RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
December 1, 2014 at 5:59 pm
(This post was last modified: December 1, 2014 at 6:08 pm by His_Majesty.)
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Paul met Peter, huh?
He sure did.
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: How would you know about that?
How do we know anything in history?
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Paul says so?
Damn right he did.
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Did Peter ratify that claim?
More goal post moving shit.
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Yes, the emperor and the local governor... both well placed hints to lend credence to the story... but does that make the story true?
It makes the story believable.
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Says Paul.... do you have accounts from other people claiming to have spoken with Paul?
Do you have statements from George Washington listing the names of all of the people that spoke to him? No, you don't...so based on your shitty logic, everyone that claims to have met George Washington and spoke with him...if GW didn't name them in a list of names that he jotted down throughout his life, those people did not speak to him
That kind of shitty logic works both ways.
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Did the Corinthians ever reply to his letters?
Paul was a journeyman...probably not.
(December 1, 2014 at 12:37 pm)pocaracas Wrote: See how you're using english the proper way, now?
"claimed to"
Tolkien claimed to use the Red Book of Westmarch as a base for the Lord of the Rings account.
Does that make Hobbits real? Rings of power? Wizards? Nazgul?
We will get in to that a tad bit later
(December 1, 2014 at 5:17 pm)robvalue Wrote: I have trouble taking seriously what Christian scholars have to say, if they are doing anything other than delivering demonstrable facts.
How can I trust someone to be objective on these matters when they have presupposed that it's all magically true before they have even begun?
Well, I can say the same thing about evolution. Most of them are already naturalists anyway...they presuppose macro changes like reptiles to birds...so how can I trust them to be objective on those matters with they have presupposed that it's all voodoo science before they even begun?
