Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[tmonster]

Yep.


​

more "evidence" our resident "evidence" guy :youthink:

 

[tmonster]

The assertion is yours. I'm not buying any of your stories. I don't need evidence to do so.

no you need to prove that jesus did not resurrect, otherwise it's true

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

The assertion is yours.

And I backed mine up with evidence.​

 

[tmonster]

And I backed mine up with evidence.​

obviously I disagree:youthink:

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

more -ing from me

Yep.

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

no you need to prove that jesus did not resurrect, otherwise it's true

Were that my argument, you'd have a point.


​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

obviously I'm still -ing because I have no evidence

Do tell.


​

 

[tmonster]

Yep.

​

Were that my argument, you'd have a point.


​

Do tell.


​

wow you killing it dawg!

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

wow you killing it dawg!

Nah, just stomping on you since you have no evidence to support your 'argument'.

​

 

[tmonster]

Nah, just stomping on you since you have no evidence to support your argument.

​

no mas no mas

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Imma keep -ing to get the last word because I can't win this without evidence.

Yep.

​

 

[tmonster]

Yep.

​

ok you can have the last word

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

ok you can have the last word

No, I insist, you can have it. Take this along with you......​

“It is not inconceivable that on very rare occasions someone being restored to life has no natural or supernatural cause”; “I admit that some events could occur without any cause”; “[E]ven if the resurrection of Jesus was justified by the evidence, it would not support the belief that the Christian God exists and that Jesus is the Son of God.”

~Michael Martin, The Case Against Christianity (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1991), pp. 76, 87, 100

Gotta love 'atheists' outright rejection of scientific principles and evidence due to fear of the implications.​

 

[Type Username Here]

Using the Bible as documentation of an event of this caliber is highly disingenuous and misleading. The Bible has a very clear bias towards saying this occurred ( obviously) and the amount of editing or rewriting is not up to debate. The bible has no merit in a non-theological investigation.

Merely assigning merit to the Bible because it remarks on its contemporary events or locations is also highly disingenuous. It would be akin to saying that cloning dinosaurs as described by Jurassic Park happened because the book also mentions contemporary scientific research, and is set and describes contemporary human culture and real world locations.

 

[tmonster]

Using the Bible as documentation of an event of this caliber is highly disingenuous and misleading. The Bible has a very clear bias towards saying this occurred ( obviously) and the amount of editing or rewriting is not up to debate. The bible has no merit in a non-theological investigation.

Merely assigning merit to the Bible because it remarks on its contemporary events or locations is also highly disingenuous. It would be akin to saying that cloning dinosaurs as described by Jurassic Park happened because the book also mentions contemporary scientific research, and is set and describes contemporary human culture and real world locations.

stop trolling