The Case for the Resurrection: Interesting Christian Apologetics Read (disciple, myth, ghosts)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LOL! You're smoking something good my friend. Mind passing some my way?
No evidence of a historic Jesus? Seriously? He's the most historically documented person in the history of the world. There were never more documents written about another human being. If you believe this, may as well stop believing that George Washington ever existed.. because there's more to back up Christ's existance than his.
PS: Did those of you who are throwing out stuff even read anything in the original post?...
There are contemporary records of George Washington, although there are no ccontemporary records of Jesus. The first records of such a man were written nearly four decades after his supposed existence, which discredits their credibility.
You made a rather beastly original post. Most people won't read much of such a lengthy post.
Come on. Let's be serious. How many historical scholars actually even acknowledge the possibility of Jesus not existing? As far as I can see, the only ones that would believe this are the fringe thinkers, and all they seem to be doing is grasping at straws..
I stopped reading at the bold part highlighted below:
Thus either (1) the resurrection really happened, (2) the apostles were deceived by a hallucination, (3) the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally, (4) the apostles were deceivers who conspired to foist on the world the most famous and successful lie in history, or (5) Jesus only swooned and was resuscitated, not resurrected.
Myths are not ordinarily created by a group or even a set of people conspiring to draw forth some non-literal interpretation of another meaning. Rather, a myth is often comprised of an urban legend initially spread by people who were supposedly there and then promoted by a bunch of people who weren't.
The author sets up a completely false premise of what myth is and goes on to try and knock it down. This is what you call a "strawman argument." The author insinuates that "the apostles created a myth, not meaning it literally." That's absolutely beyond absurdity. By using the same logic, we could deduce that the story of the Pied Piper was drawn up by a bunch of drunken Irishmen sitting in a bar who meant it as an analogy. The only thing plausible about that entire scenario is the phrase "Drunken Irishmen" - no offense to my Irish friends.
The story of the Pied Piper and Jesus' resurrection could both equally fall under the same mythological status. For the record, so could Homer's epic tales The Iliad and The Odyssey, in particular, the various godlike creatures entailed in them.
The strongest argument against this rhetoric (myth) is not even adequately presented. It's given a false definition and subsequently mixed in with a bunch of other bogus and false erections.
If for once I could find an apologist who didn't promote fatuous lies to advance their cause I might actually be prone to thinking miracles are real. Given the status quo, I think it's virtually impossible for these morons to keep themselves from lying.
Jesus is always welcome to stop by. He's far cooler than the Christians make him out to be.
I mean, if the myth is true, then Jesus first miracle, his "coming out", was to use the almighty and awesome power of GOD to make a wine run for his buddies.
I think it's funny how none of those "eye witness accounts" in the Gospels could agree with each other. Mark sees one thing; John sees another. Which story is true since, according to this, they all did happen?
I also like how they set their own definition for what qualifies as a myth. Rising the dead, casting out demons, water into wine, feeding many with a loaf of bread, coming back from the dead; that stuff, it's REALLY different from all that other nonsense!
There's very little original in the Jesus myth. They claim there wasn't enough time for it to become a myth, well, that's because those myths involving Jesus didn't start with him. They existed long before he allegedly came on the scene.
Much as the same with flood stories in the Bible, most of its myths didn't originate there.
Well, I still do plan on having a good Easter. Heck, I'll even let some of you believers pray for Jesus to stop by my house and show me the way. He's invited. Whether he shows up or not, well, that remains to be seen.
Oh...and happy Easter, everyone
From a rational point of view I contain a mistake for the lifting of the
cross from Jesus's back by Peter Simon, not the eventual first pope but the local from the neghbourhood. He should be ashamed of himself. The messiah couldn't handle it from then on. We can all be ashamed of it that the crucifixion occurred at all, but that was the cake of realizing that people needed it.
Why not; how do we fit into each other on this critical event in History?
Come on. Let's be serious. How many historical scholars actually even acknowledge the possibility of Jesus not existing? As far as I can see, the only ones that would believe this are the fringe thinkers, and all they seem to be doing is grasping at straws..
There is still no contemporary evidence that Jesus existed. It doesn't matter what others personally believe.
Jesus saith unto him, "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29).
---
also... can someone please point me to a respected historian who actually believes that Christ never existed? ... because as far as I know, any biblical historian with any shred of credence at least acknowledges a historical Jesus.
Jesus saith unto him, "Because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed" (John 20:29).
Communicating the law of non-contradiction. But I maybe am just being a snob with Hilguy. I didn't need to believe because it was my duty to talk about it.
Socrates, Hannibal the Etruscan, and Alexander the Great.
What do all of these guys have in common?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
