[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[kuzushi]

So outside of the bible we don't really have any evidence?

Any evidence of the exact charge against Jesus? Well like I said there's the Talmud so there might be stuff there.
I've quickly googled "extrabiblical evidence for the charge against Jesus" and got this:

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Do any other ancient documents help to confirm the trustworthiness of the New Testament?

www.bethinking.org

You might as well just read it. It might be a starting point for you.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Well, we're discussing the resurrection specifically here, not eschatology or anything else. I didn't say anyone was or wasn't currently in heaven, I just said that Triggaaar had asserted as absolute fact something that he doesn't know. The bit where you say "So what Triggaar said is 100% correct" sounds like you are agreeing with him based on scripture, which is ironic.


Resorting to abuse. Have you noticed that I don't do that?

It’s not abuse, it’s an accurate description of your inaccurate response to him.

 

[kuzushi]

Yes I know, I'm just copying your style. Although there is a ton of proof that things in the bible are not true. Including proof that the shroud is fake.

But you're not copying my style. That's not my style. You might think it is, but if you look closely you'll see that it isn't.
I distinguish between what I say as evidence based fact and what I say as my interpretation of conclusions drawn from said facts.

 

[kuzushi]

It’s not abuse, it’s an accurate description of your inaccurate response to him.

It is abusive.
My response was not inaccurate. He made an unsupported assertion.

 

[BadFish]

Any evidence of the exact charge against Jesus? Well like I said there's the Talmud so there might be stuff there.
I've quickly googled "extrabiblical evidence for the charge against Jesus" and got this:

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources

Do any other ancient documents help to confirm the trustworthiness of the New Testament?

www.bethinking.org

You might as well just read it. It might be a starting point for you.

I would say you are one arrogant or condescending comment away from my ignore list.

I've enjoyed talking to you but your tone is letting you down.

As they say in these parts: pull your head in champ.

 

[kuzushi]

I would say you are one arrogant or condescending comment away from my ignore list.

I've enjoyed talking to you but your tone is letting you down.

As they say in these parts: pull your head in champ.

Sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, what is wrong?

 

[kuzushi]

I would say you are one arrogant or condescending comment away from my ignore list.

I've enjoyed talking to you but your tone is letting you down.

As they say in these parts: pull your head in champ.

I was just trying to be helpful.

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

He made an unsupported assertion.

A bit like you saying jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Stato]

If he had risen from the dead, then yes, I'd believe he was the son of God. He didn't.

You wouldn't have to even if he did. A human rising from the dead is not evidence of his or her divinity. Suggesting it is is a 'God of the Gaps' argument. The absence of a provable explanation of a phenomena is just an unanswered question. It offers no support to any particular alternative propositions. The person being the offspring of a deity of any sort, let alone a specific one described by a single religion, would be just one of an infinite number of untested theories that could attempt to explain the occurence. As Hitchens put it "I'll give you all the miracles and you'll still be left where you are now - holding an empty sack."

 

[kuzushi]

A bit like you saying jesus rose from the dead.

That's my opinion, but I'm not expecting people just to believe that.
It leads on step by step. Jesus is a historical person for whom there is ample evidence, and he was crucified, for which there is also ample evidence, and his disciples believed that he rose from the dead, for which there is also ample evidence. That takes us to the point where we can either accept their testimony as I and it seems @CaptainDaveUK do, or we can postulate an alternative explanation as Bart Ehrnman does.

 

[kuzushi]

Here's a table showing my understanding of where we stand:

_________________ 1_______________2____________ 3____________4
Kuzushi__________Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________Yes
CaptainDaveUK____Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________Yes
Bald Seagull_______Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________?
Bart Ehrman______ Yes____________Yes___________Yes___________No
Blues guitarist_____ Yes____________Yes___________Yes__________ No
Triggaar__________Yes____________Yes____________?____________No
Bad fish__________Yes*_____________?_____________?____________No
Guinness Boy_____?_______________?_____________?_____________?








*I may be persuaded that a yes could be assumed for number 1 with the caveat that I accept that it is likely that a dude named Jesus was around at the time and was preaching about stuff and caused some difficulties for the powers that be.

Updated table

 

[kuzushi]

Stop telling me what I think and pretending that I support your beliefs. You don’t know what I think, and your yes/no poll is an insult to people who do serious historical research.

To clarify, god doesn’t exist and Jesus wasn’t god.

Have you not indicated on this thread that you agree with the basic facts regarding Jesus, that he lived, was crucified, and that his disciples believed in his resurrection?
The options are yes/no/unsure/? and you can have caveats, as @BadFish has.

 

[BadFish]

Updated table

Did you not read Blues Guitarist's response to your table?

As someone who appears to know more about this subject than the rest of us I think it is important to represent his knowledge accurately and to his satisfaction.

You are getting swallowed up by your ever-diminishing credibility.

 

[kuzushi]

Did you not read Blues Guitarist's response to your table?

As someone who appears to know more about this subject than the rest of us I think it is important to represent his knowledge accurately and to his satisfaction.

You are getting swallowed up by your ever-diminishing credibility.

Yes, I'm just waiting on his reply.

 

[BadFish]

Yes, I'm just waiting on his reply.

His reply was unequivocal, what are you waiting for?

 

[Psychobilly freakout]

That's my opinion, but I'm not expecting people just to believe that.

hmmm, you seem to be ramming it down peoples throat, until most of us just give up.

It leads on step by step. Jesus is a historical person for whom there is ample evidence,

Granted

and he was crucified, for which there is also ample evidence,

Granted

and his disciples believed that he rose from the dead, for which there is also ample evidence.

No there is not.

That takes us to the point where we can either accept their testimony

No because there is no evidence, none zip, zilch.

as I and it seems @CaptainDaveUK do, or we can postulate an alternative explanation as Bart Ehrnman does.

I am not going to pay any attention, theories by crackpots or theologians alike, because it is subjective and has no credible evidence whatsoever.

 

[BadFish]

Anyway, the railroading and silly table seems to have stunted any worthwhile discussion so I will bid you all a good day and head off to Hillsong.

I think perhaps GB was right.

 

[BadFish]

Anyway, the railroading and silly table seems to have stunted any worthwhile discussion so I will bid you all a good day and head off to Hillsong.

I think perhaps GB was right.

hmmm, you seem to be ramming it down peoples throat, until most of us just give up.

Yup.

 

[kuzushi]

Granted

Granted

No there is not.

There is ample evidence that that is what the disciples believed, hence why we have Christianity today.
If that was not what they believed, there'd be no Christianity.

 

[Stato]

His disciples believed that he rose from the dead, for which there is also ample evidence. That takes us to the point where we can either accept their testimony

There is not 'ample evidence' that the Apostles believed that he rose from the dead. That is an assertion you have made and not backed up with evidence from any impartial source. There is biblical evidence and Christian apology, but this is not 'ample evidence'.

In the absence of this, we cannot get to a point where we can decide whether or not to accept the testimony of those reported to have seen him, because we don't have their testimony. We have reports of their testimony written by third parties after the event: What a court of law would call hearsay evidence. - Mostly inadmissable. Not always inadmissible, but let's be clear about the true nature of the evidence available.

My question to you and to all Christian Apologists would be - Your religion is based on faith. Why concern yourself with rationality? Do you lack the faith not to search for rational explanations?

If this is the case, that is a personal matter for you. Good luck to you.
If it is not the case then for whom is the appeal to rationality intended? The use of seemingly Socratic method, not to seek knowledge together, but to impart a previously assumed position strikes me as an underhand way of proselytizing. As stated before, I don't care what people believe, just that they argue honestly.