RE: Excavating The Empty Tomb
June 3, 2013 at 12:28 pm
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2013 at 1:10 pm by Drich.)
(June 3, 2013 at 1:34 am)DeistPaladin Wrote: You mean "waste", not "waist". You can't "waist time" because waist is a noun, not a verb. You also forgot to put apostrophes on your contraction. IT'S an important thing to pay attention to when YOU'RE using contractions. You need to use proper grammar or people might think you're stupid or something."Stupid is as Stupid does."
-Mrs. Gump
Quote:And don't compare this video series to Zeitgeist (proper spelling of that word, btw). Zeitgeist is crap. This series is professionally done.Wow, how little it takes to earn your allegiance. You follow and respect production value... And I am the stupid one?
(June 3, 2013 at 3:37 am)missluckie26 Wrote: DeistPaladin: Drich has a physical impairment from my understanding. He definitely isn't stupid. Spellcheck I do to my own posts and highly recommend it, but some people don't wanna. He don't wanna.hopefully he do wanna watch that them there video so we can understand why he believes what he believes in spite of evidence that leads us to polar opposite conclusions.
Ill watch one. upto 15 mins of one. If you want me to address one specific part or one specific movie give me a link and a time index and we will go from there. If you blow off and ignore what I say, then I am not watching any more crap I hate God movies for a while. As they are waists of time.
(June 3, 2013 at 12:18 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Christ is well documented in Historical texts.
Now you have crossed the line and are an outright liar, Drippy.
Your godboy does not exist in historical texts except in a few spots where desperate editors tried to retrofit him into the story. It fools no one but the fools.
As always you've missed the point Minnie. I am saying that there is a libary full of historical texts, that identify and verify Christ, but because of the libary's location ALL of those works are dismissed as religious texts. No one outside of the RC chruch has taken the time to pour over each and every one. So you can not say nothing exists that supports a historical Jesus.
starting with video 1
@2:11 the host states that the resurection is based in our current form/matter/body. When Clearly the bible states in 1 cor 15:42 fSo is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; git is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, h“The first man Adam became a living being”;5 ithe last Adam became a jlife-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 kThe first man was from the earth, la man of dust; mthe second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, nso also are those who are of heaven. 49 Just oas we have borne the image of the man of dust, pwe shall6 also bear the image of the man of heaven.
Mystery and Victory
50 I tell you this, brothers: qflesh and blood rcannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. sWe shall not all sleep, tbut we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For uthe trumpet will sound, and vthe dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and wthis mortal body must put on immortality.
So the Foundation of this dbags arguement is irrepairably cracked, and will not support the rest of his arguement. He has created a strawman dressed it up like the doctrine of the resurrection, and is attacking the strawman. When people like Minnie hear something they been waiting for things like TRUTH take a side burner to unverified facts. Facts that tickle his fancy just in the way he wants it tickled.
@2:50 The host points out that the religious leaders did not believe in the resurection. Then He quotes a question that the Saducees mockingly asked Christ. (as if the idea of the resurection was based in later greek works) Appearently the host does not know or simply failed to mention that the Pharasees did believe in the after life/resurrection, while the Saducces did not. (That is why they are sad-u-cee? This is all sunday school stuff)
@3:00 He introduces Cellcus and his great body of work.. that has not survived, but the work refuting it did @ 3:30. All to point to a old source that dismisses the concept of resurection in the time of Christ. But again, The fundemental difference between Pharasees and the Sad-U-Cees, was their belief in a after life/resurection.
Do I really need to go one and force myself to watch the second one? Or does he just keep building on the cracked strawman foundation he starts out with in the first one?
