The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Deux)

[YahwehIsTheWay]

Now for your question about some rabbi having second thoughts and fact checking commandos. Jesus wasn't important for the jews. Even if we assume a historical Jesus, he was nothing but a trouble maker. And good riddance when he was crucified. Don't you think, there would be any roman records, if there had been some early movement claiming a god has risen from the grave. Even more so, if said god was executed a couple of days before by Roman authority?

The Fact Checking Commandos only sprang into action to confirm everything the Bible wrote is true.

When skeptics ask why there are no records of any of the miracles of Jesus or indeed anything about Jesus at all, that's when we switch back to "Hey, whatdaya want? It's not like anyone wrote anything down back then!"

It's kind of like the Trinity of historical records. When we need it to be one way, that's how it is. When we need it to be the other way, that's how it is. Neat, huh?

---

We could ban YahwehIsTheWay but then he would just return to his christian buddies claiming victory

Nooooooooooo! This is too much fun.

I'm up front about my two monikers and never post on the same thread in both identities.

If this forum did require me to delete one, I would post using this identity, close down the other one, and try to be the Steven Colbert of Apologetics.

---

Now imagine how it must have been BEFORE he had that in his signature!!

[out of character]
It was an experiment to see how many "tells" I needed to throw in.

First I just went with "True Christian ™" as my religion and "America's 3rd Best Christian" as my tag line with a few choice quotes from Landover Baptist Church in my sig.

Then I started posting "tells" in my posts like, say, using a Hollywood movie as "historical footage miraculously preserved for 2000 years" or self-refutations like asking why we don't have the writings of skeptics from 2000 years ago and then showing a picture of a book-burning.

Finally, I put in the winking smiley in the sig. Nothing is enough because everything I post is, however over-the-top my style, an actual argument published by WL Craig, Strobel, McDowell, Habermas, et al.

Seriously, people post the 8 arguments that I have and done it as if somehow the atheists should all fall to their knees and beg forgiveness for having doubted the revealed "Word".

I even got PMs from Christians on this forum who would eventually wise up and say "Hey, you're an atheist pretending to be a Christian!" I'd write back "What was your first clue?"
[/out of character]

---

I've come to the conclusion that certain people like to get attention, like being mysterious, and like giving the impression they are hoarding some deep truth.

[out of character]
That and I think that apologists would rather post endlessly about The Historical Jesus (TM of Bart Ehrman) instead of defending what they believe. With a little slight-of-hand, they can push the burden of proof on you to prove a negative about a vague point (i.e. prove some-guy-named-Yeshua didn't exist).

The Historical Jesus ™ is so vague that he easily slips into the cracks of our knowledge of the ancient world. The goal posts are easily moved about such that even an oblique, 2nd century and proven altered reference like Tacitus is bandied about as "hard evidence". And you can just keep harping on "scholars say..." endlessly to wear your opponent down or imply the skeptic is really some kook.

Hence, I'm now a Jesus Mooter instead of a Jesus Myther. I prefer to talk about what the Christian doesn't want to talk about, that these crappy, fallacy ridden 8 arguments (and perhaps a few others I missed) are as good as it gets for them.
[/out of character]