(November 29, 2014 at 5:55 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: I agree. This is why I'm eager to see part 2
Assuming it ever comes, here's my prediction:
1. "Would they have died for a lie?"
2. "The accounts of his resurrection happened too soon to be a lie."
3. "Nobody cried 'FALSE' with the accounts, which must mean it's true."
4. "Jerusalem was real. Pilate was real. So..."
5. "The tomb is empty. So how'd that happen, huh?"
6. "Women were the first witnesses, which they wouldn't have done if it had been a lie."
7. "Either Jesus was a liar, a lunatic or he was LORD".
Do I need to take these arguments apart? The flaws should be obvious.
Hey HM, did I miss anything?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist