Jesus did not rise from the dead -- My debate opening statement.

[Minimalist]

Watching Drich and Century go back and forth is like watching a slap flight, only with increasingly bigger fonts and emojis.

In any battle of wits Dripshit is defenseless.

[Cyberman]

Watching Drich and Century go back and forth is like watching a slap flight, only with increasingly bigger fonts and emojis.

It's more like being an assistant arse wiper at a very special school.

[Drich]

Let's do this -- tomorrow night I will flip a coin 100 times.  Between now and then you write down the ordered sequence of heads & tails that I get.  I'll do the same after each coin toss.  And, then, let's compare.  If our lists agree, I'll convert to any religion that you want me to!  Deal?

That is why you fail...

You made a promise thinking your debate was air tight and it was from your narrow minded world view... Then you are made to see that the world is not as narrowly defined as it is in your mind, and now you want to change the parameters of your promise..

Look sport you made a promise you either stick with it or you don't. Either offer God your soul or give me what's left of your integrity so I can make fun of it.

As for the so-called 500 witnesses, I don't believe that they were authentic.

Hey, intellectually corrupt moron... 4th time now.. So pay attention: It's not ever meant to be about what the witnesses said happened to them. It's about witnessing God for your self...

Do you get it?

What validated the bible and the witnesses is if you follow what the bible says you will still today find God.

That is what most of you don't get. Just because you made a 1/2 assed attempt to find God in a religion and failed does not meant everyone else does.

The reason the Core of Christianity believes.. because they have literally found God where the bible said. That's what validates the bible, not witnesses, or any of the other nonsense you people want to argue.

  No one, either secular or Christian, after the time of Paul ever recorded who these individuals were or what they saw and neither did they, themselves, ever identify themselves as being part of the "500 hundred". 

what they saw was recorded in 1 cor 15. it was the same thing everyone saw, as Jesus said his goodbyes and asended into heaven. how do we know this? because verse 5 referenced what the 12 saw. What Paul saw was different as he needed to be changed.

Paul, like the Gospels, had a trait of embellishment to him and tended to exaggerate things,

example and proof please.

as was the case with many writers in the ancient World (size of armies, numbers of deaths, etc.)  Of course, he was writing to a group of individuals who were 500 miles away, with the express goal of strengthening their faith in this supposed "miraculous" event, an event which the Gospels themselves fail to record.

The gospels do not include volumes of things Christ did. they even say so. "that the signs and wonders could fill libraries."

What the gospels were written for was to establish the deity of Christ, His new covenant and his death burial and resurrection to establish the gospel.

Again, not meant to be a history book, but a road map. Your ignorance of how the bible is compiled and it's purpose does not give you license to re-purpose scripture for the sake of your argument.

But, even assuming that it happened, it would just be another "mass delusion" in the history of the World.  Lots of those have occurred; I mentioned earlier just one category of such events, the so-called "sun miracles".

lol.. Mass delusion
like Atheism??

By the way, I never mentioned the X-files and have never watched that series or movies.  I do know that Fox used to place one of the X-file characters in some of its other shows, though.  Just Google that; quite interesting!

selective ignorance/ or deciding to remain ignorant levies judgement against you sport, not me.

[Brian37]

Ascension to the afterlife is not an invention of Christianity. It's version only popularized a new version of hero worship.

It could have very easily stemmed in antiquity even prior to written religions, when someone saw someone dying in cold weather, confusing body heat and or breath rising as the "spirit" leaving the body.

The fantastic claim of the story of his death is merely that. Science now knows to actually torture and kill someone like the bible depicts and have them survive is absurd. Funny how no human ever survives a decapitation. If one were to have all the blood drained out of their body, as what the REAL intent of the torture was in reality back then, nobody survives that.

But it still would not matter because even if one could prove a man named Jesus did exist, it would merely mean a human managed to start a new religion and convince others to follow him. It would not make the Christian God real anymore than the hero stories of the ancient Egyptian were true.

Theologians are apologists, not objective historians or objective anthropologists. They are salesmen.

There is absolutely NO record of independent conformation of his existence during the the time the bible claims he existed. Josephus was after the fact and all the NT was also hearsay also written way after the alleged time the bible claims.

[Drich]

Ascension to the afterlife is not an invention of Christianity. It's version only popularized a new version of hero worship.

It could have very easily stemmed in antiquity even prior to written religions, when someone saw someone dying in cold weather, confusing body heat and or breath rising as the "spirit" leaving the body.

The fantastic claim of the story of his death is merely that. Science now knows to actually torture and kill someone like the bible depicts and have them survive is absurd. Funny how no human ever survives a decapitation. If one were to have all the blood drained out of their body, as what the REAL intent of the torture was in reality back then, nobody survives that.

But it still would not matter because even if one could prove a man named Jesus did exist, it would merely mean a human managed to start a new religion and convince others to follow him. It would not make the Christian God real anymore than the hero stories of the ancient Egyptian were true.

Theologians are apologists, not objective historians or objective anthropologists. They are salesmen.

lol, what are you doing now if not selling a position? If being a salesman is a bad thing... then count yourself among them.

There is absolutely NO record of independent conformation of his existence during the the time the bible claims he existed. Josephus was after the fact and all the NT was also hearsay also written way after the alleged time the bible claims.

BS.
When a document does indeed independently confirms Christ, it is considered to be a religious document.

[Jehanne]

The gospels do not include volumes of things Christ did. they even say so. "that the signs and wonders could fill libraries."

What the gospels were written for was to establish the deity of Christ, His new covenant and his death burial and resurrection to establish the gospel.

If all of Jesus' "signs and wonders could fill libraries", I am amazed that no one else in 1st century Palestine took notice, outside of the cult that is.

Your arguments could easily apply to the Aztec or Inca religions; why shouldn't I accept Huitzilopochtli as being god (or, a god), or Vishnu, etc., etc.?  Maybe Islam is the true religion?  Or, some other religion on some distant alien world?

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

Drich,

Lets cut to the chase, vacuum up the chicken feathers that are around your computer, adjust your belt for the long haul, and lets debate, or discuss, the alleged existence of your serial killing BIBLE Jesus character in a separate thread! Okay?

your show sport. If you don't feel that's you 'A' game, then please lets set that aside. I want you to bring your best.

Furthermore, why haven’t you answered my question in what division of Christianity that you’ve swallowed? Are you that embarrassed about the one you've picked, where you have to remain silent about it? WWJD? Are you Catholic, Lutheran, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, or???

Because I have answered this many many times already. I think it is even in my profile.
Started out Buddhist, then Korean baptist (if you can call it that as I did not speak the language well enough to participate.) Then my dad got mixed in with some church he found then high school hit, after a series of personal crises I turned to God... Nothing then I fell into atheist. was that way for some time. Then sister's best friend (hot chick) invited me to a NON DENOMINATIONAL church, the hot chick introduced me to a hotter chick some years later and I married her.

I am technically a member of her church still, just not a very good one.

That said I have sort of set up shop here in an unconventional way, but still yet follow the guidelines and minimal requirements of a church. Therefore I can say we goto the same church.

For the sake of your moniker upon this forum, I know you won’t run away from this particular debate regarding the impetus of your primitive and dangerous belief of Christianity, which is the the serial killer BIBLE Jesus!

not a button sport.. just don't want to play some childish Game. I don't know what you are talking about and am too old to try and figure it out. Just say what you mean plainly. I promise you will have more to deal with in simple English than you can handle.

Hopefully the mods can set up a thread where its only you and me, whereas the "sideline nibblers" are kept out!  

You might want to leave it open to get as much help as your peers are willing to give you.

---

Drich,


Barring the fact that you seemingly only went to a Nondenominational pseudo-christian church is because of some “hot chick,” and a subsequent “hot chick” of whom you eventually married later on, whereas you didn’t attend said church for the reason you’re supposed to be there in the first place.  That is, to be brainwashed with selective narratives to swallow a primitive faith that if followed to the letter, you would be in prison for life.   Your laughable beginnings in being a pseudo-christian will not bode well for you in our debate on the alleged BIBLE Jesus’ existence.


MODERATORS, CAN YOU GIVE DRICH AND MYSELF A THREAD THAT WILL PREVENT OUTSIDE SOURCES FROM ENTERING OUR DISCUSSION, THEREFORE TO KEEP OUT THE SIDELINE NIBBLERS AND THEIR IRRELATIVE INSIPID CHILD LIKE RESPONSES THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND, BUT TO ONLY SHOW THEIR IGNORANCE OF SAID TOPIC?

Drich, stick around and don't run away, okay?  I promise you a great time, but at your expense.


m

[Cyberman]

Just for the record:

Hopefully the mods can set up a thread where its only you and me, whereas the "sideline nibblers" are kept out!  

Unless you request a formal debate, through official channels, "Putting limitations on who is allowed to post in a thread is not allowed. Unless a member is unable to post in a thread due to the permission system, all members are allowed to post in all threads."

[Drich]

The gospels do not include volumes of things Christ did. they even say so. "that the signs and wonders could fill libraries."

What the gospels were written for was to establish the deity of Christ, His new covenant and his death burial and resurrection to establish the gospel.

If all of Jesus' "signs and wonders could fill libraries", I am amazed that no one else in 1st century Palestine took notice, outside of the cult that is.

what do you mean no one outside of that world took notice?
Or shall I ask instead what measure of proof do you have that their was no notice taken?

Your arguments could easily apply to the Aztec or Inca religions; why shouldn't I accept Huitzilopochtli as being god (or, a god), or Vishnu, etc., etc.?  Maybe Islam is the true religion?  Or, some other religion on some distant alien world?

what is my argument? you don't seem to understand it, or you don't understand the other religions you just mentioned.

[Crossless2.0]

---

Drich,


Barring the fact that you seemingly only went to a Nondenominational pseudo-christian church is because of some “hot chick,” and a subsequent “hot chick” of whom you eventually married later on, whereas you didn’t attend said church for the reason you’re supposed to be there in the first place.  That is, to be brainwashed with selective narratives to swallow a primitive faith that if followed to the letter, you would be in prison for life.   Your laughable beginnings in being a pseudo-christian will not bode well for you in our debate on the alleged BIBLE Jesus’ existence.


MODERATORS, CAN YOU GIVE DRICH AND MYSELF A THREAD THAT WILL PREVENT OUTSIDE SOURCES FROM ENTERING OUR DISCUSSION, THEREFORE TO KEEP OUT THE SIDELINE NIBBLERS AND THEIR IRRELATIVE INSIPID CHILD LIKE RESPONSES THAT HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE TOPIC AT HAND, BUT TO ONLY SHOW THEIR IGNORANCE OF SAID TOPIC?

Drich, stick around and don't run away, okay?  I promise you a great time, but at your expense.


m

Goddammit, troll, the word is 'irrelevant' -- not 'irrelative'. If you're going to pretend to be superior, then learn to write as if you actually are.

And if you want to have a give Drich a private, uninterrupted hand job, then formally debate him. Otherwise, quit whining about others chiming in on a thread that is open to all.