[quote=Aaron1212]

1.who is to say he was in the tomb in the first place? infact were is the evidence for his existence in the first place outside of the bible?[/quote]

Okay there's a serious ignorance on this subject you convey. The Bible is not one source. THe Bible is not even one book, but rather 27 different books by 9 different authors (or 20 depending on how many you think are pseudepigraphal). Since they are fundementally different sources, they can corroborate eachother. Hence, demanding evidence outside the bible is intellectual tomfoolery.

Now probably the single-strongest piece of evidence (among many different pieces of evidence) for the burial comes from the presense of named witnesses, and Luke's use of the literary device inclusio. Now as Richard Bauckham cogently argued in Jesus and the Eyewitnesses, The named witnesses which appear in the Gospel traditions were very likely the very persons who passed on the Gospel traditions. Furthermore, Luke's use of Inclusio around the Women disciples strongly indicates that his main source was the Gospel women.

Now my main sources for this argument were Chapter 3 and chapter 6 from Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. You can read those chapters for free here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ybOa_w8PCcQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jesus+and+the+eyewitnesses#PPA39,M1

and here: http://books.google.com/books?id=ybOa_w8PCcQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jesus+and+the+eyewitnesses#PPA114,M1

[quote=Aaron1212]2.it's easy for anyone to claim they had seen something i can look at the clouds and see a horse that doesnt mean i actually had seen a horse, also again were is the evidence for this outside of the bible.[/quote]

Again, evidence outside the bible is not needed. Furthermore, the problem here is that the persons who saw the resurrection were convinced that they saw the risen Jesus. This is a major problem because scenarios like these would never convince anyone in the ancient world that someone had risen from the dead.

[quote=Aaron1212]id like you to elaborate on what you mean by question 3 im guessing that your trying to say why would so many people continue to defend it? if i told you you had a goat on your head for your entire life you might actually belive it despite evidence to the contrary there's an old saying that is if you tell a lie enough it eventually becomes fact.

[/quote] Here's the problem, when Christianity arrived on the scene, it really exploded. we know that thousands were converted in just the first few weeks. less than 20 years later there were Christians all over the Roman world, where Paul had not yet arrived. This is significant because the messiah offered by Jesus was so unlike the prevailing messianic expectations of the day. They never expected a dying messiah. When we examine other messianic movements, like Simon ben-Giora, or Simeon Bar-Kochba, they all ended with the death of their leader. those who retained some messianic hopes either went into a completely different messianic movement, or shifted messianic status onto a family member.

 [quote]

The Bible is fiction, manipulated by Rome to perpetuate its political control over a stupid populace, written by people who believed astrology was useful and thought thunderstorms were what happens when their imaginary friend gets angry, and recited by kings and tyrants as justification for their unjust rule. The people who reference it as a source invariably have a strong conflict of interest in the matter, a trait which is well known to blind people's judgement. It is equally fair for you to provide biblical evidence for Jesus' resurrection as it is for a script kiddie to give you his word that he won't do anything bad if you give him your root password. 

[/quote]

1) So, where's the textual evidence for this?  I'd be very impressed if you could produce a shred of evidence, because as far as I know, the evidence for this absurd hypothesis is non-existent.

2) Ad hominem - attack the belief, not the believers.

3) Genetic fallacy - biases do not discount evidence, the cultural origins of a belief do not refute it.

4) Red herring - none of this is relevent to the actual truth value of the Bible.  

5) Appeal to ridicule - blasting an argument for how ridiculous it is does not refute it.

Basically, all you did was ramble on about absurd and unfounded claims without giving us any evidence.  Good job.

[quote]

There's just no reason to believe it, and more than enough reason to doubt every word of it. Any serious attention that you receive is out of an attempt to beat you by your own rules, and almost certainly for no reason other than lulz, pasta, and target practice.

[/quote]

Mig_killer has given us several reasons to believe this, so we are justified in believing it until you can give us a reason not to believe it.  You provided absolutely no evidence for your claim.  Anyone can make a claim, whether or not they can prove it is another thing.

[quote]

[quote=Zhwazi]

Spoiler: The Bible is fiction, [/quote]

I trust that you have evidence for this? after all, "The bible is fiction" IS a positive claim to knowledge, so I need to see some evidence. Now I hope you dont plan on taking the usual road that skeptics take and say "well its fiction because there are miraculous stories". If you do so then you will convince no one other than yourself because assertions of your own metaphysical worldview will only convince you and yourself alone.

[quote=Zhwazi]manipulated by Rome [/quote]

I trust that you have even a shred of textual or manuscript evidence for this outrageous and rather extraordinary claim right?

[quote=Zhwazi]to perpetuate its political control over a stupid populace, [/quote]

*insert above statement*

[quote=Zhwazi]written by people who believed astrology was useful[/quote]

The authors of the NT were strict monotheistic Jews. The Old Testament condemns astrology very clearly.

[quote=Zhwazi]and thought thunderstorms were what happens when their imaginary friend gets angry, [/quote]

I'm interested in why all these Atheists seem to think that someone can't even be trusted to recount their own experiences when they have a different metaphysical worldview. This elitism among atheists today is really starting to smell like fresh bullshit on a hot summer day.

[quote=Zhwazi]and recited by kings and tyrants as justification for their unjust rule. [/quote]

When the New Testament was written, Christianity was an illegal religion!

[quote=Zhwazi]The people who reference it as a source invariably have a strong conflict of interest in the matter, [/quote]

So Hector Avalos (an avowed Atheist) has a conflict of interest when using the NT in trying to reconstruct medical practices in the ancient world?

[quote=Zhwazi]a trait which is well known to blind people's judgement. [/quote]

I can't say the same for too many apologists out there, but I can be damn-certain in saying the same thing about you.

[quote=Zhwazi]It is equally fair for you to provide biblical evidence for Jesus' resurrection as it is for a script kiddie to give you his word that he won't do anything bad if you give him your root password. [/quote]

are we to throw out all of ancient history? That's a lot of biblical problems to throw out if you throw out all of ancient history.

[quote=Zhwazi]There's just no reason to believe it, [/quote]

wrong. Bauckham cogently argued that the Gospel traditions are extensively rooted in eyewitness testimony. I linked you to 2 chapters of his most recent book.

[quote=Zhwazi]and more than enough reason to doubt every word of it. [/quote]

no actually bias is never a reason to doubt "every word" of anyone's testimony. learn how to reconstruct history.

[quote=Zhwazi]Any serious attention that you receive is out of an attempt to beat you by your own rules, and almost certainly for no reason other than lulz, pasta, and target practice.[/quote]

internet memes? pathetic.

[quote=Zhwazi]It would be far easier for you to convince people with non-biblical evidence than it would be to convince people that the bible is a trustworthy source of solid information on any subject its proponents suppose it to have valid information about.Of all the things that turn people from atheism to Christianity, "I suddenly realized that the Bible was an infallible source of knowledge" is not on the list. So I really don't know what you're trying to achieve here, if you're just trying to save face for your silly label you're doing it all wrong, and if you're trying to convert people you're just doing it all wrong. Which makes me wonder, what exactly *are* you trying to do here?

[/quote] Again you convey an incredible amount of ignorance on this subject. Rook Hawkins really should start an "FAQs for Atheists" or "Arguments Atheists ought not use" because I notice that the Atheists on this board use a lot of bullshit arguments for their position.

[quote]

Okay there's a serious ignorance on this subject you convey. The Bible is not one source. THe Bible is not even one book, but rather 27 different books by 9 different authors (or 20 depending on how many you think are pseudepigraphal). Since they are fundementally different sources, they can corroborate eachother. Hence, demanding evidence outside the bible is intellectual tomfoolery.

[/quote]

the reason i ask for evidence outside of the bible is that you cannot take a claim from one book and back it up WITH THE SAME BOOK (i do know that the bible is a collection of stories from different authors i just prefer to call it a book it makes more sense to me since all of the story's have a major overriding theme even if a few of the story's and authors contradict each other.)

lets compare what i talked about before the rant that was in quotations to this conversation

hey bob whats a horse?

well a horse is a horse.

do you have any information from other sources on what a horse is like?

no you see i look at a horse and i see a horse no other evidence is required.

start to understand what i mean? as of yet there is very little factual evidence for even the life of jesus outside of the bible and no you cannot talk about the bible to back up the life of someone it says existed.  ohh and Forget about mentioning Josephus. The church has stated that the vague footnote referring to a "Jesus" in his works is a forgery added hundreds of years after Josephus's death.

 [quote]

start to understand what i mean? as of yet there is very little factual evidence for even the life of jesus outside of the bible and no you cannot talk about the bible to back up the life of someone it says existed.  ohh and Forget about mentioning Josephus. The church has stated that the vague footnote referring to a "Jesus" in his works is a forgery added hundreds of years after Josephus's death.

[/quote]

Again, there's already been a plethora of sources that we've put forward.  There are around 40 within 150 years of Jesus's life.  Contrast this to Tiberius Caesar, of which we have only 10.

You still haven't given us a good reason why we can't use the Bible as evidence for Jesus's existence.  All you did was basically beg the quesiton by repeating your already refuted argument.  We must remember that the Bible is not just one book, it is a compilation of many books written by different authors.  Hence there's circular about using one book to verify the contents of another book.  

Finally, regarding Josephus, it is likely that the clauses which indicate Jesus as a divine figure were forged, but the rest of the text is intact.  Shlomo Pines has discovered an ancient Arabic translation of the Testimonium which lacks all the phrases which exalt Jesus as God.  So interpolations likely did occur, but should be regarded as trivial as even if they are removed, Josephus still mentions quite a bit about Jesus.  Greg Boyd writes: "What is most interesting about this copy of the Testimonium is that the three passages that have been widely acknowledged as Christian interpolations in the Greek text are either missing or seriously altered." (Greg Boyd and Paul Eddy, The Jesus Legend)

Furthermore, Josephus mentions Jesus twice, you didn't address the James passage.   

 Are you just going to appeal to ridicule, or are you going to tackle the argument head on?  You're giving no real argument here.

[quote=Zhwazi]

Spoiler: The Bible is fiction, manipulated by Rome to perpetuate its political control over a stupid populace[/quote]

although there is no evidence to back this up i always found it a bit suspicious that not long after rome fell the catholic church(in rome) rose to take it's place as a politically and religiously dominateing force in the ancient world.

 [quote]

we are your just chooseing to ignore it you cant back up one document with the same document

[/quote]

Did you even read what I said?  The Bible is not one document, it is a collection of documents.  Therefore one document within the Bible can be used to support another without it being circular.

[quote]

and who or what are these 40 sources your claiming?

[/quote]

Habermas and Licona list 42, some of them are better sources than others and some are dubious, but regardless, 42 is a wealth of evidence:

9 authors of the New Testament

-Matthew

-Mark

-Luke

-John

-Paul

-Author of Hebrews [possibly Paul]

-Peter

-Jude

20 early Christian writers/books outside the New Testament:

-Clement of Rome

-2 Clement

-Ignatius

-Polycarp

-Martydom of Polycarp

-Didache

-Barnabas

-Shepherd of Hermas

-Fragments of Papias

-Justin Martyr

-Aristides

-Athenagoras

-Theophilus of Antioch

-Quadratus

-Aristo of Pelle

-Meltio of Sardis

-Diognetus

-Gospel of Peter

-Apocalypse of Peter

-Epistula Apostolorum

9 secular non-Christian sources:

-Josephus

-Tacitus

-Pliny the Younger

-Phlegon

-Lucian

-Celsus

-Mara Bar-Serapion

-Suetonius

-Thallus

[quote]

I'm going to note that appealing to ridicule is only fallacious if my intent is to refute the argument. I imagine you've learned by now that I employ unconventional munitions; I will not be tackling your argument in any way that you recognize as "head on". I have no interest in a perpetual exchange of mutual misunderstanding and subsequent fallacy-pointing with somebody who believes in popular ancient myths. Especially not on something this insignificant, when there are far more important things to talk about than ancient dead guys. You're proposing a theory that is suspect when taken at material value, and expecting us to take it at face value with all it's other stupid implications. I mean, really? What do you expect? Both of our belief systems have mutually-reinforcing components refusing elements of the other, even if you successfully removed one member, you won't be replacing it with anything you built. You better be trying to rock the foundations, and Christian fairy tales are by no means foundational or forceful.

This is an argument not worth having. You should feel fortunate you receive attention, nevermind any argument.

[/quote]

So basically, I'm too stupid to respond to?  That's not addressing the argument at all, whether head-on or not.  It's just an excuse for not arguing. 

So you're not even going to bother about the factuality of the argument?  Now there's some "free-thinking".

[quote=mig_killer2]So how would atheists go about explaining the following:
1: The Empty tomb of Christ [/quote]

You're presupposing that there was a "Christ" and that there was an empty tomb. By the way, how do YOU go about explaining away the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendage? It touched me, you know. Can you explain THAT?

[quote]2: The appearances of Christ to: James, Paul, the twelve, the 500

3: the necessity of explaining the origin of the christian faith?

I will expound on these as the debate goes on.

[/quote]

More unsupported presumptions. And likewise, I can supply my own via the Flying Spaghetti Monster story.

Your opening salvo is uber-weak, as demonstrated through my likewise use of the FSM.  And on top of that, Zhwazi ABSOLUTELY NAILED YOU when he said:
[quote=Zhwazi] Both of our belief systems have mutually-reinforcing components refusing elements of the other, even if you successfully removed one member, you won't be replacing it with anything you built. You better be trying to rock the foundations, and Christian fairy tales are by no means foundational or forceful. [/quote]

So if you are interested in converting souls to Christ, or merely even giving non-believers pause, or make them doubt their faithlessness in any way, you should shift gears - change tactics. For crying out loud, even back when I was a Christian I would have criticized your tactics the same way. :P

[quote=mig_killer2]

So how would atheists go about explaining the following:
1: The Empty tomb of Christ

2: The appearances of Christ to: James, Paul, the twelve, the 500

3: the necessity of explaining the origin of the christian faith?

I will expound on these as the debate goes on.

[/quote]

Okay, I'm not a teen - but I could probably play one on television. Anyway:

1: The empty tomb is evidence against Christ as there is no Christ in the tomb. If there was a Christ in the tomb, it would be evidence for. To put it another way, if I told you I ate your sandwich but then resurrected as it was on your plate and, indeed, your sandwich was still there you would (logically) conclude that I was kidding when I said I ate it. What the above implies is simply the inverse; if everyone says they didn't eat your sandwich, nobody ate your sandwich even though it's gone.

2: So maybe your sandwich is gone, though, I did see it in the kitchen. I heard that Roxy saw it on the patio. Bob say it floating in the sky. The fact remains, the sandwich is missing. Are you sure you even made a sandwich?

3: The motive for the various explanations for the missing sandwich should be clear. Someone lied about eating your sandwich and doesn't want to be blamed for it. Others may have seen sandwiches which fit the description of your sandwich in various places. From an outside perspective, it cannot be known whether you in fact made a sandwich and someone ate it or not (unless there is some sandwich evidence around as well as sandwich eating evidence). Thus, no explanation is required unless some evidence is presented that points to an actual event. Otherwise, the only thing interesting about the situation is the situation itself: someone claims to have made a sandwich and others are denying having eaten it.