What a lively discussion this has provoked. We owe a debt to Brett Walker for starting it. The real problem Brett Walker faces, is the merger of Church and State, effected by the Liberal Party, in New South Wales in 1970. Just like Hitler’s Germany, the State became Almighty God just like the Germans believed in Hitler as a God. Menzies thought he was God. His nickname was Ming the Merciless. So he set out to create the world in his image.

I have stood sickened by the obsequious groveling of barristers as they wheedle a Judge, to give their client what he is paying them for. I have sat in the back of a “court” ( deliberately little “c” ) when a State barrister, called Miss Crown, ( Clown) was making a monumental fool of herself in front of eleven jurors. I have seen the standard of conduct by a Justice with a jury, and the standard of conduct by a Justice without one. The New Testament contains an account of when the Lord Jesus Christ, drove the moneychangers out of the Temple. The merger of Church and State, was continued by the Federal Government with the Family Law Act 1975, commenced by the Liberals in 1976. They then merged the Church and State in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 , and the High Court of Australia Act 1979 and gave us a Jewish Style Government by Priests.

Bob Hawke, as a Pastors Kid, resented all things Christian, so he did nothing except reinforce the merger, with a gradual tightening of Church/State control over who gets to “Court” ( deliberately capitalized.). Paul Keating, who would probably claim not to be Christian, presided over some marvelous legislation, abolishing the Church/State nexus, but sadly left office in March 1996.

We have created another church, and merged it with the State, made membership compulsory by the threat of a fine, and appointed State Public Servants as Administrative Judges, instead of the Christian Jury system. This is all unconstitutional. See what some scholars say here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=238 Lawyers are the new priests.

The awful truth is the creation of multifarious replacements for the Holy Bible as the Ultimate Rule Book. The Supreme Court Rules in New South Wales, is where a cabal of lawyers, were authorized in this way, to write a bible for court use. Here it is: S 6 Supreme Court Act 1970: Any Act in force immediately before the commencement of this Act which is inconsistent with the rules shall be superseded to the extent of such inconsistency and while such inconsistency continues to exist.

The awful truth is that no referendum was held before the coup d’etat was effected by the Liberal Party in New South Wales. Lawyers and Priests both Rule, by interpreting the rules. The awful truth is that the Constitution prohibits such Rules, but the Federal Court Rules and High Court Rules 2004 as now promulgated, are both the bible of those institutions. We all must believe in lawyers, or no justice is available. We must pay, but just buying justice is not enough. Unless you buy the right brand, then you will not get it anyway. At a time when most people are no longer compelled to attend church, as any ambitious man or woman did, before 1900, we are all compelled by summons to attend State Church, stripped naked by the lawyers there, exposed to ridicule by the media, and deprived of as many of our assets as the lawyers can grasp. Jury trials stop all that.

The awful truth is that there is an industry of parasites, sucking the life out of society. Family Law is just one example. A mans poor bloody wife, gets post partum depression, and instead of seeing a Pastor, or a doctor sees a lawyer instead, the man is ruined, and the lawyers get the lions share, of his estate. A Church/State, that despises the fundamental contract of life, marriage, is sick. Whenever a lawyer sees a client with money, the feeding frenzy starts. The Labor Party in 1900, was already infiltrated. See here: http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=362 Thank God Kevin07 is not a lawyer.

“You believe the ones you want to believe, that's fine. But don't kid yourself that we are dealing in facts here. Just stories.”

The 5 pieces of evidence I provided are reliably established historical facts, which are agreed to by nearly ALL scholars, except the empty tomb which is agreed to by most, but not “nearly all”.

So it’s not a case of “believing” the ones I “want to believe”, it’s a case of only accepting things where there is almost universal consensus. I’m only using evidences where there’s agreeance amongst all of those who study the materials and write in peer reviewed journals- from conservative scholars to very skeptical ones.

If I wanted to take the scholarship of only some scholars, I’d use the bible only and claim that everything in it is pretty much an accurate representation of Jesus’ life- a position held by many of the more conservative scholars, and a position to which I could make a strong argument. There are plenty of books out there which argue that the gospels are a completely historically reliable collection of stories about Jesus life, if you want to look into it.

Going in the opposite direction, there’s even one or two scholars in the world who weave together an intricate web of speculation and selectively chosen evidence, whilst completely ignoring the body of evidence or finding bizarre ways of explaining it away, and make the claim the Jesus the person never existed. Most scholars are disgusted by this idea and laugh at it (including the leading atheist/agnostic scholars), and they’ll tell you it’s just baseless fiction based on little if any historical evidence.

So, there are extreme positions out there. Just like, in science there are some (not many) scientists who argue that the world is 6000 years old, and some (again, not many) who think there are infinite universes out there.

But it’s pointless trying to justify controversial positions if they aren’t particularly relevant in a discussion anyway.

Therefore, where there’s major controversy, it’s a no-go zone. I’m only using evidence where there’s universal acceptance

Point form, for succinctness:

- I strongly disagree with you about why we’re “getting nowhere”. I’ve offered you 5 historical claims in the origins of this discussion, and you’re yet to provide anything which makes me doubt any of those claims.

- You claim I’m “believing what other believers tell me”, while I can counter by pointing out that you haven’t actually thrown any of my original claims into any doubt whatsoever.

- I’ve been mostly replying to your general claims rather than specific as we have a 350 word limit, so I’ve been gunning for maximum effectiveness by arguing against your main assertions.

“many other scholars hold that there were no eyewitness accounts".

What does this prove in relation to the resurrection?

- My point (which you seem to have missed, misunderstood or ignored…) is that gospel authorship isn’t central to the question of whether Jesus rose from the dead.

- Many scholars do doubt that eyewitnesses wrote the gospels, but these same scholars grant the historical claims I gave- empty tomb, crucifixion etc.

- What does that tell you?

Josephus:

- Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough here. The scholarly debate isn’t over whether Josephus mentioned Jesus, it’s over exactly what he said about Jesus. Ie: The exact wording.

- Warburton refers to the version which is obviously interpolated.

- There’s also another universally accepted mention of Jesus in Josephus writings.

Evidence:

- Lets simplify this. One piece at a time.

- 1 Corinthians 15 was authored 51-55AD.

- Paul mentions a creed (oral tradition), which predates his writing. Nearly all scholars date this AD35 or prior (within 5 years of Christ), using the original language employed by Paul and knowledge of early creeds/oral traditions. Some conservative scholars date it to within 1 ½ to 2 years, but the overall consensus is that Paul received this around 33-35AD, or 3-5 years after Jesus crucifixion.

Therefore:

- Based on the oral tradition Paul reports in 1Corinthians15, we can reliably establish that people were reporting Jesus resurrection. Probably within 2-5 years of it’s alleged occurrence, and definitely no more than 20.