MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[LastPoet]

I could care a bit if the forum rules were broken. To the rest, admitting to be an apologist like a badge of honour, is like i wished for you to remain as a Christian. You do a better job deconverting people than any assumed atheist would.

[Cyberman]

So apparently all you did was do a quick google search to find the first secular website that distorted the context of the passage so you can raise a worthless objection on here...which you've failed, miserably...how about reading the freakin context?

I don't do "apparently", dicksplash. One of the many delusions under which you're labouring is that this is all brand new to me. Newsflash: you're not my first.

Let's actually look at what you're saying. You're validating the Jamesian reference in Josephus with what 'Paul' wrote, while validating the 'Paul' reference with what is recorded in Josephus. This despite the uncomfortable (for your argument) detail that the "who was called Christ" reference depends for its entire support on the TF which is a known and admitted forgery, unremarked upon before the fourth century.

Meanwhile, you're throwing Josephus under a bus by watering down 'his' reference to James' brother to "he was reporting what people called him". Nice job breaking it, hero. Who cares what people may or may not have called the guy? What do you think it proves? Because it doesn't, y'know. Lots of people call L Ron Hubbard a prophet, a saviour, and all manner of things, when the sad reality is he was a bargain bucket sci fi hack with enough mental problems to sink a battleship. No amount of "that's what they called him" is ever going to change that.

[LastPoet]

Stimbo you are and always be our man-whore.

[His_Majesty]

I'm laughing at H_M acting as though his blocking of certain members is a negative thing. "Oh, no! I don't want to be blocked by him! Anyone but him!"

I understand where you are coming from, Kevin....after all, who am I? I want to talk to people that are serious about discussing the issues...and guys like that aren't serious about discussing the issues, they just want to attack...and I would rather use my time with people that are on here for serious discussions, and every time that guy had a post directed towards me, it was always a little something extra there that shouldn't be there.

And if I start the back and forths with him, pretty soon it would be with everyone...but all of that would take away from what I am doing here...and we CERTAINLY don't need to take away from that

[abaris]

Broken record...

[His_Majesty]

You can't go on to someone else's turf and claim defense.

Offense and defense...I play both sides of the ball.

You're here to proselytize and preach and convert whoever's dumb enough to fall for it.

Is it working?

You don't think we've seen the likes of you a thousand times already?

Fall down 7 times, and get up 8.

You're here to win points in some stupid game only you are playing. And, you don't need multiple threads for it.

Where you spend your eternity is not a game, my friend. It is real life, whether you believe it, accept it, or like it. It's gonna happen.

---

This.... and it's been done far, far better many times.

I'm sure it has...and I've also seen far, far, better advocates for atheism than you...so I say we break even on that one. No robbery in fair exchange.

[Ryantology]

Offense and defense...I play both sides of the ball.

If you want to play the game, don't get bitchy when it's not working in your favor.

Is it working?

How would you rate your success at turning atheistforum.org members into Christians?

Fall down 7 times, and get up 8.

That number, here, would be in the hundreds, easily.

Where you spend your eternity is not a game, my friend. It is real life, whether you believe it, accept it, or like it. It's gonna happen.

Once you can prove there's an eternal afterlife, I promise that I will try to give the tiniest shit about it.

I'm sure it has...and I've also seen far, far, better advocates for atheism than you...so I say we break even on that one. No robbery in fair exchange.

It's not a fair exchange. Nobody asked you to come here.

[Minimalist]

Blow me, douchebag.

Be careful what you wish for.

Nah, I've grown tired of that fuckhead. He's been consigned to the shitlist.

G-C and drippy know what that means.

[His_Majesty]

I don't do "apparently", dicksplash. One of the many delusions under which you're labouring is that this is all brand new to me.

It ain't new to me either. And c'mon with the name callin shit.

Newsflash: you're not my first.

hock:

Let's actually look at what you're saying. You're validating the Jamesian reference in Josephus with what 'Paul' wrote, while validating the 'Paul' reference with what is recorded in Josephus. This despite the uncomfortable (for your argument) detail that the "who was called Christ" reference depends for its entire support on the TF which is a known and admitted forgery, unremarked upon before the fourth century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on...r_of_Jesus

Modern scholarship has almost universally acknowledged the authenticity of the reference to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" [12] and has rejected its being the result of later interpolation.[13][33][1][2][16]

Meanwhile, you're throwing Josephus under a bus by watering down 'his' reference to James' brother to "he was reporting what people called him". Nice job breaking it, hero. Who cares what people may or may not have called the guy?

Who cares what people may/may not have called him?? Ummmm, Christians, perhaps?

What do you think it proves? Because it doesn't, y'know. Lots of people call L Ron Hubbard a prophet, a saviour, and all manner of things, when the sad reality is he was a bargain bucket sci fi hack with enough mental problems to sink a battleship. No amount of "that's what they called him" is ever going to change that.

If they called Hubbard a prophet, that would seem to suggest that he exists...just sayin'.

[Cyberman]

The point ---> .














You ---> ○

And as for the "name calling": don't like it? Don't start it. Also don't behave in a way that attracts it and then play the injured innocent, because it absolutely won't wash with me.