Lets discuss problems with the "resurrection" story

[tmonster]

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

wow breh...call the Smithsonian....no congress, this discovery must be spread nationally:yasure::zfg::youthink::yasure:

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

wow breh...I'm an idiot that can't argue so has to troll for attention.

Ya' don't say?

​

 

[tmonster]

Ya' don't say?

​

more "facts" in evidence

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

I know nothing about the subject aside from the lies I believe from Google-searches.

I know.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

Person 1: This book here has historical value
Person 2: Yes, it does.
Person 1: This means that whatever is written it is true, including magical and spiritual events
Person 2: No, that's not true.
Person 1: Of course it is, someone documented eye witnesses testimony of these acts
Person 2: Wouldn't the testimony be tainted due to the story pushing a clear narrative
Person 1: No, just look at this scholar using the book to prove the book is worthy
Person 2: That doesn't make any sense. How do you account for countless other religious figures having the same documentation and eye-witness testimony
Person 1: Those other people were wrong and biased. This one is the right one. We aren't even talking about those people anyway.
Person 2: I was merely using those cases to showcase the absurdity of your argument
Person 1: The book is true because the book says it's true

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Person 2: Wouldn't the testimony be tainted due to the story pushing a clear narrative
Person 1: No, just look at this scholar using the book to prove the book is worthy

That isn't how history is done. All documentation from past events/figures are 'pushing' narratives. Check the Autobiography of Malcolm X by Marable and compare it to the Haley version. All accounts of the 'resurrection' precede the existence of any organization by about 100 years and there are multiple copies of each. Ancient historical documents aren't an 'all or nothing' pursuit of knowledge, 'miracles' don't prevent historians from using them since nearly all Ancient Roman/Ancient Near Eastern historians recorded them.
​

Person 2: That doesn't make any sense. How do you account for countless other religious figures having the same documentation and eye-witness testimony

They are imitations basing their narratives on the historical figure/events being discussed in this thread and are only superficially similar.​

Person 1: The book is true because the book says it's true

No one is making that argument. Straw Man much?

​

 

[Type Username Here]

They are imitations basing their narratives on the historical figure/events being discussed in this thread.​

Couldn't even make it up if I tried.



Mohammed has much more documentation, historical writings and eye-witness testimony of his existence, and Islam says Jesus was not crucified and therefore was not resurrected. If we use the same set of arguments you have used in here with the NT/Jesus/Resurrection towards Mohammed and Islam, then what Islam claims MUST be true. So we have two conflicting claims that must be true.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Mohammed....

.....wasn't born until 500 years after Jesus was dead.

Irrelevant.​

 

[Type Username Here]

.....wasn't born until 500 years after Jesus was dead.

Irrelevant.​

Very relevant. He existed, was written about, had eye witness testimony claiming his status true, and much more. On a much larger level than the weak evidence of Jesus. So therefore, according to your logic, everything in Qu'Ran is true, including the part that dispels the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. The Qu'Ran is a historical document as much as the gospels, therefore its claims MUST be true.

So your logic has given credibility to the claims of two opposing accounts.

That's why it's relevant.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Very relevant.

Not hardly. 500 years after the fact.​

 

[Type Username Here]

Not hardly. 500 years after the fact.​

It's claims still must be true according to your logic. Don't blame me, blame yourself and your arguments.

Youre cherry picking due to bias.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

It's claims still must be true according to your logic

Irrelevant since the subject of the thread lived 500 years prior to Mohammed and 600 years prior to the Qu'ran being penned.​

 

[Type Username Here]

Irrelevant since the subject of the thread lived 500 years prior to Mohammed.

Too late to witness anything about Jesus.
​

Are you calling Mohammed's claim as the last prophet of God a farce? He has a direct line to God and God told him that Jesus was never crucified or resurrected. This has to be true because (according to your logic):

1- Mohammed was documented as having been born and have died
2- There was eye witness testimony to his life as the prophet
3- People accepted Mohammed's claim during his lifetime

Cherry picking by you again.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Are you calling Mohammed's claim as the last prophet of God a farce?

Mohammed is not the subject of the thread and is irrelevant.
​

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

​

 

[Type Username Here]

Mohammed is not the subject of the thread and is irrelevant.
​

​

You're right. Mohammed is not the subject of the thread but your claims of proof of the resurrection are. And your logic can literally be applied to any historical or religious document in existence, including others that explicitly contradict the resurrection. It's merely what I have successfully demonstrated in this thread. You're arguing on faith masquerading as scholarly work. Cherry picking is a fallacy as well.