budaatum:

You may as well stick a label on your head to tell us you do not have a clue what you talk about!

You definitely would not have said the above if you knew anything more than the names Aristotle, or Julius Caesar!

Lol. This is just an outrage of shock. Let me ask you this question: How do you know Aristotle existed? The historical evidence given for the existence of Aristotle as a historical figure is in written forms. As far as we don’t apply a double standard, the evidence for figures like Aristotle or Plato pale in comparison to the evidence for Jesus.

Being shocked and outraged will not change hard fact.

Joshthefirst:
Lol. This is just an outrage of shock. Let me ask you this question: How do you know Aristotle existed? The historical evidence given for the existence of Aristotle as a historical figure is in written forms. As far as we don’t apply a double standard, the evidence for figures like Aristotle or Plato pale in comparison to the evidence for Jesus.

Being shocked and outraged will not change hard fact.

You can "outrage and shock" as much as you like but do know your sentiments have no bearing whatsoever on the matter unless it is sentiment that you employ as your evidence of Christ's historical existence, which, I daresay, is worth neither my time nor consideration.

Do note that there is no scholarly doubt whatsoever for the historical existence of Aristotle or Julius Caesar (feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you have any though), which is precisely why you chose to compare their existence to that of Jesus for whom there is doubt, amongst some, of his historical existence. And if you yourself apply all the tools you use to determine the historical existence of Christ to the historical existence of Aristotle and Julius Caesar (which you definitely have not done), you yourself would be able to determine which has more evidence for existence than the other.

Joshthefirst:

Oga nawa for you oh, Ehrman in the publication I gave, supports the existence, the trial, and the crucifixion of Jesus as King of the Jews. Did you even open the link and read the book? You said I should post publications, I posted and you dismissed it without even reading it. Wow.


And I never said secular historians like Bart Ehrman confirm the resurrection, I said they confirm the crucifixion and the fact that the body was not in the grave. I gave the resurrection as the only viable answer to these historical events. Don’t change mouth.

Oga I have the book, nowhere in it does Ehrman say the body missing from the grave is historically confirmed. In fact Ehrman posits in another book that the tales of Jesus' burial stories cannot be historically confirmed.

So question again since you say I am misquoting you, who is the secular historian that confirmed the crucifixion and the missing body?

LordReed:


Oga I have the book, nowhere in it does Ehrman say the body missing from the grave is historically confirmed. In fact Ehrman posits in another book that the tales of Jesus' burial stories cannot be historically confirmed.

So question again since you say I am misquoting you, who is the secular historian that confirmed the crucifixion and the missing body?

Majority of scholars agree that the tomb was empty.

See here

Joshthefirst:
Majority of scholars agree that the tomb was empty.

See here

This person does not agree with you at all.

Excerpt:

While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty,[3] I shall argue that none of Craig's arguments show that the Markan story of the empty tomb is probably historical. For reasons that will become clear shortly, I make a distinction between the empty tomb and the empty tomb story of Mark, the earliest detailed account of the empty tomb. However, I shall not argue for the opposite conclusion, namely, that the story is false. All I shall argue is that even if the story is historical, its historicity is not established on the basis of any of Craig's arguments as they stand.

So why is it hard find this majority that agree to the historicity of the empty tomb?

LordReed:


Oga I have the book, nowhere in it does Ehrman say the body missing from the grave is historically confirmed. In fact Ehrman posits in another book that the tales of Jesus' burial stories cannot be historically confirmed.

So question again since you say I am misquoting you, who is the secular historian that confirmed the crucifixion and the missing body?

My Lord, where do you find these people, or rather, why are they attracted to you

budaatum:

My Lord, where do you find these people, or rather, why are they attracted to you

My dear buda, I would be conceited if I claim I know why.

LordReed:


My dear buda, I would be conceited if I claim I know why.

I think it is so you may teach them to use their brains and reason. That's what attracts me to you my Lord.

budaatum:

I think it is so you may teach them to use their brains and reason. That's what attracts me to you my Lord.

You humble me my dear buda.

LordReed:


This person does not agree with you at all.

Excerpt:

While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty

It seems you’re truly in the habit of always struggling to grasp anything that reinforces your POV, keep an open mind. The first line the guy is agreeing and you say he does not agree at all. Smh

LordReed:


My dear buda, I would be conceited if I claim I know why.

Its because I care about you. Don’t let that guy make your head bloat by insulting both me and himself, that’s not really a good foundation for head bloatedness.

Joshthefirst:
It seems you’re truly in the habit of always struggling to grasp anything that reinforces your POV, keep an open mind. The first line the guy is agreeing and you say he does not agree at all. Smh

The words tentatively and presumably tell you all you need to know that this person is only granting the position for sake of argument. He says it quite plainly in that article there is no way to substantiate any of this historically, especially the Markan tale.

I shall argue that none of Craig's arguments show that the Markan story of the empty tomb is probably historical

It seems it is you indulging in a bit of selective reading if the article. You really should read the article and grasp the author's points instead of trying to make it mean something the author did not intend.

Joshthefirst:
Its because I care about you. Don’t let that guy make your head bloat by insulting both me and himself, that’s not really a good foundation for head bloatedness.

How does I am humbled translate to head bloatedness? You need a phrase dictionary?

LordReed:


The words tentatively and presumably tell you all you need to know that this person is only granting the position for sake of argument. He says it quite plainly in that article there is no way to substantiate any of this historically, especially the Markan tale.

I shall argue that none of Craig's arguments show that the Markan story of the empty tomb is probably historical

It seems it is you indulging in a bit of selective reading if the article. You really should read the article and grasp the author's points instead of trying to make it mean something the author did not intend.

Oga that scholar agrees to the emptiness of the tomb. Simple.

He goes on to posit a far-fetched reason for the emptiness of the tomb. But the fact is that he agrees the tomb is empty

Joshthefirst:
Oga that scholar agrees to the emptiness of the tomb. Simple.

He goes on to posit a far-fetched reason for the emptiness of the tomb. But the fact is that he agrees the tomb is empty

It is clear you didn't read this article. The author agrees that Jesus was probably buried and states his reason. He at no point agrees that the body was later found to be missing. You brought the article why have you failed to read it?

Excerpt:

In short, there are strong, historical grounds for rejecting Craig's arguments for the empty tomb story. And this would be the case even if there exists a God capable of raising Jesus from the dead.[130] In the absence of inductively correct arguments for or against the historicity of the empty tomb story, I suggest that the historian qua historian should be agnostic about the matter.[131]

LordReed:


It is clear you didn't read this article. The author agrees that Jesus was probably buried and states his reason. He at no point agrees that the body was later found to be missing. You brought the article why have you failed to read it?

I read the article, but why are you resorting to an argument over words? Can you not be dishonest?

What does it mean for a tomb to be empty please? Does it mean the body isn’t in it or not?
Most other theory tries to explain the reason for the empty tomb. Including this source. So please stop all this struggling to cling to shadows.

LordReed:


It is clear you didn't read this article. The author agrees that Jesus was probably buried and states his reason. He at no point agrees that the body was later found to be missing. You brought the article why have you failed to read it?

Excerpt:

In short, there are strong, historical grounds for rejecting Craig's arguments for the empty tomb story. And this would be the case even if there exists a God capable of raising Jesus from the dead.[130] In the absence of inductively correct arguments for or against the historicity of the empty tomb story, I suggest that the historian qua historian should be agnostic about the matter.[131]

Gymnastics.

Most historians, including this one, acknowledges the empty tomb. Him rejecting Craig’s argument for it and bringing up his own arguments are another matter. I simply showed you an example of a secular historian acknowledging an empty tomb.

Joshthefirst:
Gymnastics.

Most historians, including this one, acknowledges the empty tomb. Him rejecting Craig’s argument for it and bringing up his own arguments are another matter. I simply showed you an example of a secular historian acknowledging an empty tomb.

You brought an article, I have quoted it to show he makes no such agreement. Quote the place where he gives a reason why the tomb was empty.

Joshthefirst:
I read the article, but why are you resorting to an argument over words? Can you not be dishonest?

What does it mean for a tomb to be empty please? Does it mean the body isn’t in it or not?
Most other theory tries to explain the reason for the empty tomb. Including this source. So please stop all this struggling to cling to shadows.

Damn! You are going there? Wow. So it's now time to disrespect one another right?

You have yet to quote the article you say agrees the tomb was empty and you call me dishonest? When I start to lay it on you do not cry crocodile tears ok.

LordReed:


You brought an article, I have quoted it to show he makes no such agreement. Quote the place where he gives a reason why the tomb was empty.

Lol. Oga, you’re subtly giving me another assignment oh. You told me to quote a secular source confirming an empty tomb. And I have already, clearly, shown you the first line where he says he agrees, which you conveniently discarded. now you’re telling me to quote the place where he gives a reason why the tomb was empty. That was not our agreement.

I simply am saying that among other historically verifiable facts about Jesus, his tomb was empty. I say the reason is that he resurrected. Others like the source, try to give other reasons (highly unfeasible imo) why the tomb was empty.

LordReed:


Damn! You are going there? Wow. So it's now time to disrespect one another right?

You have yet to quote the article you say agrees the tomb was empty and you call me dishonest? When I start to lay it on you do not cry crocodile tears ok.

I’ve quoted it already now, see it here:

“While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty“

Your excerpt not mine

Joshthefirst:
I’ve quoted it already now, see it here:

“While I tentatively agree with Craig that Joseph of Arimathea's tomb--in which Jesus was presumably interred--was empty“

Your excerpt not mine

Quote where the author gives reasons why an empty tomb is historically accurate.

Joshthefirst:
Lol. Oga, you’re subtly giving me another assignment oh. You told me to quote a secular source confirming an empty tomb. And I have already, clearly, shown you the first line where he says he agrees, which you conveniently discarded. now you’re telling me to quote the place where he gives a reason why the tomb was empty. That was not our agreement.

I simply am saying that among other historically verifiable facts about Jesus, his tomb was empty. I say the reason is that he resurrected. Others like the source, try to give other reasons (highly unfeasible imo) why the tomb was empty.

I am not giving you assignment. There is no place where the author says an empty tomb is historically accurate. You will not find it in that article but you assume there is because you obviously didn't read it. And you dare to call me dishonest. What a sham.

LordReed:


I am not giving you assignment. There is no place where the author says an empty tomb is historically accurate. You will not find it in that article but you assume there is because you obviously didn't read it. And you dare to call me dishonest. What a sham.

wow. Okay. Quick question; when the author says he tentatively agrees with William Craig that Joseph of Arimatheas tomb was empty, what does he mean?

Joshthefirst:
wow. Okay. Quick question; when the author says he tentatively agrees with William Craig that Joseph of Arimatheas tomb was empty, what does he mean?

Its so glaring that you did not read this article. Did you read the footnote 3?

Though willing to accept the historicity of the empty tomb for the sake of argument, I am nevertheless very uncertain that the tomb really was empty. At present, I regard the odds that the tomb was empty as just slightly better than 50%, since I leave it an open question whether Paul believed in an empty tomb. Critics will sometimes deny that Paul believed the tomb was empty, on the grounds that he believed in a so-called 'spiritual resurrection.' However, I think the issue is much more complex than such critics typically acknowledge, and I lack the linguistic and theological expertise to assess that debate. Cf. N.T. Wright, "The Transforming Reality of the Bodily Resurrection" in Wright and Marcus J. Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1999), pp. 111-127; and Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 104-136. For my estimation of Paul's knowledge of the empty tomb, see section 1.2

LordReed:


Its so glaring that you did not read this article. Did you read the footnote 3?

Though willing to accept the historicity of the empty tomb for the sake of argument, I am nevertheless very uncertain that the tomb really was empty. At present, I regard the odds that the tomb was empty as just slightly better than 50%, since I leave it an open question whether Paul believed in an empty tomb. Critics will sometimes deny that Paul believed the tomb was empty, on the grounds that he believed in a so-called 'spiritual resurrection.' However, I think the issue is much more complex than such critics typically acknowledge, and I lack the linguistic and theological expertise to assess that debate. Cf. N.T. Wright, "The Transforming Reality of the Bodily Resurrection" in Wright and Marcus J. Borg, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1999), pp. 111-127; and Dale B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 104-136. For my estimation of Paul's knowledge of the empty tomb, see section 1.2

no wahala, the author says he is uncertain simply because he questions whether Paul believed in an empty tomb. (Which he did btw), but he put the odds at slightly better than 50%

Joshthefirst:
no wahala, the author says he is uncertain simply because he questions whether Paul believed in an empty tomb. (Which he did btw), but he put the odds at slightly better than 50%

So this is not the historic agreement or certainty you thought it was. You may need to reevaluate what you think you know.

LordReed:


So this is not the historic agreement or certainty you thought it was. You may need to reevaluate what you think you know.

I will. I always do

Joshthefirst:
I will. I always do

This guy.

budaatum:

You can "outrage and shock" as much as you like but do know your sentiments have no bearing whatsoever on the matter unless it is sentiment that you employ as your evidence of Christ's historical existence, which, I daresay, is worth neither my time nor consideration.

Do note that there is no scholarly doubt whatsoever for the historical existence of Aristotle or Julius Caesar (feel free to provide evidence to the contrary if you have any though), which is precisely why you chose to compare their existence to that of Jesus for whom there is doubt, amongst some, of his historical existence. And if you yourself apply all the tools you use to determine the historical existence of Christ to the historical existence of Aristotle and Julius Caesar (which you definitely have not done), you yourself would be able to determine which has more evidence for existence than the other.

Jesus Christ did exist sorry just finding this thread. I feel at home already . For the tomb to have existed it means he did exist maybe grave robbers took the body away.

LordReed:
As part of my moving on policy this year, I am no longer going to be asking questions about the bible. The book is a series of fairytales and deserves no serious thought put towards it.

I asked myself if I came across a person who wanted to live according to Harry Potter books how would I treat them? I would laugh at the absurdity and not give it any serious thought. In fact I may cheer them on and tell them "you do you bro", I certainly won't go questioning JK Rowling's depictions. This is the response I think the bible and Christians (and all other religions as well) deserve.

Except of course when they want to force their fairytales on us as rules for living. Then the claws come out. Live your life according to your fairytale but do not presume to force me to live according to it, no thank you with all the vehemence I can muster.

For once I have found true happiness here. Never seen words so true. Worthless Fairy tales.

Ausrichie:

Jesus Christ did exist sorry just finding this thread. I feel at home already . For the tomb to have existed it means he did exist maybe grave robbers took the body away.

I'm not arguing whether Jesus existed or not. Just pointing out the irrationality of the claim that there is more evidence proving his existence than that of the historical existence of Aristotle and Caesar which is incontrovertible.