(July 3, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In the "Minimal Fact Approach" thread, I am arguing for the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of four facts which the overwhelming majority of ALL NT scholars (believers and skeptics alike) accept as highly probable.

Here's your problem. Scholars agree that the gospels relate different versions of the resurrection. This is much different than the claim that Christ was actually resurrected. Don't take my words for it though, here's Tim O'Neill's commentary on the subject:

Quote:So thinking on the Resurrection in modern scholarship differs widely and it is by no means accepted even by all Christian scholars that it was a historical event whereby Jesus genuinely rose physically from the dead.

http://www.quora.com/How-do-biblical-sch...sus-Christ

(July 3, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Well, as you are fond of pointing out, this is ironic. You, and or other mods, may recall my early attempts at pointing out just how often you were violating the "deliberately provocative" aspect of the trolling rule.

Or have you forgotten? (I can pull a huggy on you and re-post that whole exchange if you like.)

Or you could report it and have it dealt with properly. Which if you look is what I actually said. See, I don't care what you point out or how many times you do it; it's not your job to investigate these things and enforce the Rules as appropriate.

(July 3, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Incorrectomundo, gentlemen.

In the "Minimal Fact Approach" thread, I am arguing for the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of four facts which the overwhelming majority of ALL NT scholars (believers and skeptics alike) accept as highly probable. The fifth fact is accepted by a simple majority.

That's kinda the whole point. These are not facts with which you may take issue easily as they are most generally conceded as undisputed.

See ya there.

They. Are. Not. Facts.

You're using one part of the bible to support another part of the bible. Bullshit. You can't back up your claim WITH YOUR CLAIM. it's nonsense. It's been explained to you multiple times in that thread, but you continue to disregard that and go on not proving anything.

For the last time. You're doing the opposite of what you think. Your complete and very evident inability to produce a single piece of evidence undermines the validity of your god. Omnipotent, omnipresent, cares what I think about it, but cannot be demonstrated in any way?

Who are you kidding?

(July 3, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: In the "Minimal Fact Approach" thread, I am arguing for the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of four facts which the overwhelming majority of ALL NT scholars (believers and skeptics alike) accept as highly probable. The fifth fact is accepted by a simple majority.

Do you even know what a fact is?!?

(July 3, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: (I can pull a huggy on you and re-post that whole exchange if you like.)

If we're giving warnings, I suggest you stand back at least six feet when I pull my huggy.

You would think an evidential apologist would at least understand how evidence works.

(July 3, 2015 at 6:16 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Well, as you are fond of pointing out, this is ironic. You, and or other mods, may recall my early attempts at pointing out just how often you were violating the "deliberately provocative" aspect of the trolling rule.

Or have you forgotten? (I can pull a huggy on you and re-post that whole exchange if you like.)

Or you could report it and have it dealt with properly. Which if you look is what I actually said. See, I don't care what you point out or how many times you do it; it's not your job to investigate these things and enforce the Rules as appropriate.

Heh...I did report a couple of your posts. Got a response, too. All I'll say is that CD has your back, Abe.

So, it's like playing in a hostile gym when the refs are homers. I've agreed to play here under these given conditions, and I appreciate the opportunity to present my theist views.

We can move on now, if you like. No need to keep this mini-discussion open.

(July 3, 2015 at 6:17 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 6:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Incorrectomundo, gentlemen.

In the "Minimal Fact Approach" thread, I am arguing for the resurrection of Jesus on the basis of four facts which the overwhelming majority of ALL NT scholars (believers and skeptics alike) accept as highly probable. The fifth fact is accepted by a simple majority.

That's kinda the whole point. These are not facts with which you may take issue easily as they are most generally conceded as undisputed.

See ya there.

They. Are. Not. Facts.

You're using one part of the bible to support another part of the bible [emphasis added]. Bullshit. You can't back up your claim WITH YOUR CLAIM. it's nonsense. It's been explained to you multiple times in that thread, but you continue to disregard that and go on not proving anything.

For the last time. You're doing the opposite of what you think. Your complete and very evident inability to produce a single piece of evidence undermines the validity of your god. Omnipotent, omnipresent, cares what I think about it, but cannot be demonstrated in any way?

Who are you kidding?

Who are YOU kidding?

Did you even read the OP or the first two facts?

(July 3, 2015 at 6:27 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:

(July 3, 2015 at 6:17 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: They. Are. Not. Facts.

You're using one part of the bible to support another part of the bible [emphasis added]. Bullshit. You can't back up your claim WITH YOUR CLAIM. it's nonsense. It's been explained to you multiple times in that thread, but you continue to disregard that and go on not proving anything.

For the last time. You're doing the opposite of what you think. Your complete and very evident inability to produce a single piece of evidence undermines the validity of your god. Omnipotent, omnipresent, cares what I think about it, but cannot be demonstrated in any way?

Who are you kidding?

Who are YOU kidding?

Did you even read the OP or the first two facts?

I must of missed the two facts that show somebody rose from the dead.

(July 3, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Heh...I did report a couple of your posts. Got a response, too. All I'll say is that CD has your back, Abe.

Yeah. And I've seen firsthand the actual discussions about them and know precisely why you got the response you did. We've had these insinuations of bias and elitism before; you're nowhere near as unique as you might think. Until you have taken a peep behind the Staffroom door and seen the private discussions that go on there, you actually have no right to make such judgements. You're free to comment, of course, as long as you remember that you're doing so in a partial vacuum of limited information.

(July 3, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: So, it's like playing in a hostile gym when the refs are homers. I've agreed to play here under these given conditions, and I appreciate the opportunity to present my theist views.

I'm not proud - I'll take a backhanded compliment anyday.

(July 3, 2015 at 6:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: We can move on now, if you like. No need to keep this mini-discussion open.

My sentiments exactly, provided I or m'colleagues don't need to keep posting corrections like this.