Atheist conclusions about the historicity of the resurrection

[Tobytone]

Or maybe it has yours.

No, I'm not the aim of that verse, your lot is. That has never been more clear than it has since Trump won the election. The things that the left supports are perfect examples of those that are educated and intelligent, but they support, do, and say foolish things everyday. Your party has gone insane.

Unlike you I don't need unicorns and party balloons.

Your statement is pure nonsense, as usual. I don't need unicorns or party balloons, just for the record. You sound foolish, and you prove it every time you comment here. I don't expect you to get that, since self-awareness is tough for fools, but I'm pointing it out anyway. The good news? You're not stuck. You can turn it around if you choose to snap out of it.

Because we are here right now and this is the only go-round. If you can't think of any reason to be decent to other people other than "GOD TOLD ME TO" then you are the "bad person".

Another foolish statement. I didn't need God to descend and lecture me on goodness, haha. It was clear to me that morals come from God. He's internal and eternal. You either reject Him or welcome Him. We all instinctively know right from wrong because God wired us to feel it. When we ignore that and choose wrong, we feel that too. Each time you push through that feeling and do evil, a piece of your soul dies. Keep it up, and eventually your soul darkens so much you feel nothing at all.

Which is why I pay more in taxes to support people like you. I care about those who have less than I do and who are less capable.

You're dreaming homie, I doubt you pay more than I, but if you do, congratulations, that means you make a lot of money. Maybe you don't make that much, but you just pay a bunch more than you have to, in which case you a bigger fool than I thought.

I'm sure.

I don't remember what you're sure of, but I don't really care, so I'll skip this one.

Never claimed that. Is it because I can write in complete sentences and know how to make nouns and verbs agree that makes you think I'm some sort of "brainiac"?

Oh, please, that jab was for the left-wing crowd, naturally. The left loves to assume Trump supporters are just a bunch of uneducated yokels, while they, with their shiny college diplomas, are clearly the enlightened ones. As I mentioned, they flaunt that degree like it’s their life’s grandest trophy, sneering that anyone without one must have an IQ lower than their coffee order. Fools, right? If you have never talked down to a trump supporter and called someone uneducated while debating, my apology for that one.

And now we get to the crux. I don't believe as you do so I must be EEEEEEVIL.

As usual, putting words in my mouth. Did I say you were evil? I may have said left-wing ideology is evil, which it is, but I don't recall saying you were evil.

I don't use Twitter or X.

The whole Elon thing, right? You're really putting a hurting on him, lol.

If the resurrection happened and you think it touches your life why aren't you a better person? If Jesus is your guy why are you such a dick?

I love this take. The left holds the right to a higher standard because conservatives claim to be morally grounded, so any Republican slip-up becomes a "gotcha" moment, while Democrats get a pass to be scumbags. I'm blunt and insulting with liberals because most come off as smug, arrogant, and sanctimonious, slinging mud instead of debating, sometimes back-handed, sometimes direct. I've tried civil discussions without insults, but it never works, so I mix real arguments with sharp jabs you all earn. I'd be open to a no-insult debate, just say the word.

That said, this thread is too absurd to keep engaging. The idea that historical accounts are hallucinations is nonsense, as @EdwinA and I have already provided ample evidence that dismisses the acid trip theory. If those points don't convince you, nothing will shake your grip on this theory.

Back to your question: I'm saved but not perfect. Like everyone, I'm a sinner. As I grow in my Christian faith, I might see the wisdom in easing up on the insults, but for now, I think you all have it coming. As many libtards imply, you don't need to be flawless or sacrifice animals to get to heaven. That's why Jesus came. Look into it, and maybe consider the possibility it's true while you read. It could help.

 

[IBDaMann]

Paul quotes a creed

"Paul" is potentially one of the fabricators of the legend. Of course, a Christian believes Paul as an historical account, although he cannot prove it, i.e. he has faith. Someone who does not so believe considers "Paul" to be part of a fabricated, or extremely embellished, legend, but similarly cannot confirm/prove such.

demonstrating early Christians believed in a resurrected Christ from the earliest days of the Church, back in the 30s AD.

You are demonstrating that this is what you firmly believe but cannot prove. Your source, i.e. the New Testament, might very well part of the very legend you nonetheless believe is historical truth ... but, of course, you might be correct and no one can say that your beliefs are incorrect, just that your beliefs are your beliefs.

If your beliefs bring you comfort and aid you in making wise life decisions, then your beliefs are gold. I really think that your futile efforts to prove that your beliefs are somehow thettled thienth truly miss the mark.

That's too early for it to be a legendary account.

Not if it's part of the legend itself.

Eyewitnesses were still alive who could dispute a fabricated legend.

We have no such first-hand accounts.

You would end up having to claim that everybody in the early Christian community was conspiring to spread a lie

Nope. Your assertion is nothing more than a dismissal of the possibility that your beliefs are mistaken, which is perfectly fine since everyone naturally believes that his beliefs are correct. It's just that your assertion is totally invalid to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. Those who perceive the life of Jesus as a grand urban legend assume that the "everybody" you reference here and that you assume to speak, are all part of the legend in which you believe.

What you have is a faith in a particular account being historical, but you also have an inability to show that account to be historical to anyone who doesn't already believe as you do a priori.

Which no reputable scholars of the New Testament believe happened.

No historian who does not have such religious motivations will view Jesus as an historical figure because historians operate on first-hand accounts, and there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus. Nonetheless, Christians do not require the approval of any historian to worship as they please and to hold whichever beliefs they wish.

Okay, so you can't actually show that Netanyahu would willingly die for something he knows is a lie.

Invalid pivot. Your claim that nobody would ever die to protect a lie is a stupid assertion. Dismissed.

So we agree that nobody willingly dies for something they know is a lie.

We do not. People have died to protect lies. Your argument is false.

 

[IBDaMann]

lol rubbish.

You have no legs on which to stand.

Over 70% of the vermin who elected the scum still supported their thuggery,

This has nothing to do with the Conventions that were signed and ratified by the US and by Israel.

now they're whining as usual about reaping what they sowed.

You don't specify who "they" are, because you don't even know.

Their 'govt. is still at war,

You don't specify who "they" are, because you don't even know.

will not accept a peace deal,

Israel has broken every peace deal. Team Israel applauds each and every time they do by cheering "Do you honestly expect Israel to sit around and not eradicate the fucking Arabs! do nothing?"

and hence are still considered enemy combatants.

Unarmed civilians are never to be "considered" as legal targets. That is totally illegal Holocaust/Nazi/IDF activity.

Sucks to be a Jew hating sociopath backing a bunch of feral animals

You must be a truly shitty person to simply HATE Arabs to the point that you decree that being Arab warrants a death sentence. None of the people slaughtered by the IDF since 7-October-2023 ever attacked Israel. Yet here you are gleefully anticipating their extermination as "feral animals".

Yes, I thoroughly distance myself from your RACIST hatred.

as they lose their Jihad cult genocides attempts,

Since 1979, Iran has been the only attacker of Israel, through its proxies Hezbollah, Al Qassam and Islamic Jihad. There are no Gazans in that equation. You simply believe that genocide is great as long as Israel is the perpetrator.

it's in their frigging 'Charter',

No it's not, but the IDF is actively carrying out a genocide before our eyes.

You're a shitty person.

 

[IBDaMann]

By your standard, we can't believe that anyone pre-camera and tape recorder can be proven real.

Actually, you are correct as you have it worded, but that's because you are mistakenly using the word "proven." It is correct that nothing from the unobserved past will ever be verified or "proven" until someone invents a time machine.

However, what I believe you want to say is that people from the past can be rationally viewed as historical figures under the correct circumstances. Historians use such criteria to sort through all the story-telling to separate the historical wheat from the legendary chaff. Historians rely on first-hand accounts, i.e. someone documenting observations. Everything second-hand is treated as "hearsay" and is simply not admissible in "court" as it were.

Was Alexander the great real, or Buddha, or Caesar, or Spartacus, or Nero

So we put on our historian caps and we look for first-hand accounts. With respect to Alexander the Great, not only did many of his military officers (who were obviously directly involved in Alexander's campaigns) write copiously on the various campaigns, Alexander's command decisions and how they resulted, ... but Alexander the Great had a personal historian whose job it was to document Alexander's decisions, analyses and feats. This mountainous collection of first-hand accounts can be cross-referenced with other first-hand accounts from societies that were directly impacted by Alexander.

The same with Buddha, Caesar, Spartacus, Nero and all the other people we currently consider historical figures because there were sufficient first-hand accounts of their endeavors for rational historians to be unable to deny the historicity.

So we come to the Jesus of the New Testament. There are no first-hand accounts. There is only the New Testament, all of which was written after the supposed death of the main character. This fits the modus operandi of all urban legends. You can't find any first-hand accounts written during the time of the event. Now don't misunderstand; this does not say that Jesus didn't really exist. It only indicates that no historian can validate either way. What you believe is just as valid as what any oppositor believes, i.e. it's a matter of faith.

Despite opposition to early Christianity (e.g., from Jewish authorities or Roman officials), no texts from this era argue that Jesus was a myth or fictional.

... which would be the case if there never was any Jesus for anyone to argue. I presume you would agree that there are absolutely no texts from our modern history arguing that zyvesh-gralnor are mythical or fictional, right? There are infinite non-existent things and beings about which/whom nobody is writing.

Here are a few reasons we can be confident that Jesus was indeed a living breathing human being that walked the earth.

There's only one reason that is valid, and it is the only reason that matters: You believe it to be true. Notice that you speak of "confidence" which is not a matter of knowledge but a matter of belief.

I am happy to presume that your faith that Jesus was an historical figure is solid. I'll celebrate with you.

Absence of Contemporary Denials:

Nope. This corroborates nonexistence. Stick with "It's a matter of faith."

No 1st-century sources dispute Jesus’ existence or execution,

Nope. This corroborates nonexistence. Stick with "It's a matter of faith."

despite opposition to Christianity, suggesting his life and death were accepted facts.

This is a passive-voice fallacy and your inclusion of the word "suggesting" is an admission that you are being conclusory.

Gospel Accounts: The New Testament Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), written within decades of Jesus’ life, detail his ministry, teachings, and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.

The New Testament is the "potential legend" in question. If you are trying to verify an account's historicity, you can't use that account to validate itself. That's circular reasoning and is invalid.

Tacitus’ Annals: Roman historian Tacitus (c. 116 AD) references Jesus’ execution by Pilate in Judea,

Not a first-hand account. This example is strictly hearsay and cannot be considered.

Josephus’ Antiquities: Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (c. 93 AD) mentions Jesus as a teacher executed by Pilate, with the passage (Testimonium Flavianum) partially authentic.
Suetonius’ Record: Roman historian Suetonius (c. 121 AD) notes disturbances caused by “Chrestus” (likely Christ) in Rome, indirectly supporting Jesus’ influence.

Pliny the Younger’s Letters: Pliny (c. 112 AD) describes early Christians worshiping Jesus as divine, indicating a real person inspired a movement soon after his death.
Crucifixion Evidence: Archaeological finds, like a crucified man’s heel bone from Jerusalem (1968), confirm crucifixion as a Roman execution method in Jesus’ era.
Early Christian Creeds: Texts like 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 (c. 50 AD) record early beliefs in Jesus’ death and resurrection, suggesting a historical event widely accepted.
Non-Christian Jewish Sources: Talmudic references (c. 2nd-5th centuries AD) mention Jesus’ execution for sorcery, acknowledging his existence from a hostile view.
Rapid Spread of Christianity: The explosive growth of Christianity in the 1st century, despite persecution, implies a real figure like Jesus, killed publicly, sparked it.

None of these are first-hand accounts. Just because someone is a believer of a particular religion does not make his prayers and beliefs suddenly transform into first-hand historical accounts.

Your faith that Jesus was an historical figure is sufficient. Nobody can prove you to be mistaken.

 

[Tobytone]

I skipped over several of your replies because I think I addressed most of them with the few lengthy responses I replied. If you feel I ignored something, it was an oversight, feel free to point it out and I'll address it.

So we come to the Jesus of the New Testament. There are no first-hand accounts. There is only the New Testament, all of which was written after the supposed death of the main character. This fits the modus operandi of all urban legends. You can't find any first-hand accounts written during the time of the event. Now don't misunderstand; this does not say that Jesus didn't really exist. It only indicates that no historian can validate either way. What you believe is just as valid as what any oppositor believes, i.e. it's a matter of faith.

I commend your thoroughness, but I'm just going to hit a few of these, so I start here:

First off, the idea that there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus outside the New Testament doesn’t quite hold up. We have records from folks like Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, who mentions Jesus twice in his works, noting his life, death, and followers. Then there’s Tacitus, a Roman historian from the early second century, who casually references Jesus’ execution under Pontius Pilate. These weren’t Christians with an agenda, just outsiders reporting what they knew, which gives us solid historical context. If you're not familiar with these guys, look them up, they are highly regarded historians that were not friends of Christianity but because Jesus was common knowledge in that time they both talk of Jesus like it's another Tuesday. They had no doubt of his existence at all.

As for the New Testament itself, those texts were written within a few decades of Jesus’ life, drawing from oral traditions that were the main way people passed down history in a world without instant documentation. Paul’s letters, for instance, written as early as 50 AD, talk about Jesus’ life and death like it’s common knowledge, not some urban legend. The claim that we don’t have first-hand accounts ignores how ancient history worked. We don’t have live reports from most events back then, like Caesar’s Gallic Wars, but historians don’t toss those out as myths.
Saying it’s all just faith skips over the textual and archaeological evidence we do have.

... which would be the case if there never was any Jesus for anyone to argue. I presume you would agree that there are absolutely no texts from our modern history arguing that zyvesh-gralnor are mythical or fictional, right? There are infinite non-existent things and beings about which/whom nobody is writing.

Come on, claiming Jesus never existed is like saying the Roman Empire was a LARP. Whether you’re praying on Sundays or not, a deep dive into first-century history makes it clear you’d have to be doing mental gymnastics to write Jesus off. Denying the resurrection? Sure, that’s a debate with thinner accounts to lean on. But saying he never walked the earth? That’s just bad homework.

You want a historian who says Jesus was pure myth, minus Price or Carrier? Good luck. Most serious scholars, even the non-religious ones, don’t touch that fringe. But if you’re itching, try G.A. Wells. He’s an older skeptic who argued Jesus might’ve been a legend cobbled together from Jewish myths. Problem is, his work leans on cherry-picked gaps and ignores the pile of early Christian writings that spread like wildfire. Wells later softened his stance, admitting a historical Jesus was plausible, which tells you how shaky his case was. Check him out if you want, but it’s like reading a Reddit thread with footnotes, lots of noise, little substance. Atheists pushing this line usually start with their conclusion and work backward, cherry-picking to dodge the obvious. History’s not their friend here, and they know it.

The New Testament is the "potential legend" in question. If you are trying to verify an account's historicity, you can't use that account to validate itself. That's circular reasoning and is invalid.

Look, I’m not gonna patronize you by pretending you don’t know the New Testament isn’t some single novel but a whole anthology, penned by different folks across different times and places. That’s what makes it a historical jackpot! You’ve got multiple voices, from Paul’s gritty letters to Luke’s detailed accounts, all cross-referencing each other like a first-century group chat. That kind of corroboration gives it more weight than most ancient events, which usually lean on one dusty scribe’s word.

Historians, whether they’re devout or just chasing facts, have leaned on both Testaments forever to map out everything from Roman politics to Jewish revolts. Atheists might clutch their pearls and call it bias, but their “history starts with Dawkins” routine is a toddler tantrum in the grand scheme. The Bible’s books aren’t just spiritual, they’re a treasure trove of who, what, and where, stitching together the past with a thread count that’d make your average lone historian jealous.

 

[EdwinA]

You have no legs on which to stand.


This has nothing to do with the Conventions that were signed and ratified by the US and by Israel.


You don't specify who "they" are, because you don't even know.


You don't specify who "they" are, because you don't even know.


Israel has broken every peace deal. Team Israel applauds each and every time they do by cheering "Do you honestly expect Israel to sit around and not eradicate the fucking Arabs! do nothing?"


Unarmed civilians are never to be "considered" as legal targets. That is totally illegal Holocaust/Nazi/IDF activity.


You must be a truly shitty person to simply HATE Arabs to the point that you decree that being Arab warrants a death sentence. None of the people slaughtered by the IDF since 7-October-2023 ever attacked Israel. Yet here you are gleefully anticipating their extermination as "feral animals".

Yes, I thoroughly distance myself from your RACIST hatred.


Since 1979, Iran has been the only attacker of Israel, through its proxies Hezbollah, Al Qassam and Islamic Jihad. There are no Gazans in that equation. You simply believe that genocide is great as long as Israel is the perpetrator.


No it's not, but the IDF is actively carrying out a genocide before our eyes.

You're a shitty person.

More idiot rubbish. At least you're consistent.

 

[EdwinA]

None of these are first-hand accounts. J

lol dumb.

 

[EdwinA]

No it's not, but the IDF is actively carrying out a genocide before our eyes.

Yes, Jews successfully defending themselves from homocidal animals has always made you tards piss and shit yourselves.

 

[EdwinA]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

So you're telling me one has to be a Jewish scholar to understand the Bible? Interesting. So may I ask why YOU think you understand it? I mean we both know you are NOT some sort of scholar of ancient languages. LOL.

Being knowledgeable about how the Jewish authors used certain words and what they meant isn't rocket science, but certainly over your head; I mean we both know you've never actually read the books or anything else in orthodox Jewish history, so lol away, dumbass. For instance, when using the term 'neighbor' in Jewish writings in that era, you probably think it has the same meaning it does in modern America. It doesn't, and you don't have the first clue why, do you, moron. lol.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, Jews successfully defending themselves

Too funny. Your dishonest semantic shift from "Israelis" to "Jews" reveals your total dependence on assuming "permanent victim" status to justify any and all transgressions.

from homocidal animals

You are willing to dehumanize Arabs who never attacked anyone as "homicidal animals" while cheering on their eradication by the world's most active terrorist organization. That is about the shittiest you can be on a political forum.

 

[IBDaMann]

Being knowledgeable about how the Jewish authors used certain words and what they meant isn't rocket science, but certainly over your head; I mean we both know you've never actually read the books or anything else in orthodox Jewish history, so lol away, dumbass. For instance, when using the term 'neighbor' in Jewish writings in that era, you probably think it has the same meaning it does in modern America. It doesn't, and you don't have the first clue why, do you, moron. lol.

I would remind you that you don't know either, nor do the people who "taught" you.

Do you know what an omniscience fallacy is?

 

[Neoclitorus]

It would mean Jesus was a lunatic, since multiple sources claim he predicted his death and resurrection.

Then you have to decide whether you want to study the teachings of a madman, or whether your time is better spent studying the teachings of someone who was clearly sane - for example Confucius or Marcus Aurelius.

No it wouldn't. it means things get exaggerated in history like by churches who want to make people swear to irrational things, and yet still avoid morality discussions.

arianism is a traditional part of Christianity.

you're a moronic imbecile.

most of your thoughts are retarded.

He had real military experience, unlike any Hamas leaders, whose only experience is in thuggery and murdering unarmed civilians, including their own people.

except for the CIA mossad implants.

 

[Cypress]

No it wouldn't. it means things get exaggerated in history like by churches who want to make people swear to irrational things, and yet still avoid morality discussions.

arianism is a traditional part of Christianity.

you're a moronic imbecile.

most of your thoughts are retarded.


except for the CIA mossad implants.

Okay, so you think everything written in the New Testament about Jesus is fabricated, except for the reports about his sermons and parables.

That is an extreme level of cherry-picking.

 

[Neoclitorus]

Okay, so you think everything written in the New Testament about Jesus is fabricated, except for the reports about his sermons and parables.

That is an extreme level of cherry-picking.

possibly.

but the wisdom of the golden rule is self evident and completely rational.

keep the good parts, dumbass.

 

[Cypress]

"Paul" is potentially one of the fabricators of the legend. Of course, a Christian believes Paul as an historical account, although he cannot prove it, i.e. he has faith. Someone who does not so believe considers "Paul" to be part of a fabricated, or extremely embellished, legend, but similarly cannot confirm/prove such.


You are demonstrating that this is what you firmly believe but cannot prove. Your source, i.e. the New Testament, might very well part of the very legend you nonetheless believe is historical truth ... but, of course, you might be correct and no one can say that your beliefs are incorrect, just that your beliefs are your beliefs.

If your beliefs bring you comfort and aid you in making wise life decisions, then your beliefs are gold. I really think that your futile efforts to prove that your beliefs are somehow thettled thienth truly miss the mark.


Not if it's part of the legend itself.


We have no such first-hand accounts.


Nope. Your assertion is nothing more than a dismissal of the possibility that your beliefs are mistaken, which is perfectly fine since everyone naturally believes that his beliefs are correct. It's just that your assertion is totally invalid to anyone who doesn't share your beliefs. Those who perceive the life of Jesus as a grand urban legend assume that the "everybody" you reference here and that you assume to speak, are all part of the legend in which you believe.

What you have is a faith in a particular account being historical, but you also have an inability to show that account to be historical to anyone who doesn't already believe as you do a priori.


No historian who does not have such religious motivations will view Jesus as an historical figure because historians operate on first-hand accounts, and there are no first-hand accounts of Jesus. Nonetheless, Christians do not require the approval of any historian to worship as they please and to hold whichever beliefs they wish.


Invalid pivot. Your claim that nobody would ever die to protect a lie is a stupid assertion. Dismissed.


We do not. People have died to protect lies. Your argument is false.

You're free to believe all the first century authors of the New Testament conspired to lie, fabricate, invent a Jesus myth.

 

[Cypress]

possibly.

but the wisdom of the golden rule is self evident and completely rational.

keep the good parts, dumbass.

If you think the authors of the New Testament lied about everything, you shouldn't trust anything they claim about what Jesus said.

You have to decide if you want to waste your time reading what liars wrote.

 

[Neoclitorus]

If you think the authors of the New Testament lied about everything, you shouldn't trust anything they claim about what Jesus said.

You have to decide if you want to waste your time reading what liars wrote.

all your arguments are based on the appeal to authority fallacy.

tthe golden rule stands on it's own as obviously wise.

you're just a fucking dumbass propagandist dillhole.

you miss the whole point of the faith.

 

[Neoclitorus]

You're free to believe all the first century authors of the New Testament conspired to lie, fabricate, invent a Jesus myth.

and what do you think?

its all factually true and happened verbatim?

you're dumber than a shit brick, and contain the germs of another inquisition.

that's masons for you.

 

[Cypress]

all your arguments are based on the appeal to authority fallacy.

tthe golden rule stands on it's own as obviously wise.

you're just a fucking dumbass propagandist dillhole.

you miss the whole point of the faith.

If you want to make the case all the New Testament authors conspired to lie and fabricate, you shouldn't even be pointing to Jesus as a moral role model. Why would you trust what liars wrote?

At some point you have to decide if you look to liars as your teachers, or if you want to place more value on people who probably weren't liars, like Marcus Aurelius, the Stoics, Confucius, etc.

 

[Cypress]

and what do you think?

its all factually true and happened verbatim?

Strict biblical literalism is for Neanderthals.
The intelligent person can use their mind to distinguish between poetry, parable, metaphor, hyperbole, embellishment, and historically reliable narrative.

Even well-known atheist New Testament scholars report that there are historically reliable elements in the NT.