Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Randy Carson]

Correct. Consequently, you have no free will.

In fact, you couldn't choose to believe in God if you wanted to. John Calvin taught that some are simply predestined to hell.

Tough luck, becca. Wish I could help, but it's out of my hands.

Can you spin your head 360 degrees?  You don't have free will either if you can't.

No, I can't because I don't have free will. No one does, and this is proof.

Only Linda Blair had free will. But wait, maybe the existence of Linda Blair's free will proves the existence of God...

Damn...now, I'm gonna be up all night working through this.

How do you know I'm predestined for hell?  Did your god tell you that?

No, John Calvin told me that.

You are a vile little creature, Randy.

And I wanted to be a vile large creature. My free will has been violated again!  

[rexbeccarox]

John Calvin taught that some are simply predestined to hell.

Five minutes ago Randy was Catholic. What the fuck happened?

He became a Calvinist and threatened me with hell because I stumped him.

[Randy Carson]

Five minutes ago Randy was Catholic. What the fuck happened?

He became a Calvinist and threatened me with hell because I stumped him.

[Cato]

Five minutes ago Randy was Catholic. What the fuck happened?

He became a Calvinist and threatened me with hell because I stumped him.

Cool, that's fucking awesome! I could only merit being placed on 'ignore'.

[Redbeard The Pink]

I'll take this response as an indication that you cannot adequately refute the argument I just made, nor explain how your argument is different from this one. Thank you for finally conceding the point. I win. Jesus loses

[Crossless2.0]

As I said before, this thread is an extended exercise in Randy throwing shit against the wall to see if anything will stick. He'll cite Ehrman if he thinks it will serve his purpose while ignoring the fact that Ehrman doesn't believe in the Christ. He will refer to Calvin, in spite of Calvin's loathing of the Catholic Church. He pulled Pascal's Wager out of his ass in another thread without so much as blushing for shame at such a ham-fisted blunder. And sixty-eight pages into this pointless discussion, we are no closer to the promised "proof" of the resurrection than we were when it began. Big surprise.

Randy has absolutely no sense of what intellectual integrity might mean. In other words, he's a typical Christian apologist. Nothing to see here except a case lesson in the fundamental dishonesty of people who insist their imaginary friends are real and that the rest of us should take them seriously.

[Minimalist]

Last I checked Ehrman wasn't Christian, so no

Ehrman really is as guilty as the rest, though.  He has thoroughly trashed those fucking gospels as heavily-edited propaganda but still thinks there is a basis of 'fact' to them.  This enables him to take the jesus Rohrschact test and see exactly what he wants to see.  An apocalyptic preacher who did not come back from the dead or do any other fucking miracles.

What use that is to jesus freaks escapes me.  You'd have to ask Randy as he is the shithead who is so wrapped up in this nonsense.

Ehrman is trying to keep a foot in both camps.  Helps book sales.

[Randy Carson]

As I said before, this thread is an extended exercise in Randy throwing shit against the wall to see if anything will stick.  He'll cite Ehrman if he thinks it will serve his purpose while ignoring the fact that Ehrman doesn't believe in the Christ.  He will refer to Calvin, in spite of Calvin's loathing of the Catholic Church.  He pulled Pascal's Wager out of his ass in another thread without so much as blushing for shame at such a ham-fisted blunder.  And sixty-eight pages into this pointless discussion, we are no closer to the promised "proof" of the resurrection than we were when it began.  Big surprise.

Randy has absolutely no sense of what intellectual integrity might mean.  In other words, he's a typical Christian apologist.  Nothing to see here except a case lesson in the fundamental dishonesty of people who insist their imaginary friends are real and that the rest of us should take them seriously.

Hilarious.

I cite Ehrman because he is right on some points. Especially when he devastates the Jesus Mythers.
I referred to Calvin in sarcasm.
I posted Pascal's Wager because despite protestations to the contrary, it is valid (and no blunder).
And in this thread, several forum members have conceded one or more of the "minimal facts". Which is progress.

This house is being brick by brick, and it takes time for the truth to sink in. I may be here awhile.

Oh, but since you have decided to participate in this thread, would you have any thoughts WHATSOEVER on the actual material I have presented? That would be a refreshing change since no one has made any efforts to interact with or refute the material.

[Crossless2.0]

Since I'm not a 'Jesus Myther', I don't really care about your argument to this point. I concede the likelihood of an actual person at the bottom of these stories, but since the historical personage that may have inspired such tales is inextricably bound up with obvious legend and myth-making I don't think there is much that can be said about him. Your five alleged facts don't get you one step closer to demonstrating the resurrection, without which your faith is pointless, as Paul himself wrote. Continuing to cite the Biblical claims in lieu of compelling evidence is unimpressive and boring.

[Minimalist]

But it is all he's got.  It ain't much but believers don't need much.

Such is the value of "faith."