MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

Oh...So all you have is a baseless, illogical ad hoc explanations.

Read what you said, and what I said...and if it doesn't make sense to you, read again..and after about 20 tries, if you still don't understand what was said to you, if you can't quite comprehend...then go back to any elementary school...possibly second grade english class, and I want you to learn, along with the students, how to comprehend what you read.

And if you still don't quite get it, we will have to figure something else out.

Wouldn't an omniscient god know that I will be unconvinced by such flawed and fallacious arguments, such as you offer?

Romans 1:20

20 "For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."


Never mind my flawed and fallacious arguments, according to God's word, you can draw the conclusion that he exists based on what has been made, so you are basically "without excuse"...so don't listen to me, listen to him...and if you think he is speaking fallaciously...thennn hey

---

Because everybody either became Christians, or became corpses. The Crusades were a bloody plague.

Nonsense. There were no Crusades in first century Palestine...and far from Crusades, the Christians were the one's being persecuted...so it was a BAD to be a Christian, and the word still spread.

---

Here, go learn something.

Naw, I'm straight. I don't need to read that crap. Go slang links to someone else.

I find it pathetic that a Christian doesn't know the history of his own religion.

Oh, I agree...to bad that shit don't apply to me.

I even linked a Christian book outlet so no bullshit excuses. In case you want to say you can't afford it, I read it after checking it out from my local library.

http://www.christianbook.com/christianit.../pd/118695

Damn dude, you wasted all of that time getting information for me that I won't read...and however many seconds/minutes you wasted on it, you will never get back.

I actually feel bad for you, bruh.

---

Yes, you will. Preaching and proselytising is not only irrelevant to the case you're trying to make, to the point it's actually hurting your case, it's also rude and downright insulting. You don't want to get banned; you stop doing the things that violate the Rules. Especially when called out on such behaviour.

Dude, I took heed to what you said and you are still bitching? You advised me to do something, I considered it, agreed to it, and said I'll do it..yet you reply by making a more stronger point than you made BEFORE I agreed to it??

Am I in the twilight zone??

---

I object to this thread. Case 1 was never resolved, and a convincing case was never presented let alone defended.

This thread is effectively spam.

Who determines whether or not it was solved? Is this a democracy or dictatorship?

[Cyberman]

No, not bitching - reinforcing. Some people need the points nailed home.

("More stronger"? Seriously? I bite my tongue at your "would of" and "could of" 's. Don't make me bite off the whole organ, please.)

[The Valkyrie]

Wow.

A whole new world of Woo!

[Jackalope]

Who determines whether or not it was solved?

The audience you are attempting to convince.

Is this a democracy or dictatorship?

It is neither.

In any case, to claim that you made a compelling case in your first thread was complete fiction.

Honestly, these threads should be merged to keep the bullshit all in one place.

[downbeatplumb]

Never mind my flawed and fallacious arguments, according to God's word, you can draw the conclusion that he exists based on what has been made, so you are basically "without excuse"...so don't listen to me, listen to him...and if you think he is speaking fallaciously...thennn hey

---

You do understand that we don't think god said anything at all ever don't you?

Because everybody either became Christians, or became corpses. The Crusades were a bloody plague.

Nonsense. There were no Crusades in first century Palestine...and far from Crusades, the Christians were the one's being persecuted...so it was a BAD to be a Christian, and the word still spread.

There is no evidence to support this persecution complex by Christians.

http://www.politicususa.com/2012/07/08/d...-part.html

But you must admit that Christianity was forced on an unwilling world by order of the emperors of Rome starting with Constantine. The crusades were just the bloody highlights.

[His_Majesty]

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

... 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.

---

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!

[Cato]

Here, go learn something.

Naw, I'm straight. I don't need to read that crap. Go slang links to someone else.

Willful ignorance, charming.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

I don't believe in your god, and I find the arguments that you marshal in support of your faith to be laughably inconclusive.

Now, I won't try to prove that your god doesn't exist, because I'm not in the habit of wasting my time presenting thoughtful arguments to childish jackasses who don't bother to read links presented to them, as you did above to Cato.

I'm also not in the habit of saving idiots from their own delusions, because I'm of the belief that those delusions will generally exert their own punishment in the end, for the deluded person who cannot think to escape his own mental shackles.

If you read your Bible, you'll know the futility of casting pearls before swine. I'm old enough to know better than to do so with you.

... 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.

Forgive my apathy, but I can't be bothered to give your opinion any high regard.

---

Damn dude, you wasted all of that time getting information for me that I won't read...

Your faith is so weak that it must be sheltered from the words of mere men?

Some god you worship, scared away by questions.

[The Valkyrie]

Naw, I'm straight. I don't need to read that crap. Go slang links to someone else.

Willful ignorance, charming.

In the end, it's all they have.

[Minimalist]

The vast majority agree that he did exist, pocaracas. Jesus of Nazareth's existence is about as certain as any other historical figure.

Mythological horseshit designed to get asswipes like you to keep donating to the fucking church.

Grow up, loser. Your boy is no more real than Zeus.