claim.
He's the sort of forum whore who just won't give up.

And I can't understand why the mods or admin don't
simply ban him, for apparently breaching forum rules.

[Inkubus]

We could just quit engaging with him...  blink, blink.

I get what you're saying, but the problem is he simply
starts a new thread with some outlandish religious claim.
He's the sort of forum whore who just won't give up.

And I can't understand why the mods or admin don't
simply ban him, for apparently breaching forum rules.

Any feedback on that report?

[mordant]

If Jesus Christ did not rise from the dead, Astreja, there would have been no Christianity after His death; not one of His Apostles would have died for a dead Messiah who remained dead. We know this in the case of other 1st century claimed messiahs, some of whom are mentioned in the NT, and others known through history. After the leaders were killed, these other messianic movements scattered and all came to nothing. Not so with Christianity.

How do you explain that the followers of David Koresh or Jim Jones died for their leaders? By your logic, those two guys must have been true; after all no one would die for them if they weren't.

How do you explain that soldiers die in battle for their country? Their country must be right, otherwise no one would be willing to die for them. Well maybe the Germans. Well maybe the Russians. Oh, wait ...

People die for All. Sorts. Of. Stupid. Causes. Regularly.

[pattylt]

It’s funny what “true believers” will come up with to justify their beliefs and continue on believing…whatever.

If Jesus was crucified and later the body was missing…insert rising from the dead. They all ran away so wouldn’t have a clue where the body went. Stories of him being buried are just further justifications for what they already believed…he was a savior, so of course he had to have a righteous burial with an empty tomb. It’s like it never crossed their mind that he was just dumped in the common grave for criminals which is the most likely scenario. All the rest is fevered dreams and imagination.

If a dead savior actually rose and walked about talking to people, it sure didn’t get noticed by anyone other than those believers. Seriously, it would have been all the rage in Jerusalem.

[Minimalist]

It is generally conceded that "Mark" was the first gospel from which the others are all derived to one extent or another.  It is also generally acknowledged that Mark originally ended at 16.8 in which the women run away and say nothing to anyone.

That was such an anticlimactic ending that later xtian assholes took various shots at writing in "better" endings because clearly they thought mark had dropped the ball.

There are several such endings that we know about and they also make a lot of excuses for why mark ended so abruptly...most of which have the feeling of desperation to salvage their horseshit.

However, and I forget where I heard this one, mark's ending also serves as an explanation for why he set his story in the early first century but people were only beginning to hear about it now as a result of his writing.  Assuming mark wrote in at least 70 - and probably much later - there was at least a 40 year gap that had to be explained away.

Meanwhile, lots of hillbilly morons have gotten killed handling snakes as that is one of the add-ons in a later ending for "mark."

[Edible crust]

@Xavier
The thing is, nobody actually saw Jesus rise from the dead.
All we have are contradictory gospels. There's no agreement about any of the 'events' in the gospels, even down to how many women were present at the EMPTY tomb.

None of this shit would stand up in a court of law.

[Minimalist]

Doesn't stand up in the court of common sense, either.

[Aractus]

"That Jesus was crucified [under Pontius Pilate] is as certain as anything historical can ever be" ~ John Dominic Crossan of the Liberal Jesus Seminar.

Crossan does not think there was a resurrection, and it was the Jesus Seminar not “Liberal Jesus Seminar”.

"That is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus Christ rose from the dead, leaving an Empty Tomb behind Him". ~ NT Scholar N.T. Wright.

Really? I can explain it. Maybe he should read Lindars 1986 sometime?

These 4 or 5 facts are as follows. (1) Jesus Christ was publicly crucified and died under Pontius Pilate in the reign of the Emperor Tiberius.

Right, so why do Christians even today blame the Jews?

(2) He was buried and then His Tomb was found Empty shortly thereafter.

We don't know that he was buried at all, let alone in a tomb. The gospel story is literature and only works as literature. Joseph of Arimathea buries Jesus of Nazareth in his family tomb in Jerusalem. Count the number of contradictions in that one sentence. Wouldn't Joseph's tomb be down in Arimathea? Wouldn't Jesus' family take his body back to Nazareth assuming that Pilate released his body and didn't leave it to decay in place on the cross?

(3) His Apostles unanimously, soon after, from a manifestly sincere conviction, began to believe and to preach that He had Risen from the Dead.

No they didn't, they fled and dispersed. As far as we know there were only three disciples (later apostles) that carried on the movement: Cephas, James, and John. The rest of them were nowhere to be found after the crucifixion, and the canonical gospel authors cannot even agree on who the 12 were.

(4) The Apostles proclaimed this unwaveringly to their own deaths, preferring heroic martyrdoms to denying this Truth.

That may have been the exception rather than the norm.

(5) The best explanation of the above facts is that they, not e.g. the Pharisees who claimed "the Apostles stole the body" were telling the Truth.

Rubbish, people are willing to die for a lie. What about the Trains?

Beside Jewish and Pagan sources, among Christian sources, we have (1) Saint Paul, or Rabbi Saul's, Epistles. Rabbi Saul was a former Jewish Rabbi of the highest repute in the Synagogue, having studied under Rabbi Gamaliel, whom the Jews to this day highly venerate as great teacher. We have many of St. Paul's letters, including those which the harshest critics have never denied is authentic. Most of them date from the ADs 40 to AD 60, i.e. about 5 to 25 years after Christ's Death. Yet, they confirm all the basic facts in the Life of Christ, His Davidic Descent, His being the Son of God, having died for sins, having rose from the dead etc.

That's an entirely invented reverse-engineered backstory for Paul. His letters date to c. 50-70 CE not 40-60. He never met Jesus of Nazareth.

How about a more logical explanation: he wasn't a very good Pharisee but the god-fearers lapped up his stuff so he switched over to them. Paul had no right, nor authority, to “reinterpret the Scriptures” and Jews today reject his reinterpretations entirely.

[Cavebear]

What?  Am I misunderstanding you somehow?  Are you saying that if some minor crazies killed themselves at the command of a major crazy, that validates the major crazies belief?

Please tell me that your post was some unusually obtuse snarky joke.

An explanation of why you feel like you were slapping your foreheadl would be beneficial...

[Minimalist]

We don't know that he was buried at all, let alone in a tomb. The gospel story is literature and only works as literature. Joseph of Arimathea buries Jesus of Nazareth in his family tomb in Jerusalem. Count the number of contradictions in that one sentence. Wouldn't Joseph's tomb be down in Arimathea? Wouldn't Jesus' family take his body back to Nazareth assuming that Pilate released his body and didn't leave it to decay in place on the cross?

Much like the mythical jesus and the mythical paul no one seems to know where the mythical "Arimathea" was or is.  Apparently it is something of a cottage industry for jesus freaks to run around pointing to various rubble piles and saying THAT was the city of Arimathea.

The location of Arimathea is not known, but it is traditionally identified with several hill towns near Jerusalem.

And I probably shouldn't have to tell anyone what "tradition" is worth when it comes to this jesus horseshit.

Also, "Joseph of Arimathea" is a common Greek styling for a name.  The jewish patronymic naming system was:

In the Jewish patronymic system the first name is followed by either ben- or bat- ("son of" and "daughter of," respectively), and then the father's name.

  Rather hard to believe that a member of the Sanheddrin would have been a Hellenized Jew.  But xhristards will believe anything.  More likely, he was a stock character inserted into the tale because they needed someone to get jesus' ass down off the cross....which the Romans did not do with convicted criminals but WTF....like I said, the assholes will believe anything.

Joseph of Arimathea would have been common enough as a name to the Greek scribes who wrote this nonsense down and, if any of them knew anything about Judaean geography one or more of them might have asked "where the fuck is Arimathea" but as the suspicion is that most of them were writing in Syria, Egypt or places even further away and didn't give a shit one way or the other.  They were hired to write so they wrote.

[Xavier]

Minimalist, in the other thread you quoted Carrier claiming: "Paul never mentions ... Pilate or Mary"

This is incorrect. St. Paul mentions both Pilate and Mary. Pilate in 1 Timothy, "Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession" (1 Tim 6:13) and Mary in Romans 16: "Salute Mary, who hath laboured much among you." (Rom 16:6). St. Luke, a companion disciple of St. Paul, gives more specifics about Pilate in Luke 3: "3 In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene— 2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness." (Luk 3:1-2). 

Note the exact historical details. Pilate was governor, Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, Philip of Iturea, Lysanias of Abilene, Annas and Caipas high priests - and most of these details can be corroborated from other sources. These show the Gospel biographies are actual history, not later imaginations. If they had been written around 130 AD etc, as some of you believe, all these details would have been lost or practically unknown. Probably even after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, they would hardly have been remembered, so Luke's Gospel almost certainly predates 70. Also, we now know Pilate was governor of Judea between 26 AD and 36 AD, and the 15th year of Tiberius was 29 AD. That leaves 3 years of Christ's Ministry (3 Passovers pass during His Ministry), for a 33 AD crucifixion. The dates match perfectly. Here's the Wiki article on Pontius Pilate and Tiberius Caesar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius

Now, there are 7 Epistles of St. Paul which almost all Scholars, even Atheists/Agnostics, agree are genuine/undisputed: "Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and Philemon." Regarding the other 6 Epistles, here is an Oxford-educated Archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay, who began with a mind completely unfavorable to them, and then ended up concluding all of them were genuine: "Oxford-educated archaeologist Sir William Ramsay, embarking on a journey to investigate the historicity of the Gospel records and Acts, was skeptical. Taught by liberals and having adopted prevalent errors on the alleged late origin and supposed non-historicity of the Gospels and Acts, Sir William fully expected his own work to corroborate those liberal theories. Instead, to his utter amazement, after lifelong study on the Book of Acts, he wrote later, “Further study … showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement.” https://onepeterfive.com/matthew-first-dates-gospels/ 

Here's his Wiki page: "Knighted in 1906 to mark his distinguished service to the world of scholarship, Ramsay also gained three honorary fellowships from Oxford colleges, nine honorary doctorates from British, Continental and North American universities, and became an honorary member of almost every association devoted to archaeology and historical research."

"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without any prejudice in favour of the conclusion ... Regarding the authorship of the Pauline epistles Ramsay also concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters ostensibly written by Paul were in fact authentic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

The vast majority of scholars completely reject the idea that Jesus Christ and Saint Paul are later myths. They are historical persons.

[SYZ]

I get what you're saying, but the problem is he simply
starts a new thread with some outlandish religious claim.
He's the sort of forum whore who just won't give up.

And I can't understand why the mods or admin don't
simply ban him, for apparently breaching forum rules.

Any feedback on that report?

Nope. No PM to me, and obviously no banning of Xavier.     

Are the mods and/or admin even aware of our ban
requests? And assuming they are, then why no action?

[Xavier]

Congrats a former Catholic priest (Biased actor) says Jesus was real i'm sure conclusion based on the evidence and not his own convictions and notion that Liberals Christians are less biased is absurd.

JD Crossan is not a Christian anymore. He believes the Resurrection is a "metaphor". Yet, even he acknowledges the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ under Pontius Pilate is a historical fact.

How do you explain that the followers of David Koresh or Jim Jones died for their leaders? By your logic, those two guys must have been true; after all no one would die for them if they weren't.

You're misunderstanding me. People may die for what they sincerely believe is the Truth, but is objectively mistaken. But no one or hardly anyone will die FOR WHAT THEY KNOW IS A LIE. If the Resurrection were a lie, then the Apostles knew it and yet knowingly died for a lie. Neither David Koresh nor Jim Jones rose from the dead nor did their followers claim they did. So the analogy fails. 

If a dead savior actually rose and walked about talking to people, it sure didn’t get noticed by anyone other than those believers. Seriously, it would have been all the rage in Jerusalem.

St. Paul wasn't a believer, remember. He was a Devout Pharisee, of the opposite theological camp of the Apostles, and their Greatest Persecutor. Left alone, he would have destroyed the Church. Since Christ/God promised that would never happen, to confirm His Promise, Jesus Christ appeared to St. Paul - not an Apostle at the time, but a Pharisee - and converted His opponent by His miraculous power. Only after that did St. Paul fully convert and became a zealous promoter of Jesus Christ as the True Messiah and Risen Saviour. So how would someone who believes only believers had their presuppositions confirmed answer that, that a hostile unbeliever changed his mind?

"The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthinas) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ's life; they have at times been called the "fifth gospel"; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; their testimony is also earlier than that of the Gospels, at least most of the Gospels; it is the more valuable because it is incidental and undesigned; it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates. At the same time, these four great Epistles bear witness to all the most important facts in the life of Christ: His Davidic descent, His poverty, His Messiahship, His moral teaching, His preaching of the kingdom of God, His calling of the apostles, His miraculous power, His claims to be God, His betrayal, His institution of the Holy Eucharist, His passion, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, His repeated appearances (Romans 1:3-4; 5:11; 8:2-3; 8:32; 9:5; 15:8; Galatians 2:17; 3:13; 4:4; 5:21; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 13:4; etc.)." https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm

It is generally conceded that "Mark" was the first gospel from which the others are all derived to one extent or another.

Answered in the article given earlier. This is wrong. St. Matthew the Apostle wrote first, as 1800 years of all Scholars believed unanimously. While today Markan priority is probably more widely held, Matthean priority is still defended by many Scholars.

"The first and most important dispute in Gospel studies between conservative and liberal scholars is whether (1) the Patristic Tradition, universally accepted for 1,800 years, of Matthean priority or (2) the recent theory, of Markan priority, requiring a lost Q document, which has no ancient historical attestation, is correct. This latter theory was promoted during the Kulturkampf in Germany by Otto von Bismarck for political reasons, as an anti-Catholic endeavor to reduce the authority of the papacy (which is especially evident in the Gospel of St. Matthew). Let’s examine where the evidence points.

External evidence is absolutely demonstrative that St. Matthew the Apostle himself wrote the Gospel of Matthew, wrote first, and wrote well before the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. This is attested to by Bishop Saint Papias, who knew St. John the Apostle; Tertullian in Africa; Saint Irenaeus, who was bishop of Lyons in Europe but well acquainted with the Tradition of the East, having spent a significant time in Asia; and several other witnesses. Thus we have the unanimous witness of three whole continents and virtually the entire early Christian world that Saint Matthew the Apostle is the first of the Evangelists and wrote his Gospel well before 70 A.D."