RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 13, 2015 at 4:17 am
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2015 at 4:29 am by pocaracas.)
(July 12, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:I don't claim to know everything and these little nuggets of information are always welcome to correct my opinion of those times of old.(July 12, 2015 at 7:25 am)pocaracas Wrote: Touche, sir!
But the law need not correspond to common practice.
Thank you. It's nice to get some recognition from the Other Side once in awhile when it is due.
(July 12, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:But this account comes to us from Luke, the companion of Paul, the guy who had no physical contact whatsoever with any Jesus... nor did he consider any second hand witness accounts. Although Luke may have considered such accounts, they would have come to him decades after the fact.pocaracas Wrote:Is that it?
Luke, the companion of Paul? Kind of a late testimonial attribution.... why do we keep coming to this?!
I just threw that in as a bonus. It does show that not even the disciples themselves were quick to believe the women, though.
Even if Luke was just penning actual accounts, who's to say those accounts were serious? who's to say those accounts were not lies?
(July 12, 2015 at 7:05 pm)Randy Carson Wrote:pocaracas Wrote:So... if the testimony came from women... why trust it? The obvious conclusion is: There is no reliable testimony of an empty tomb.
He's on the edge...closer...he's wavering...closer...will he fall....look into my eyes, poca...you're getting sleepy...
AHAHAHAHA! Don't quit your day-job, your hypnotics capabilities are appalling.