HM were you there when jesus was resurrected.
Did you see it?
How do you know it to be true outside believing and having faith it did happen.
if you say the bible or many of its badly written entries you are wrong.

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You remembered the bombing tho...they remembered the Resurrection tho. You don't have to remember every little detail, but the jest of it was there was a bombing in OKC.

The stories of the resurrection, however, show a distinct evolution as they were subject to embellishment. The earliest gospel (Mark) doesn't mention a resurrection at all (at least not in its earliest form). From there, the stories get grander and grander until we get to John (60-70 years later) wherein Jesus is the devine poobah who pops out of the tomb, shouting 'ta dah!'

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: That is you..everyone is different...Paul remembered, you didn't.

Paul remembered the resurrection? Interesting concept since he wasn't there and never even knew Jesus

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: You have a shitty memory, apparently.

Or maybe you just missed the entire point that memory is entirely subjective.

(December 2, 2014 at 10:42 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: True, I gotcha...but the main idea is that there was a bombing in OKC...no one is disputing that fact...and likewise; the main idea was that Jesus Resurrected, and no one is disputing that..at least, not the early church.

Actually, the early church was filled will all sorts of 'heresies' that there was no resurrection or that it was only a spiritual resurrection. etc. The resurrection-winners were just the ones who were most successful at kicking the shit out of the others.

Wow. We started out with Josephus et al. and now we're on to discussing whether the hearsay of Paul is "really really twoo." You believe that Paul probably learned significant facts about Jesus from Peter, but you don't have any evidence that he did; that's just your belief. Is it wrong or right? There's no way to know.

However, there's a larger problem here. In part 1 you're trying to prove that a conjectural "Jesus the man" who was a first century rabbi and died by crucifixion. This Jesus is an extrapolation based on the Gospels and other documents. However, these documents don't describe a "Jesus the man," they describe a miracle working Messiah. So this "Jesus the man" is a separate fiction created out of these documents. But you're not trying to prove the existence of an ordinary man; the evidence required to prove the existence of an ordinary man is different from that used to demonstrate a miracle worker. I fully expect in part 2 or whatever for you to use the case for the existence of an ordinary man, "Jesus the man," as supporting evidence for "Jesus the miracle worker." You've got two separate Jesuses, one that meets a lesser standard, and the Jesus that is actually described by the Gospels, "Jesus the miracle worker." You can't just swap in the "Jesus the man" case when you start arguing for "Jesus the miracle worker" as they are two very different things. The statement that the vast majority of historians believe in "Jesus the man" cannot simply be lifted out of that context and transplanted into a case for "Jesus the miracle worker" as if the support of those historians for the former was good enough for the latter. You would be equivocating on who you mean by the name "Jesus" — in this phase, you've proved a man, not a miracle worker. Those are two separate arguments. Trying to use the case for the man as evidence for the miracle worker is fallacious because you would be switching horses mid-stream, and that's invalid. That's the fallacy of equivocation.

What would good evidence for a miracle worker be? Certainly not the horseshit you've trotted out so far. I would expect eye witnesses, and none of what you've presented so far is an eye witness. And you know the problems in claiming that the Gospels were written by eye witnesses without my even mentioning them. The three synoptic Gospels are all anonymous. (I note that you've attempted to shift the burden of proof already by demanding we prove that the Gospels attributed to Matthew and John weren't actually written by them. Nice try. The burden of proving that they were so written is on you.) So we're left with John as the only potential eye witness, and that's a very weak case. But good luck proving that John was actually written by the disciple John.

As to the "Jesus the man" argument, thanks for the entertainment, but that argument can't be used to support the existence of "Jesus the miracle worker." You'll just have to start over.

You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

(December 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

Already happened.

(December 3, 2014 at 5:07 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You'll be sure to let us know when the creatard institute creates life from dirt, won't you?

I'm sure the asswipes are working on the problem night and day!

I stopped reading HM's long winded posts about 20 pages ago. Can anyone tell me if he's said anything worthy of consideration?

(December 3, 2014 at 5:59 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I stopped reading HM's long winded posts about 20 pages ago. Can anyone tell me if he's said anything worthy of consideration?

Nope, I assume. I have stopped reading his diatribe at the same time you have. But I'm pretty sure he hasn't. At least going by the amount of

It's obvious this won't end in agreement. I know you're waiting for us all to agree before moving on, but that's not happening. Just move on.

A poll: All those who remain unconvinced say