Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

as if evidence mattered to you we would not be here i it did

Evidence does matter. Where is yours?

​

 

[tmonster]

Evidence does matter. Where is yours?

​

a disavowed document is not evidence of anything
how can I take anything in the bible seriously when it is riddled with stuff that sounds like it was written by people high on meth, everything in those books could be a complete lie and you would have no way of knowing it

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

a disavowed document is not evidence of anything

That's why I haven't used any.​

how can I take anything in the bible seriously when it is riddled with stuff that sounds like it was written by people high on meth

Because many of the events and people are corroborated outside of the Bible........

Luke 2 (NKJV)​

1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.
3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.

Archaeology corroborates the existence of a proconsul named Quirinius in Syria and Cilicia from 11 BCE to the death of Herod (4 BCE). Josephus, on the other hand, recorded his governorship from 5 - 6 CE.

This destroys any semblance of a 'contradiction' between Luke and Matthew regarding the timing of the census.

Source:

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

​

 

[tmonster]

That's why I haven't used any.​

Because many of the events and people are corroborated outside of the Bible........

Luke 2 (NKJV)​

1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered.
2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria.
3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.

Archaeology corroborates the existence of a proconsul named Quirinius in Syria and Cilicia from 11 BCE to the death of Herod (4 BCE). Josephus, on the other hand, recorded his governorship from 5 - 6 CE.

This destroys any semblance of a 'contradiction' between Luke and Matthew regarding the timing of the census.

Source:

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius

​

​

that's the thing
seeing a reference to 9/11 in a spider-man comic book does not make it a historical document
in fact you can put every externally PROVEN historical fact in a there and it would never prove that Peter got bit by that spider. Nor would it mean that you can now say, "we know one thing for sure, based on what I read in Amazing Spider-man issue #48, terrorist took down them towers", hell based on it being the saga of spider-man, you could not even depend on it as a source for those historical facts you JUST put in there YO DAMN SELF

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

that's the thing​

seeing a reference to 9/11 in a spider-man comic book does not make it a historical document

That's a genetic fallacy coupled with a weak analogy and, as such, irrelevant.

An historic fact used in a comic book is still an historic fact.​

 

[tmonster]

That's a genetic fallacy coupled with a weak analogy and, as such, irrelevant.

An historic fact used in a comic book is still an historic fact.​

it's not a fallacy and the analogy is perfect, down to costumed superheroes
a comic book is a comic book
you confabulate loosely supported claims into fact and then conflate them as dogma of resurrection, where they do that at?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

it's not a fallacy

Yes it is a fallacy and the analogy is weak.

Use evidence.
​

 

[tmonster]

Yes it is a fallacy and the analogy is weak.

Use evidence.
​

no it's not and the analogy is strong
evidence to disprove your fairy tale? I don't need to, it's a fairy tale

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

no it's not and the analogy is strong

It is and the analogy is weak. You use it because you have no evidence.

You're now using another fallacy, Appeal to Ridicule, for the same reason.​

 

[tmonster]

It is and the analogy is weak. You use it because you have no evidence.

You're now using another fallacy, Appeal to Ridicule, for the same reason.​

You can't ridicule the ridiculous
they do that to themselves
to take the ridiculous seriously is to become ridiculous
the analogy is spot on

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

You can't ridicule the ridiculous

You can't prove any evidence thus far is ridiculous.

Your statement is irrelevant.​

 

[tmonster]

You can't prove any evidence thus far is ridiculous.​

the source is ridiculous and simply unreliable
further you are left with making trite statements when pushed to the wall
"he was killed, he was buried and then he was not there"
who gives a shyt, even if you had reliable evidence to support that, and you don't, so what? it means nothing regarding RESURRECTION

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

the source is ridiculous and simply unreliable

Appeals to Ridicule are not evidence.​

 

[tmonster]

Appeals to Ridicule are not evidence.​

puffery is not evidence
and I don't need evidence the whole thing is a fairy tale
that's why I don't spend time trying to disprove batman or spider-man

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

and I don't need evidence the whole thing is a fairy tale

Actually, you do. It's called 'Supporting your claim'.​