RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Part 2)
December 14, 2014 at 3:17 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2014 at 3:26 pm by His_Majesty.)
(December 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: This throws your reading comprehension argument out the window. By you standard, no one alive today can write competently about, for example, the French Revolution, because no one alive today was alive then.
Again, reading comprehension...the only way to know about the French Revolution is for you to have some type of documentation...some type of oral or written trail dating from the events until now.
That was the point, that you've missed for like the 4th time.
(December 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The authors of the Gospel narratives were clearly NOT Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - virtually all historians agree on this point.
Nonsense. First off, the early Church were a lot closer to the events than you, me, or any other person living today...so they were in a much better position to know who wrote the Gospels. We are over 2,000 years removed from the scene, and the EARLIEST church fathers were a few DECADES removed from the scene, and the last I checked, the closer you get to the sources IN TIME, the more reliable the sources are. Second, even if Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John DIDN'T write their Gospels, the material for which we have CAME from them...and that is at worse.
(December 14, 2014 at 2:18 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The attributions of Gospel authorship are traditional, not factual.
You are implying that just because something is traditional, it can't be factual. A tradition can originate based on something that actually happened, Boru.
Second, I've already given reasons to conclude why the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, and you have yet to offer any objection to those inferences. So in other words, you are attacking everything but the evidence.
(December 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: He actually doesn't do anything at all, because he is a figment of your imagination.
Prove that God doesn't exist. And don't come at me with that "you can't prove a negative" garbage..or "the burden of proof is on you" crap...you made a statement of knowledge, you said "he actually doesn't do anything"...now I'd like you to prove your statement to be true.
(December 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: ... and not just me. The only thing you showed in that thread was that persistence and stupidity, when wedded in one person, can result in shitposting beyond all measure.
And the only thing you've shown in my brief tenure here is that you are seemingly incapable of making a post with any ounce of substance whatsoever. You are like the professional sports player that has been in the league for years, but hasn't had a "break-out" game yet.
(December 14, 2014 at 2:20 pm)robvalue Wrote: I agree this is at best just a comedy routine now of how badly an argument can be made. Part 3 may just cause the Internet to kill itself.
If you're out there God, just show up already and stop being a twat? These apologists are dying out here!
