Jesus did not rise from the dead -- My debate opening statement.

[Minimalist]

Legal debates revolve around facts which are introduced into evidence.  Facts scare dripshit the way sunlight scares a vampire.

[Drich]

Legal debates revolve around facts which are introduced into evidence.  Facts scare dripshit the way sunlight scares a vampire.

So your saying all formal debates are if fact the 'legal debates' you just mentioned?

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

Meh..

formal debate is an intellectual safety net designed for people who like loops holes to give them protection when things get too out of control for them topically.

Debate is not about the topic, just the art of debate.

You have my thoughts, again do with them what you will.

RUN, RUN, RUN AWAY DRICH!  You could no more debate Jehanne's topic of your primitive faith, then you could heal the sick through prayer!

Deep, deep, down, you realize that you will NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER be able to defend your indefensible and primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible, EVER!
So what does the chicken pseudo-christian like you have to do? Yes, they come up with child-like lame excuses like you've done to try and save face and further embarrassment!


Hows it feel when you cannot defend your primitive faith, and especially when your serial killer Jesus' inspired word  states with specificity that you are to defend it?!

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5) 


Yet another pseudo-christian bites the dust to science, logic, reason, and biblical axioms, and is easily OWNED by the Atheist!  LOL!




m

[Drich]

Meh..

formal debate is an intellectual safety net designed for people who like loops holes to give them protection when things get too out of control for them topically.

Debate is not about the topic, just the art of debate.

You have my thoughts, again do with them what you will.

RUN, RUN, RUN AWAY DRICH!  You could no more debate Jehanne's topic of your primitive faith, then you could heal the sick through prayer!

Deep, deep, down, you realize that you will NEVER, and I repeat, NEVER be able to defend your indefensible and primitive Bronze and Iron Age bible, EVER!
So what does the chicken pseudo-christian like you have to do? Yes, they come up with child-like lame excuses like you've done to try and save face and further embarrassment!


Hows it feel when you cannot defend your primitive faith, and especially when your serial killer Jesus' inspired word  states with specificity that you are to defend it?!

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ," (2 Corinthians 10:5) 


Yet another pseudo-christian bites the dust to science, logic, reason, and biblical axioms, and is easily OWNED by the Atheist!  LOL!




m

The content of the rebuttals and the counter points are all there sport. All you need do now is pick up the ball and run with it. Show me how 'great thou art.'

The only thing missing to my rebuttal statement is the promise I will stick to structured debate. Again where following the rules of the debate structure take precedent over the content of the debate.

If you truly think you are smart enough to 'own' what others all have tried and failed then please Show me. Demonstrate this ownership. stop talking about it and shut me up with your great and powerful logic...

You know kinda what I did with the OP when I went line by line and not only refuted her analysis of 'science/aliens' but as religion, and God as well.

What you are doing is taking a victory lap before you or the 'op' has even entered the race.

---

Meh..

formal debate is an intellectual safety net designed for people who like loops holes to give them protection when things get too out of control for them topically.

Debate is not about the topic, just the art of debate.

You have my thoughts, again do with them what you will.

This is just nonsense.  What do you think that the entire legal system of the Western World is about?  It is an adversarial relationship where one litigant debates another nearly always in writing which is overseen by a referee (that is, a judge).  Lawyers, by the way, do not spend most of their time in court; they are at their desks working on legal documents and/or doing legal research (which is usually gets dumped on the paras.)

Do innocent people go to Jail because certain evidences are with held because it was not collected or obtained properly/In accordance to the 'formal legal debate structure?' Is the opposite true? Are guilty people ever release because the rules to this debate structure not observed? Is this a very rare occurrence or is this happening everyday in our judicial structure?

I'm not asking for an explanation as to why I am looking for a yes or no in all three instances.

Then By what was just demonstrated (Three yes-es to my three questions) then on can conclude that your legal debate structure prizes or hold the debate structure itself over the rightful outcome of said debate.

Which somehow does not make sense to you.

[Jehanne]

Do innocent people go to Jail because certain evidences are with held because it was not collected or obtained properly/In accordance to the 'formal legal debate structure?' Is the opposite true? Are guilty people ever release because the rules to this debate structure not observed? Is this a very rare occurrence or is this happening everyday in our judicial structure?

I'm not asking for an explanation as to why I am looking for a yes or no in all three instances.

Then By what was just demonstrated (Three yes-es to my three questions) then on can conclude that your legal debate structure prizes or hold the debate structure itself over the rightful outcome of said debate.

Which somehow does not make sense to you.

Sure, two death-row inmates were released here very recently:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6640

What makes sense to me is that you are worshiping a dead criminal whom the Romans executed 2,000 years ago.  Now, if you want to get a piece of wood, paint it, put it in your backyard and strew followers atop and around it and then call it "god", go right ahead.  I don't buy it and I never will.

[Minimalist]

Legal debates revolve around facts which are introduced into evidence.  Facts scare dripshit the way sunlight scares a vampire.

So your saying all formal debates are if fact the 'legal debates' you just mentioned?

What is being proposed here has nothing to do with "facts."  Just bullshit.  You know.  Like your silly god.

[21stCenturyIconoclast]

M




.

The content of the rebuttals and the counter points are all there sport. All you need do now is pick up the ball and run with it. Show me how 'great thou art.'

The only thing missing to my rebuttal statement is the promise I will stick to structured debate. Again where following the rules of the debate structure take precedent over the content of the debate.

If you truly think you are smart enough to 'own' what others all have tried and failed then please Show me. Demonstrate this ownership. stop talking about it and shut me up with your great and powerful logic... 

You know kinda what I did with the OP when I went line by line and not only refuted her analysis of 'science/aliens' but as religion, and God as well.

What you are doing is taking a victory lap before you or the 'op' has even entered the race.




Drich,


Simply put and tersely, the bottom line is that your serial killer Jesus and his inspired word is moot to begin with, because historicity, logic, and reason states 
that Jesus more so than not never existed in the first place. Comprende?  Pseudo-christians like you take the a priori stance that he actually existed before you fools do
your homework!  LOL!

Comically, you DO NOT have the acumen to even try to debate me upon your primitive Bronze and Iron Age cult known as Christianity,
when it concerns the impetus of your primitive belief, whether there was a BIBLE JESUS in the first place!

Move along in total embarrassment once again in front of your pseudo-christian brethren.  




m
b

[Angrboda]

I've never put anybody on ignore, but I'm having second thoughts about that policy.

[Drich]

M




.

The content of the rebuttals and the counter points are all there sport. All you need do now is pick up the ball and run with it. Show me how 'great thou art.'

The only thing missing to my rebuttal statement is the promise I will stick to structured debate. Again where following the rules of the debate structure take precedent over the content of the debate.

If you truly think you are smart enough to 'own' what others all have tried and failed then please Show me. Demonstrate this ownership. stop talking about it and shut me up with your great and powerful logic... 

You know kinda what I did with the OP when I went line by line and not only refuted her analysis of 'science/aliens' but as religion, and God as well.

What you are doing is taking a victory lap before you or the 'op' has even entered the race.




Drich,


Simply put and tersely, the bottom line is that your serial killer Jesus

Glob.. So who was Christ convicted of killing?

and his inspired word is moot to begin with, because historicity, logic, and reason states 
that Jesus more so than not never existed in the first place.

Not a fan of History huh? In addition to the quick 'goto' Tacitus, Josephus, Julius Africanus quotes the historian Thallus, Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper, The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

Lucian of Samosata was a second-century Greek writer who admits that Jesus was worshiped by Christians, introduced new teachings, and was crucified for them. He said that Jesus' teachings included the brotherhood of believers, the importance of conversion, and the importance of denying other gods. Christians lived according to Jesus’ laws, believed themselves to be immortal, and were characterized by contempt for death, voluntary self-devotion, and renunciation of material goods.

Mara Bar-Serapion confirms that Jesus was thought to be a wise and virtuous man, was considered by many to be the king of Israel, was put to death by the Jews, and lived on in the teachings of His followers.

Then we have all the Gnostic writings (The Gospel of Truth, The Apocryphon of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Treatise on Resurrection, etc.) that all mention Jesus.

In fact, we can almost reconstruct the gospel just from early non-Christian sources: Jesus was called the Christ (Josephus), did “magic,” led Israel into new teachings, and was hanged on Passover for them (Babylonian Talmud) in Judea (Tacitus), but claimed to be God and would return (Eliezar), which his followers believed, worshipping Him as God (Pliny the Younger).

There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, both in secular and biblical history. Perhaps the greatest evidence that Jesus did exist is the fact that literally thousands of Christians in the first century A.D., including the twelve apostles, were willing to give their lives as martyrs for Jesus Christ. People will die for what they believe to be true, but no one will die for what they know to be a lie.All independently report of Christ.
All point to a biblical consistent picture of Christ. albeit one piece at a time.
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

Comprende?  Pseudo-christians like you take the a priori stance that he actually existed before you fools do

Awwwe hims thinks him speaks from a position of authority...

your homework!  LOL!


Comically, you DO NOT have the acumen to even try to debate me upon your primitive Bronze and Iron Age cult known as Christianity,
when it concerns the impetus of your primitive belief, whether there was a BIBLE JESUS in the first place!

Move along in total embarrassment once again in front of your pseudo-christian brethren.  




m
b

says the 'thinker' trying to repeal any recorded History not to his liking. Victory laps before the race will not help you with me sport. only content. Do us both a favor and drop it, as it makes you look insecure and unsure of yourself. That is already a given. To make the obvious just makes you look sad. So again stop puffing yourself up till you have something to be proud of. As of this point you have nothing to be proud of, just a uncontested claim, and empty proclamations of victory.

Don't look now, but I've given you several sources to chew on that directly contradict what you claim... AND! I did it in plain English. So what say you now? church conspiracy? Made up sources? All not valid? Or could the youtube video that you got all your vim and vigor from, be wrong? Thus making you wrong???

[Crossless2.0]

Drich, as much as I enjoy watching you engage 21stCenturyIconoclast (sort of like watching a man box a crippled kangaroo), your quote from 'Gotquestions' is weak as hell. Most of those sources are either suspect (e.g., later interpolations into the text of Josephus) or relatively late works that do no more than establish that there were Christians with certain beliefs, which isn't in dispute. I really don't have time today to get into the mud and wrestle over each source, and it's not terribly important that I do so, since I'm not a Jesus-myther in the first place. But a compilation of late hearsay sources really doesn't help establish much of anything beyond the existence of a community of believers, few of whom would have had anything like first-hand knowledge of what they believed.

Like it or not, the best sources we have for the historical Jesus are the canonical Gospels, and they aren't terribly good sources.