The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Deux)

[pocaracas]

Dudes. Dudes. Dudes.

Dudes. Seriously. Read the guy's signature line.

Dudes.

Good one, now I'm rather embarassed.

He got me.

Now imagine how it must have been BEFORE he had that in his signature!!

It was so funny reading all atheists' replies, here!

[robvalue]

Combo breaker is from Killer Instinct, an old fighting game

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Errrrrrrhhhmmmm...

What is the point of this?

HM is way too damn slow in getting to the point. I finally got impatient and went through the pantry of canned Christian arguments we've all heard before but reposted endlessly as if they were new. I'm just presenting them all now in my own, um, unique style.

OK, maybe not so unique. I'm America's 3rd Best Christian. This is America's Best Christian:




And America's 2nd Best Christian: (This guy is my inspiration!)



My favorite part is at 4:20 of the above video, (to a liberal phony Jesus-is-love Christian) "You know it's sissy pansy Christians like you that ruin everything."




I have no affiliation with Landover Baptist Church but I do love these True Christians ™ and would very much like to be part of this organization.

The video I posted from "Rev Ernest Poe" in an earlier post is actually AronRa, by the way.

Everybody gets poe-ned by True Christians ™ like me. We put in so many "tells" in our posts but we can never put in enough because everything I post is based on real scripture and real arguments of apologetics.

---

Dude, not fair!
We want his majesty to present these things!
Take all of that back!

He's just way to damn slow. He'd spend the next year riding the "Scholars Say Merry Go Round" simply reposting "Did I mention that the scholarly consensus agrees with me?" and never get to the point of posting all these silly apologetic arguments like we've never heard them before.

I think we Christians are just not used to Satan's army, also known as scholars, agreeing with us on anything so some of us get hung up when discussing the watered-down some-guy-named-Yeshua-in-history. Personally, I have no need for either apologetics or for scholars. As Pastor Deacon Fred put it, "You don't need facts when you got Jesus!"

So here I am posting all the crappy for-those-of-weak-faith canned arguments in my own style.

HM, let me just say "You're welcome".

---

Oh boy! Did I get suckered :-O

I'm the resident True Christian ™ of this forum. I mostly buzz the phony Jesus-is-love apologists, schooling them on what scripture actually says, but in this case, I got tired of HM teasing us with the promise of rehashing the endlessly flogged arguments for the resurrection and beat him to the punch.

Surely no one would miss something as obvious as that...

Don't worry about it. Everyone get's Poe-ned sooner or later. We try to put so many "tells" in but there are just so many serious people that talk the same way, it can be like, to quote The Daily Show, "trying to top a Ponzi scheme of stupid."

So time to come clean, who is behind the other nutcases on this forum? They can't be real people, right?

I think I'm the only True Christian ™ on this forum. But maybe I'm the only one who's up front about it.

I actually wrote out a concerned paragraph as to your mental health when I was first replying, but later deleted it.

Awwwwwww.

[robvalue]

You sure did a good job of getting to some points rather than screwing around.

I've come to the conclusion that certain people like to get attention, like being mysterious, and like giving the impression they are hoarding some deep truth.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Now for your question about some rabbi having second thoughts and fact checking commandos. Jesus wasn't important for the jews. Even if we assume a historical Jesus, he was nothing but a trouble maker. And good riddance when he was crucified. Don't you think, there would be any roman records, if there had been some early movement claiming a god has risen from the grave. Even more so, if said god was executed a couple of days before by Roman authority?

The Fact Checking Commandos only sprang into action to confirm everything the Bible wrote is true.

When skeptics ask why there are no records of any of the miracles of Jesus or indeed anything about Jesus at all, that's when we switch back to "Hey, whatdaya want? It's not like anyone wrote anything down back then!"

It's kind of like the Trinity of historical records. When we need it to be one way, that's how it is. When we need it to be the other way, that's how it is. Neat, huh?

---

We could ban YahwehIsTheWay but then he would just return to his christian buddies claiming victory

Nooooooooooo! This is too much fun.

I'm up front about my two monikers and never post on the same thread in both identities.

If this forum did require me to delete one, I would post using this identity, close down the other one, and try to be the Steven Colbert of Apologetics.

---

Now imagine how it must have been BEFORE he had that in his signature!!

[out of character]
It was an experiment to see how many "tells" I needed to throw in.

First I just went with "True Christian ™" as my religion and "America's 3rd Best Christian" as my tag line with a few choice quotes from Landover Baptist Church in my sig.

Then I started posting "tells" in my posts like, say, using a Hollywood movie as "historical footage miraculously preserved for 2000 years" or self-refutations like asking why we don't have the writings of skeptics from 2000 years ago and then showing a picture of a book-burning.

Finally, I put in the winking smiley in the sig. Nothing is enough because everything I post is, however over-the-top my style, an actual argument published by WL Craig, Strobel, McDowell, Habermas, et al.

Seriously, people post the 8 arguments that I have and done it as if somehow the atheists should all fall to their knees and beg forgiveness for having doubted the revealed "Word".

I even got PMs from Christians on this forum who would eventually wise up and say "Hey, you're an atheist pretending to be a Christian!" I'd write back "What was your first clue?"
[/out of character]

---

I've come to the conclusion that certain people like to get attention, like being mysterious, and like giving the impression they are hoarding some deep truth.

[out of character]
That and I think that apologists would rather post endlessly about The Historical Jesus (TM of Bart Ehrman) instead of defending what they believe. With a little slight-of-hand, they can push the burden of proof on you to prove a negative about a vague point (i.e. prove some-guy-named-Yeshua didn't exist).

The Historical Jesus ™ is so vague that he easily slips into the cracks of our knowledge of the ancient world. The goal posts are easily moved about such that even an oblique, 2nd century and proven altered reference like Tacitus is bandied about as "hard evidence". And you can just keep harping on "scholars say..." endlessly to wear your opponent down or imply the skeptic is really some kook.

Hence, I'm now a Jesus Mooter instead of a Jesus Myther. I prefer to talk about what the Christian doesn't want to talk about, that these crappy, fallacy ridden 8 arguments (and perhaps a few others I missed) are as good as it gets for them.
[/out of character]

[KUSA]

Where is the idiot with the king Tut avatar?

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Where is the idiot with the king Tut avatar?

Yeah, I want him to see what a great job I'm doing.

I'm sure he'll be thrilled to read what I've written on all the arguments I'm sure he was going to use.

Wish I could be a fly on the wall when he admires my work.

[Tonus]

i feel rather silly now

Poe's Law states that it is nearly-impossible to distinguish between an extremist point of view and a parody of the same. That the OP had you going for a while is simply an example of that.

[fr0d0]

Repent! NOW!!!

Sometimes that yhwh is such an asshole, eh Frods?

Damn straight

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Argument #9: The Bible Tells Me So
Don't I just feel silly that this wasn't the #1 argument on my list for why we can believe the story of the resurrection of Jesus. We know the story is true because...

*drum roll*

...the story says it's true.



Why didn't I think of this argument when I started this thread? It's all just so simple.

After all, we have four bone fide witnesses to the events, more or less. We have Mark who was a companion of Paul who saw Jesus in a vision but hey, Mark did hear it from Peter, so that's kind of a witness. Then we have Matthew who was an eye-witness, however much he may had stretched the truth here and there a bit. Some have said the whole "slaughter of the innocents" by Herod the Great sounds a bit like it was lifted from the story of Moses' birth from Exodus (which seems only fair since that was in turn lifted from the story of Sargon so it's not like Moses had a copyright on surviving a tyrant's infanticideal rampage). And then there's the bit about the "Attack of the Zombie Saints" at the end.





A bit of artistic license on Matthew's part. Anyway, we also have Luke who was a companion of Paul, who tells us he's put together all the accounts he's heard of (Luke 1:1-4). And then we have John, who's story only bears no similarity whatsoever to the other three accounts, so much so that the other three are called "The Synoptic Gospels" or (similar Gospels). Nitpicky atheists will doubtless raise objections but really, the details aren't important.

What's really important here is how they reported on the big picture issue, the resurrection of Jesus. Mark at first reports no sighting of the resurrected Jesus until after his Gospel was altered to create a better ending (originally, it ended at 16:8). The tale got better with the telling. Luke reports that Jesus rose up into the sky that day of his resurrection. Matthew has the disciples meeting with the resurrected Jesus but some of them had their doubts. John says Jesus returned to confront the doubting Thomas a week later and Acts says Jesus went about preaching for 40 days.

OK, the details seem a little sketchy here but maybe Jesus had a lot of back and forth trips to his new home in the clouds. You know how it is when you move away, there are still some things you left behind. Sometimes the move takes several trips and all that. Or perhaps it was part of the gig:

"Back by popular demand: the resurrected Jesus"





It must have been a crowd pleaser. There were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Jesus, after all (Paul, 1 Cor 15:6). Or was that 120 (Acts 1:15)? I forget. Apparently, the authors did too. Details, details.

And then we have Paul who also received a full briefing on the resurrection of Jesus. His "creed", found in 1 Cor chapter 15 is often touted by Christian apologists as hard evidence for the resurrection.

1Cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

And there you have it. The Bible not only tells us so but it, or what they had at that time, told him as well.

Case closed.

Game, set, and match, atheists.

But I'm sure there are other arguments in my apologetics pantry...