Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

But apparently all you're saying is that something very odd happened to Jesus.

Apparently, you didn't read the whole post.


​

 

[noon]

Yeah I read it. But you summed it all up in the first sentence. If you have any further assertion of belief about the resurrection story to make then go for it, in one sentence. It's not hard.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Yeah I read it. But you summed it all up in the first sentence.

No, I didn't. Reading a few sentences can't be this difficult.

​

 

[noon]

No, I didn't. Reading a few sentences can't be this difficult.

​

Then humour me. What is your point?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Then humour me. What is your point?

My point is you can only use the evidence since time-travel isn't feasible.​

 

[noon]

My point is you can only use the evidence since time-travel isn't feasible.​

And what does the evidence suggest in your opinion?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

And what does the evidence suggest in your opinion?

Suggests that 1st Century Hebrews believed he came back from the dead after witnessing him die, which doesn't make sense.​

 

[noon]

Suggests that 1st Century Hebrews believed he came back from the dead after witnessing him die, which doesn't make sense.​

So what conclusion do you think we should come to?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

So what conclusion do you think we should come to?

That 1st Century Hebrews believed he came back from the dead after witnessing him die.​

 

[noon]

That 1st Century Hebrews believed he came back from the dead after witnessing him die.​

Well we've got no issue with that. People long ago believed a lot of things. You have a very simple argument (this is good) but with no real insight. Makes me wonder why you've been defending such an odd position so fervently when you could have settled it so early.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Makes me wonder why you've been defending such an odd position so fervently when you could have settled it so early.

There's nothing 'odd' about the position. What's 'odd' are the explanations.​

 

[noon]

There's nothing 'odd' about the position. What's 'odd' are the explanations.​

It's odd because you're not on the believers' side. And you don't dismiss it as stories of the past. You're on the fence, yet you've had more arguments in this thread than anyone else. You haven't really more of a position to defend than "that was an odd thing to happen" yet you're fervent. Which is what I'd pointed out a while ago, then you denied it, so we had to go in a big circle to come back to what I'd originally said.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

It's odd because you're not on the believers' side. And you don't dismiss it as stories of the past. You're on the fence, yet you've had more arguments in this thread than anyone else. You haven't really more of a position to defend than "that was an odd thing to happen" yet you're fervent. Which is what I'd pointed out a while ago, then you denied it, so we had to go in a big circle to come back to what I'd originally said.

Nothing 'odd' about it and I'm on the side of history. All the 'arguments' had nothing to do with my evidence-based position because they were attacking me, like you're continuing to do now.

The only thing 'circular' is your reasoning as you don't understand my theological position. It is wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

What's fascinating about this is that skeptics (and believers) don't actually approach this like a police investigation.

 

[noon]

Nothing 'odd' about it and I'm on the side of history. All the 'arguments' had nothing to do with my evidence-based position because they were attacking me, like you're continuing to do now.

The only thing 'circular' is your reasoning as you don't understand my theological position. It is wholly irrelevant to the discussion.

​

1. Criticism isn't attack. Calm down.

2. Please point to my circular reasoning.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

1. Criticism isn't attack. Calm down.

2. Please point to my circular reasoning.

1. Criticising me rather than my argument is attacking, i.e., 'poisoning the well', 'appeal to ridicule', 'ad hominem', and 'personal attacks'.
2. What you're doing right now.​