Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Josephus mentions James the brother of Jesus and head of the Church in Jerusalem by name.

Hearsay proving hearsay. Good job, Randy. You still have absolutely no clue what history and evidence actually means. And yo have even less of a clue how the writers of old worked. But again, that's not surprising, since the only thing you have proven to us is your absolute ignorance on every topic not being bible.

You have nothing and the longer you go on, the more apparent it becomes that you will not because you cannot refute these five facts.

[Randy Carson]

Elvis never claimed divinity. Jesus did.

Elvis did not promise to rise from the dead. Jesus did.

Elvis did not perform other supernatural miracles during his lifetime. Jesus did.

Hopefully, you weren't trying to make a serious argument, were you?

Oh please....

Speaking of serious arguments. Do you even understand that concept? Are you out to loony us to death or what is this?

Quote a scholar. Cite a text. Make an argument.

(You have nothing.)

[Cato]

Hopefully, you weren't trying to make a serious argument, were you?

None of the preceding bullshit had anything to do with your reliance on the equally elusive disciples believing that they saw Jesus after he died. You asked for a theory. I gave you one by comparison, that people are fucking nuts and believe they see all sorts of unbelievable shit (ghosts, aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.). You then pile on with erroneous crap. You have nothing in the way of evidence, just poor rationalizations that make you feel comfortable in your delusion.

[abaris]

You have nothing and the longer you go on, the more apparent it becomes that you will not because you cannot refute these five facts.

Present even one fact - got it? What about Bugs Bunny taking a shit on my front lawn? You haven't refuted that either. But it's based on the same solid evidence.

[Minimalist]

It seems that John Cleese has met Randy.

[Randy Carson]

Hopefully, you weren't trying to make a serious argument, were you?

None of the preceding bullshit had anything to do with your reliance on the equally elusive disciples believing that they saw Jesus after he died. You asked for a theory. I gave you one by comparison, that people are fucking nuts and believe they see all sorts of unbelievable shit (ghosts, aliens, Loch Ness monster, Bigfoot, etc.). You then pile on with erroneous crap. You have nothing in the way of evidence, just poor rationalizations that make you feel comfortable in your delusion.

There are five facts. Your theory must be demonstrated to be the best of the lot in terms of explaining all five of them.

Give it another go, cause the hallucination theory fails for many reasons.

Should I list them all?

[Randy Carson]

It seems that John Cleese has met Randy.

A pity that you don't spend more time examining your conscience and preparing for confession, Min.

You can be reconciled to the Church before it's too late.

[abaris]

There are five facts.

Five claims. You don't get the difference between fact and claim. So I call you ignorant and that's playing it nice.

[Spooky]

There are five facts.

Five claims. You don't get the difference between fact and claim. So I call you ignorant and that's playing it nice.

He'll likely never understand the difference.

[abaris]

He'll likely never understand the difference.

He's as ignorant as they come. Coupled with arrogance, which makes things worse. I don't know if I should laugh or cry over someone like this existing.