Quote:If they made up the story, they were the most creative, clever, intelligent fantasists in history, far surpassing Shakespeare, or Dante, or Tolkien. Fisherman's "fish stories" are never that elaborate, that convincing, that life-changing, and that enduring.

Whatcha say bout Dante?? His verses are orders of magnitude superior to those in the gospels. Even though the hell, purgatory and heaven stories are a load of bull his poetry is most of all a description of the human mind of the finest kind. And it's way, way more interesting and colourful than the gospels.

Come at me scrublord, I'm ripped

Has he addressed the moral argument yet? You know, that Yahweh is an evil tyrant? Kind of makes this argument pointless. The only reason to worship him is fear.

(August 14, 2015 at 8:44 am)Neimenovic Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 7:44 am)Randy Carson Wrote: Not really, Nemo.

There are FIVE facts that must be accounted for. The empty tomb is only one of them.

Swoon and Conspiracy are two attempts at providing alternate explanations.

So, what's your theory, huh?!?!?!?

Bravo! Do you even need me for this?

I'm starting to get really concerned Randy. Seriously. You keep repeating the same two things over and over ad nauseum, despite the fact that the flaw in your thinking has been pointed out to you several times by multiple people. Is it that you need a specific response to carry on with your pre written theatrics, or are you mentally incapable of acknowledging the problem with your argument?

Either way I honestly advise anyone who's attempting to have a conversation with Randy to skim through the last several pages of his previous thread, and then abandon the endeavor. Deeply disappointing is an understatement.

One other question for you, Nemo...previously, you wrote:

Quote:Actually, this is the same thread all over again.
In the end, it can be broken down to:

'BBBBBUT THE TOMB WAS EMPTY!!!!1!1!1 WHAT'S YOUR THEORY HUH?!?!?!!'

All the objections to this line of thinking notwithstanding. I guess they're not in his scenario.

The apostles began to preach the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and buried.

If the tomb wasn't empty, why didn't the authorities simply take the body from the tomb, parade it through the streets, and silence the Apostles?

(August 14, 2015 at 9:02 am)robvalue Wrote: Has he addressed the moral argument yet? You know, that Yahweh is an evil tyrant? Kind of makes this argument pointless. The only reason to worship him is fear.

Try to stay focused, rob.

This thread is about the Conspiracy Theory and why it fails to account for the facts we know about the post-resurrection events.

If you want to discuss the moral argument against God, start your own thread.

(August 14, 2015 at 9:05 am)Randy Carson Wrote:

(August 14, 2015 at 8:44 am)Neimenovic Wrote: Bravo! Do you even need me for this?

I'm starting to get really concerned Randy. Seriously. You keep repeating the same two things over and over ad nauseum, despite the fact that the flaw in your thinking has been pointed out to you several times by multiple people. Is it that you need a specific response to carry on with your pre written theatrics, or are you mentally incapable of acknowledging the problem with your argument?

Either way I honestly advise anyone who's attempting to have a conversation with Randy to skim through the last several pages of his previous thread, and then abandon the endeavor. Deeply disappointing is an understatement.

One other question for you, Nemo...previously, you wrote:

Quote:Actually, this is the same thread all over again.
In the end, it can be broken down to:

'BBBBBUT THE TOMB WAS EMPTY!!!!1!1!1 WHAT'S YOUR THEORY HUH?!?!?!!'

All the objections to this line of thinking notwithstanding. I guess they're not in his scenario.

The apostles began to preach the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified and buried.

If the tomb wasn't empty, why didn't the authorities simply take the body from the tomb, parade it through the streets, and silence the Apostles?

It's part of the same story, Randy. The empty tomb is PART of the resurrection story. It can't be used as evidence for itself. Can you not see the circular logic in your argument?

I don't care how many scholars you can name that agree with you. Can you demonstrate the objective fact that there was a tomb and it was empty?

Cue the same rhetoric we've been hearing for a month......

I'm pointing out why it's an entire waste of time.

Did he become completely human?

If so, he's dead now and he couldn't have come back or continued to be a god afterwards. That bit is a lie.

If not, then it wasn't a proper human death anyway, just a friggin party trick.

Checkmate Jesus. If that's even your real name, which it isn't.

Why would Aragorn fight all those orcs if the One Ring wasn't real?

Can we, just for the sake of moving things along in this thread at least, collectively agree that Jesus existed? Between Randy, His_Travesty, and Pious Paladin, I don't think we ever heard them defend the resurrection- unless I've missed it, which is entirely possible given my interest.

I don't think they want to get into it because of the glaring silliness.

Sure, I've given Randy absolutely every mundane detail in the bible before, months ago. I said I'll accept everything without question actually happened, except the ridiculous claims such as the resurrection. Even then he couldn't make the argument. I just got "they wouldn't lie". So what he's doing now, I don't know. No one was making any conspiracy theory claims, Randy made them on our behalf.

I noticed he's sticking with the NT. Easy stuff. Why not do some OT stuff? Prove Adam and Eve happened?

Why would Boromir have died if Frodo wasn't real? Why would he give his life in combat?

(August 13, 2015 at 8:42 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(August 13, 2015 at 3:47 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Esq-

I'll give you this: you appear to be among the brighter members of the forum. So, you may have the ability to actually study the source material that occupies professional historians and to read their analysis of it.

So, why not use your obvious intellectual prowess to explain to everyone here why several thousand PhD's around the globe - each of whom having spent decades of their lives studying ancient languages, travelling to foreign countries, pouring over ancients parchments, scrolls and papyrii, etc - are simply WRONG in their professional judgment that Jesus was a real person and that the five minimal facts that emerge from their studies are valid?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that the existence of a historical Jesus is largely irrelevant to the claims made about him. Existence is a necessary, but not sufficient quality of Jesus-the-messiah, and given that other necessary qualities of the same narrative have not been provided (such as the sheer possibility of the supernatural) it's really little more than one small step. As such, I'm willing to take Jesus-the-man as read for the sake of argument, though I don't accept that this and the five facts you've listed can be used as evidence of the resurrection, and the reasons why are going to be the subject of a blog post once I've gotten that up and running.

I'm happy to hear that you are not a mythicist, and this is in keeping with my opinion that you are a cut above much of the crowd here. When your blog is up, I'll be happy to check it out. One bit of advice...explain your position in small chunks...you don't want to fall victim to the dreaded TL;DR syndrome.

Quote:What I don't like, though, are arguments like this one, where you attempt to rebut a position without input from the people that hold it, using talking points that may or may not actually be things that they hold to be true, without any assurances that even if they are accurate reflections of the position, that they represent the totality of that position. Apologists do this a lot, speaking for their opponents and, just coincidentally I'm sure, concluding that their arguments fall flat; in your case, your OP is so deep in your echo chamber that I can't possibly trust your conclusion that therefore, the conspiracy theory isn't viable. How could I look at an argument that consists solely of a representation of the position being refuted, from the perspective of a man who disagrees with it?

The OP is based upon the work of J. Warner Wallace, a cold-case detective with a 20+ & 0 record solving murders that no one else managed to solve. You may have seen him on television...he's been on NBC's Dateline many times after solving various cases.

Wallace WAS an atheist (his father still is, btw), and he decided to apply his skills as a detective to the evidence of an ancient death. Guess what? He was convinced by the evidence that Christianity is true.

Wallace is ANOTHER example of someone who was NOT raised in a believing household being convinced by the FACTS and apologetics arguments.

So, is Wallace speaking FOR his opponents unfairly when he lays out the five factors that he uses to this very day when dealing with conspiracies? Not only is his approach to breaking conspiracies valid, but the arguments for atheism that he challenges WERE his own at one time.

Quote:

Quote:Alternatively, if you do concede that the five minimal facts cannot be denied, then would you care to propose your own theory which takes into consideration and accounts for all five of these facts with greater probability and explanatory scope than the Christian argument for a supernatural resurrection?

Because so far, I don't see that you actually have any real explanation...just a lot of empty denials.

First of all, this "you all haven't given any alternative solutions," refrain of yours is completely irrelevant, because if you're asserting that therefore your solution is correct then you're committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. Don't be that guy.

I'm not. I'm open to hearing any explanations you may have to offer. I think there are only half a dozen or so REASONABLE alternatives (I may cover them all one thread at a time), and Habermas says he has identified 14 alternative theories.

But it is reasonable for me to ask what your working hypothesis is and to examine (with you?) whether it is better than the Christian theory. Don't you agree?

I've got to head off to work, so I'll get back to the balance of your thread later.

I do appreciate that you have taken some time to address the OP rather than simply posting silly, thoughtless one-liners commonly seen from other forum members.

Quote:Wallace is ANOTHER example of someone who was NOT raised in a believing household being convinced by the FACTS and apologetics arguments.

Puerile.

I can think of at least 2 people who were raised in non-beliving households who still haven't been convinced by these so called 'FACTS' ( :lol: ). I KNOW MOAR PEOPLESZ SO I WINZ! I didn't put that in bold for emphasis like I was trying to make a salient point though, so perhaps I should haz a sadz

I forget sometimes that you were the guy who used the "well my dad is bigger than your dad" argument in another thread. Why do I even care enough to reply? Oh teh lulz.

Quote:I do appreciate that you have taken some time to address the OP rather than simply posting silly, thoughtless one-liners commonly seen from other forum members.

I like that sentence, though I disagree they are silly. On balance, they are usually quite accurate, especially about you.