Current Events > How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Saloonist 04/30/17 10:28:25 PM #1:	http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm So I've been reading that link and a few other sources making arguments for Christianity based on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I'm curious if any of you have a response against that evidence. The argument essentially boils down to the idea that skeptics already presume miracles don't happen. However, if they didn't make this (unjustified) presumption, they would have to accept the historicity of the resurrection or reject all of ancient history which presumably has a less solid historical record than the Resurrection. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878231910] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/resurrection-evidence.htm So I've been reading that link and a few other sources making arguments for Christianity based on the historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I'm curious if any of you have a response against that evidence. The argument essentially boils down to the idea that skeptics already presume miracles don't happen. However, if they didn't make this (unjustified) presumption, they would have to accept the historicity of the resurrection or reject all of ancient history which presumably has a less solid historical record than the Resurrection.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scoobydoobydont 04/30/17 10:30:47 PM #2:	There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. --- http://i.imgur.com/Lz9KiZA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/eUg3mP6.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MK8vbmw.png https://i.imgur.com/DNvL8q5.jpg <cite>scoobydoobydont posted [p:878232064] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KiwiTerraRizing 04/30/17 10:31:01 PM #3:	The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. --- Back in the Fam! <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted [p:878232080] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 10:31:42 PM #4:	scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. KiwiTerraRizing posted... The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878232122] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 10:33:45 PM #5:	If, for example, you doubt the historicity of the Gospels altogether, essentially all of ancient history must be rejected. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878232246] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>If, for example, you doubt the historicity of the Gospels altogether, essentially all of ancient history must be rejected.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
loafy013 04/30/17 10:34:22 PM #6:	Saloonist posted... I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place. --- The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes. That's fact. Everything else, is theory. <cite>loafy013 posted [p:878232283] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Wutobliteration 04/30/17 10:34:23 PM #7:	Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Athists or not, people so far can't actually disprove the existence of Jesus due to the overwhelming evidence and recordings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus <cite>Wutobliteration posted [p:878232285] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus. Athists or not, people so far can't actually disprove the existence of Jesus due to the overwhelming evidence and recordings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KiwiTerraRizing 04/30/17 10:34:28 PM #8:	Saloonist posted... scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. KiwiTerraRizing posted... The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof. --- Back in the Fam! <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted [p:878232287] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scoobydoobydont 04/30/17 10:38:16 PM #9:	Saloonist posted... I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I don't need to read a random internet link. Absolutely zero credible historians would back such an inane theory, only religious historians looking to confirm their beliefs. I already have a multitude of ways to look for the opinions of real historians/anthropologists. Why would I click your link to someone saying something ridiculous? That would be like clicking a link to InfoWars for supposed breaking news instead of just going to BBC/NPR/etc. and getting credible news. --- http://i.imgur.com/Lz9KiZA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/eUg3mP6.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MK8vbmw.png https://i.imgur.com/DNvL8q5.jpg <cite>scoobydoobydont posted [p:878232498] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I don't need to read a random internet link. Absolutely zero credible historians would back such an inane theory, only religious historians looking to confirm their beliefs. I already have a multitude of ways to look for the opinions of real historians/anthropologists. Why would I click your link to someone saying something ridiculous? That would be like clicking a link to InfoWars for supposed breaking news instead of just going to BBC/NPR/etc. and getting credible news.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 10:38:59 PM #10:	loafy013 posted... Saloonist posted... I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place. The testimony about Jesus was written shortly after his death in which eyewitnesses to the events of the Gospels were still living which is not similar to mythical figures like Zeus or Odin. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878232552] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>loafy013 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place.</quote> The testimony about Jesus was written shortly after his death in which eyewitnesses to the events of the Gospels were still living which is not similar to mythical figures like Zeus or Odin.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Medussa 04/30/17 10:39:51 PM #11:	I'll worry about that once anyone provides some. --- Boom! That's right, this is all happening! You cannot change the channel now! Act now! Venchmen are standing by for your orders! <cite>Medussa posted [p:878232602] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>I'll worry about that once anyone provides some.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 10:40:11 PM #12:	scoobydoobydont posted... Saloonist posted... I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I don't need to read a random internet link. Absolutely zero credible historians would back such an inane theory, only religious historians looking to confirm their beliefs. I already have a multitude of ways to look for the opinions of real historians/anthropologists. Why would I click your link to someone saying something ridiculous? That would be like clicking a link to InfoWars for supposed breaking news instead of just going to BBC/NPR/etc. and getting credible news. You have already assumed that you are right without dealing with the arguments presented, which are too lengthy to lay out here but can be found in the link So since you have taken yourself out of the argument because you don't wish to deal with the arguments I posted, I ask you to refrain from posting in this topic. Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link". --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878232635] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I don't need to read a random internet link. Absolutely zero credible historians would back such an inane theory, only religious historians looking to confirm their beliefs. I already have a multitude of ways to look for the opinions of real historians/anthropologists. Why would I click your link to someone saying something ridiculous? That would be like clicking a link to InfoWars for supposed breaking news instead of just going to BBC/NPR/etc. and getting credible news.</quote> You have already assumed that you are right without dealing with the arguments presented, which are too lengthy to lay out here but can be found in the link So since you have taken yourself out of the argument because you don't wish to deal with the arguments I posted, I ask you to refrain from posting in this topic. Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link".</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
loafy013 04/30/17 10:41:27 PM #13:	Saloonist posted... loafy013 posted... Saloonist posted... I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place. The testimony about Jesus was written shortly after his death in which eyewitnesses to the events of the Gospels were still living which is not similar to mythical figures like Zeus or Odin. Really, because there have been plenty of accounts handed down regarding the miracles Zeus performed. It is just they are much older, so people discount them. --- The ball is round, the game lasts 90 minutes. That's fact. Everything else, is theory. <cite>loafy013 posted [p:878232732] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>loafy013 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place.</quote> The testimony about Jesus was written shortly after his death in which eyewitnesses to the events of the Gospels were still living which is not similar to mythical figures like Zeus or Odin.</quote> Really, because there have been plenty of accounts handed down regarding the miracles Zeus performed. It is just they are much older, so people discount them.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 10:43:29 PM #14:	loafy013 posted... Saloonist posted... loafy013 posted... Saloonist posted... I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place. The testimony about Jesus was written shortly after his death in which eyewitnesses to the events of the Gospels were still living which is not similar to mythical figures like Zeus or Odin. Really, because there have been plenty of accounts handed down regarding the miracles Zeus performed. It is just they are much older, so people discount them. Most mythicists of Zeus were writing about events that occurred in a primordial era or hundreds if not thousands of years before their time. Thats different from the New Testament which was written shortly after Jesus' death. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878232865] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>loafy013 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>loafy013 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> Their 'evidence' can also be used to show Zeus and Odin are also true to their myths. And they start with a presumption that Jesus existed in the first place.</quote> The testimony about Jesus was written shortly after his death in which eyewitnesses to the events of the Gospels were still living which is not similar to mythical figures like Zeus or Odin.</quote> Really, because there have been plenty of accounts handed down regarding the miracles Zeus performed. It is just they are much older, so people discount them.</quote> Most mythicists of Zeus were writing about events that occurred in a primordial era or hundreds if not thousands of years before their time. Thats different from the New Testament which was written shortly after Jesus' death.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 10:44:24 PM #15:	KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. KiwiTerraRizing posted... The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof. Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss? --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878232920] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof.</quote> Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 10:45:37 PM #16:	If Jesus was resurrected from the dead, you'd expect the rest of the Bible to be true - particularly the parts where God/Jesus promises that his followers will partake in miracles and supernatural events. None of that happens today, though. If it was happening, there'd be strong evidence that it happens. <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878233005] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>If Jesus was resurrected from the dead, you'd expect the rest of the Bible to be true - particularly the parts where God/Jesus promises that his followers will partake in miracles and supernatural events. None of that happens today, though. If it was happening, there'd be strong evidence that it happens.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KiwiTerraRizing 04/30/17 10:47:30 PM #17:	Saloonist posted... KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. KiwiTerraRizing posted... The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof. Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss? You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source. --- Back in the Fam! <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted [p:878233157] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof.</quote> Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss?</quote> You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scoobydoobydont 04/30/17 10:47:48 PM #18:	Saloonist posted... You have already assumed that you are right without dealing with the arguments presented, which are too lengthy to lay out here but can be found in the link So since you have taken yourself out of the argument because you don't wish to deal with the arguments I posted, I ask you to refrain from posting in this topic. Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link". Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. --- http://i.imgur.com/Lz9KiZA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/eUg3mP6.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MK8vbmw.png https://i.imgur.com/DNvL8q5.jpg <cite>scoobydoobydont posted [p:878233183] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>You have already assumed that you are right without dealing with the arguments presented, which are too lengthy to lay out here but can be found in the link So since you have taken yourself out of the argument because you don't wish to deal with the arguments I posted, I ask you to refrain from posting in this topic. Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link".</quote> Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 11:00:29 PM #19:	scoobydoobydont posted... Saloonist posted... You have already assumed that you are right without dealing with the arguments presented, which are too lengthy to lay out here but can be found in the link So since you have taken yourself out of the argument because you don't wish to deal with the arguments I posted, I ask you to refrain from posting in this topic. Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link". Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. If you're not willing to engage with the arguments then I don't see what you have to offer. If his arguments are obviously flawed, then picking them apart should not be too difficult. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878234058] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>You have already assumed that you are right without dealing with the arguments presented, which are too lengthy to lay out here but can be found in the link So since you have taken yourself out of the argument because you don't wish to deal with the arguments I posted, I ask you to refrain from posting in this topic. Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link".</quote> Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything.</quote> If you're not willing to engage with the arguments then I don't see what you have to offer. If his arguments are obviously flawed, then picking them apart should not be too difficult.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:04:15 PM #20:	scoobydoobydont posted... Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. Get off your high horse. <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878234289] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. </quote> Get off your high horse.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 11:07:47 PM #21:	KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. KiwiTerraRizing posted... The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof. Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss? You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source. The reliability and consistency of the Gospels as texts is widely accepted. Our manuscripts for them are numerous and consistent. They are closer to the events they describe than the vast majority of ancient history. You may dispute certain events, but there is much in the gospels that is historically accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels?wprov=sfla1 --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878234529] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof.</quote> Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss?</quote> You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source.</quote> The reliability and consistency of the Gospels as texts is widely accepted. Our manuscripts for them are numerous and consistent. They are closer to the events they describe than the vast majority of ancient history. You may dispute certain events, but there is much in the gospels that is historically accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels?wprov=sfla1</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:09:53 PM #22:	Saloonist posted... KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. KiwiTerraRizing posted... The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof. Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss? You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source. The reliability and consistency of the Gospels as texts is widely accepted. Our manuscripts for them are numerous and consistent. They are closer to the events they describe than the vast majority of ancient history. You may dispute certain events, but there is much in the gospels that is historically accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels?wprov=sfla1 Sure, the resurrection is a good argument. But it's not complete enough, imo. If it really happened, you'd expect the rest of the Bible to be true too. Unfortunately we see that it isn't true, especially with regards to New Testament promises of God's intervention in people's lives. So it's safe to conclude that the arguments for the resurrection are simply the product of 2,000 years of refining an argumentative framework. After that long, any incredible idea can have an appearance of being defensible. <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878234651] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof.</quote> Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss?</quote> You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source.</quote> The reliability and consistency of the Gospels as texts is widely accepted. Our manuscripts for them are numerous and consistent. They are closer to the events they describe than the vast majority of ancient history. You may dispute certain events, but there is much in the gospels that is historically accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels?wprov=sfla1</quote> Sure, the resurrection is a good argument. But it's not complete enough, imo. If it really happened, you'd expect the rest of the Bible to be true too. Unfortunately we see that it isn't true, especially with regards to New Testament promises of God's intervention in people's lives. So it's safe to conclude that the arguments for the resurrection are simply the product of 2,000 years of refining an argumentative framework. After that long, any incredible idea can have an appearance of being defensible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
prettyprincess 04/30/17 11:14:28 PM #23:	If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1). hmm --- And in an infinite regress, tell me, why is the pain of birth lighter borne than the pain of death? http://www.last.fm/user/followthegospel <cite>prettyprincess posted [p:878234944] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><quote>If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1).</quote> hmm</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Darmik 04/30/17 11:14:43 PM #24:	I think Jesus did exist. He was just an extremely charismatic, intelligent cultist. The most successful one in history. --- Kind Regards, Darmik <cite>Darmik posted [p:878234959] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>I think Jesus did exist. He was just an extremely charismatic, intelligent cultist. The most successful one in history.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 11:16:30 PM #25:	QuantumScript posted... ... I don't think thats a defensible position. I don't think that people who believe the Resurrection was historical fact necessarily believe that the story of Adam and Even or Jonah and the whale are therefore historical fact. They are a drastically different sort of genre. The Bible contains many genres including myths, poetry, proverbs, chronicles, epistles, and the biographical-style of writing that characterizes the Gospels. Also, I don't think you can say that God doesn't intervene in people's lives, at least not without offering proof for the presumption. Many people today state the opposite, an not in fuzzy spiritual terms. But attest to miracles literally. So you reach one of the same issues as rejecting the resurrection without dealing with the historical argument, which is presuming that miracles don't happen. At least that's what I suspect the author would say. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878235063] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote>...</quote> I don't think thats a defensible position. I don't think that people who believe the Resurrection was historical fact necessarily believe that the story of Adam and Even or Jonah and the whale are therefore historical fact. They are a drastically different sort of genre. The Bible contains many genres including myths, poetry, proverbs, chronicles, epistles, and the biographical-style of writing that characterizes the Gospels. Also, I don't think you can say that God doesn't intervene in people's lives, at least not without offering proof for the presumption. Many people today state the opposite, an not in fuzzy spiritual terms. But attest to miracles literally. So you reach one of the same issues as rejecting the resurrection without dealing with the historical argument, which is presuming that miracles don't happen. At least that's what I suspect the author would say.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 11:17:20 PM #26:	prettyprincess posted... If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1). hmm Yeah I do think he overstated there. He should have at least said offered strong support for (1). But I dont think it detracts much or at all from his argument. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878235109] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>prettyprincess posted...</cite> <quote><quote>If we can refute all other theories (2-5), we will have proved the truth of the resurrection (1).</quote> hmm</quote> Yeah I do think he overstated there. He should have at least said offered strong support for (1). But I dont think it detracts much or at all from his argument.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:24:20 PM #27:	Saloonist posted... QuantumScript posted... ... I don't think thats a defensible position. I don't think that people who believe the Resurrection was historical fact necessarily believe that the story of Adam and Even or Jonah and the whale are therefore historical fact. They are a drastically different sort of genre. The Bible contains many genres including myths, poetry, proverbs, chronicles, epistles, and the biographical-style of writing that characterizes the Gospels. Also, I don't think you can say that God doesn't intervene in people's lives, at least not without offering proof for the presumption. Many people today state the opposite, an not in fuzzy spiritual terms. But attest to miracles literally. So you reach one of the same issues as rejecting the resurrection without dealing with the historical argument, which is presuming that miracles don't happen. At least that's what I suspect the author would say. If there are real miracles happening, why isn't there proof? It'd be kind of hard to hide a bona fide miracle. And how do you know the resurrection story isn't the same as the Jonah story? <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878235509] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote>...</quote> I don't think thats a defensible position. I don't think that people who believe the Resurrection was historical fact necessarily believe that the story of Adam and Even or Jonah and the whale are therefore historical fact. They are a drastically different sort of genre. The Bible contains many genres including myths, poetry, proverbs, chronicles, epistles, and the biographical-style of writing that characterizes the Gospels. Also, I don't think you can say that God doesn't intervene in people's lives, at least not without offering proof for the presumption. Many people today state the opposite, an not in fuzzy spiritual terms. But attest to miracles literally. So you reach one of the same issues as rejecting the resurrection without dealing with the historical argument, which is presuming that miracles don't happen. At least that's what I suspect the author would say.</quote> If there are real miracles happening, why isn't there proof? It'd be kind of hard to hide a bona fide miracle. And how do you know the resurrection story isn't the same as the Jonah story?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
_Near_ 04/30/17 11:24:28 PM #28:	I require a higher burden of proof when a source tells me that the laws of nature, time, and space have been thoroughly violated. The ressurection needs to be corroborated by a multiplicity of sources to be considered seriously. --- http://i.imgur.com/QoIYepz.gif Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you. <cite>_Near_ posted [p:878235517] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>I require a higher burden of proof when a source tells me that the laws of nature, time, and space have been thoroughly violated. The ressurection needs to be corroborated by a multiplicity of sources to be considered seriously.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
prettyprincess 04/30/17 11:27:56 PM #29:	this entire thing is shoddily written and not at all based in tangible data or citations apart from the gospels (2) The witnesses were qualified. They were simple, honest, moral people who had firsthand knowledge of the facts. this isn't worthwhile argumentative writing whatsoever --- And in an infinite regress, tell me, why is the pain of birth lighter borne than the pain of death? http://www.last.fm/user/followthegospel <cite>prettyprincess posted [p:878235705] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>this entire thing is shoddily written and not at all based in tangible data or citations apart from the gospels <quote>(2) The witnesses were qualified. They were simple, honest, moral people who had firsthand knowledge of the facts.</quote> this isn't worthwhile argumentative writing whatsoever</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Bok_Choi 04/30/17 11:28:09 PM #30:	Yeshwa of Nazareth most definitely existed It's just whether or not he was the son of god that's questionable He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know --- I'm a good person. http://i.imgur.com/uj8LmVSl.jpg http://i.imgur.com/xPDF9Y0.jpg <cite>Bok_Choi posted [p:878235721] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>Yeshwa of Nazareth most definitely existed It's just whether or not he was the son of god that's questionable He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scoobydoobydont 04/30/17 11:32:06 PM #31:	QuantumScript posted... scoobydoobydont posted... Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. Get off your high horse. What a worthless response. --- http://i.imgur.com/Lz9KiZA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/eUg3mP6.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MK8vbmw.png https://i.imgur.com/DNvL8q5.jpg <cite>scoobydoobydont posted [p:878235886] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. </quote> Get off your high horse.</quote> What a worthless response.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:32:21 PM #32:	Bok_Choi posted... He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead" <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878235898] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know </quote> Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:32:40 PM #33:	scoobydoobydont posted... QuantumScript posted... scoobydoobydont posted... Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. Get off your high horse. What a worthless response. Your entire opinion is worthless <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878235926] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. </quote> Get off your high horse.</quote> What a worthless response.</quote> Your entire opinion is worthless</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KnightofShikari 04/30/17 11:36:12 PM #34:	QuantumScript posted... Bok_Choi posted... He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ --- https://i.imgur.com/JKyRsbT.gifv http://i.imgur.com/oBDoTFs.gifv http://imgur.com/c3vwiiq http://imgur.com/7TwJTAu <cite>KnightofShikari posted [p:878236088] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know </quote> Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead"</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:37:26 PM #35:	KnightofShikari posted... QuantumScript posted... Bok_Choi posted... He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ The Roman soldiers wouldn't have risked their own lives by being lazy or uninformed about their task. <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878236158] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>KnightofShikari posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know </quote> Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead"</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ</quote> The Roman soldiers wouldn't have risked their own lives by being lazy or uninformed about their task.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DarkChozoGhost 04/30/17 11:40:28 PM #36:	So the argument is "If you don't believe the bible, you can't believe any records of events from the same time period or earlier?" --- My sister's dog bit a hole in my Super Mario Land cartridge. It still works though - Skye Reynolds 3DS FC: 3239-5612-0115 <cite>DarkChozoGhost posted [p:878236318] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>So the argument is "If you don't believe the bible, you can't believe any records of events from the same time period or earlier?"</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
DiesMortis 04/30/17 11:41:05 PM #37:	Fuck your God --- Maledicte \| http://www.last.fm/user/chaosinferno "So sleep, sister sleep, and dream, me broken at your feet." <cite>DiesMortis posted [p:878236349] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>Fuck your God</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
KnightofShikari 04/30/17 11:43:45 PM #38:	QuantumScript posted... KnightofShikari posted... QuantumScript posted... Bok_Choi posted... He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ The Roman soldiers wouldn't have risked their own lives by being lazy or uninformed about their task. SECRET tunnel yo --- https://i.imgur.com/JKyRsbT.gifv http://i.imgur.com/oBDoTFs.gifv http://imgur.com/c3vwiiq http://imgur.com/7TwJTAu <cite>KnightofShikari posted [p:878236494] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KnightofShikari posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know </quote> Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead"</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ</quote> The Roman soldiers wouldn't have risked their own lives by being lazy or uninformed about their task.</quote> SECRET tunnel yo</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
infinitydev2020 04/30/17 11:47:13 PM #39:	DiesMortis posted... Fuck your God https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42_kcv4oL9k --- "I'm a handsome man with a charming personality" Gabe Newell <cite>infinitydev2020 posted [p:878236662] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DiesMortis posted...</cite> <quote>Fuck your God</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42_kcv4oL9k</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:47:45 PM #40:	DarkChozoGhost posted... So the argument is "If you don't believe the bible, you can't believe any records of events from the same time period or earlier?" his argument is that the new testament surpasses the standards of reliability that are applied to other ancient texts, and that automatically disqualifying the new testament means you're not really being honest with the standards if you don't also automatically disqualify all ancient texts. KnightofShikari posted... QuantumScript posted... KnightofShikari posted... QuantumScript posted... Bok_Choi posted... He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ The Roman soldiers wouldn't have risked their own lives by being lazy or uninformed about their task. SECRET tunnel yo ROMAN soldiers yo <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878236687] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>DarkChozoGhost posted...</cite> <quote>So the argument is "If you don't believe the bible, you can't believe any records of events from the same time period or earlier?"</quote> his argument is that the new testament surpasses the standards of reliability that are applied to other ancient texts, and that automatically disqualifying the new testament means you're not really being honest with the standards if you don't also automatically disqualify all ancient texts. <cite>KnightofShikari posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KnightofShikari posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Bok_Choi posted...</cite> <quote>He could have been moved otu of the tomb for all we know </quote> Not likely, Roman soldiers were guarding the tomb in order to make sure that wouldn't happen. They knew that his followers were expecting him to "come back from the dead"</quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Al-889M7_CQ</quote> The Roman soldiers wouldn't have risked their own lives by being lazy or uninformed about their task.</quote> SECRET tunnel yo</quote> ROMAN soldiers yo</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TrevorBlack79 04/30/17 11:49:22 PM #41:	scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. --- "a minority is someone who you can tell off the bat they are black/hispanic/colored. LGBT isn't a minority" - Blakkheim1 <cite>TrevorBlack79 posted [p:878236763] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Axiom 04/30/17 11:52:25 PM #42:	QuantumScript posted... ROMAN soldiers yo You keep saying that like Roman soldiers weren't completely corrupt and couldn't be bribed. Honestly there's any number of reasons that could explain the body being gone. Bribery the soldiers secretly being followers of his or them being ordered by a higher roman official who was a follower of his <cite>Axiom posted [p:878236898] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote>ROMAN soldiers yo</quote> You keep saying that like Roman soldiers weren't completely corrupt and couldn't be bribed. Honestly there's any number of reasons that could explain the body being gone. Bribery the soldiers secretly being followers of his or them being ordered by a higher roman official who was a follower of his</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ChromaticAngel 04/30/17 11:56:41 PM #43:	A guy writing down that he saw some other guy say "x" is not historical evidence. Historical evidence is "I find a cave with a mummy in it and tons of gilded artifacts everywhere and I can scientifically test that it is thousands of years old." In modern days, eyewitness testimony is so unreliable we literally end up with shit like rape victims identifying innocent men as their rapist. Combine that in an era where everyone is superstitious as fuck and you end up with no real historical evidence. --- https://puu.sh/tcLsT/24f4611235.png <cite>ChromaticAngel posted [p:878237091] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote>A guy writing down that he saw some other guy say "x" is not historical evidence. Historical evidence is "I find a cave with a mummy in it and tons of gilded artifacts everywhere and I can scientifically test that it is thousands of years old." In modern days, eyewitness testimony is so unreliable we literally end up with shit like rape victims identifying innocent men as their rapist. Combine that in an era where everyone is superstitious as fuck and you end up with no real historical evidence.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 11:58:07 PM #44:	ChromaticAngel posted... A guy writing down that he saw some other guy say "x" is not historical evidence. Historical evidence is "I find a cave with a mummy in it and tons of gilded artifacts everywhere and I can scientifically test that it is thousands of years old." In modern days, eyewitness testimony is so unreliable we literally end up with shit like rape victims identifying innocent men as their rapist. Combine that in an era where everyone is superstitious as fuck and you end up with no real historical evidence. So you therefore reject all of ancient history? --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878237156] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>ChromaticAngel posted...</cite> <quote>A guy writing down that he saw some other guy say "x" is not historical evidence. Historical evidence is "I find a cave with a mummy in it and tons of gilded artifacts everywhere and I can scientifically test that it is thousands of years old." In modern days, eyewitness testimony is so unreliable we literally end up with shit like rape victims identifying innocent men as their rapist. Combine that in an era where everyone is superstitious as fuck and you end up with no real historical evidence.</quote> So you therefore reject all of ancient history?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 04/30/17 11:59:13 PM #45:	Axiom posted... QuantumScript posted... ROMAN soldiers yo You keep saying that like Roman soldiers weren't completely corrupt and couldn't be bribed. Honestly there's any number of reasons that could explain the body being gone. Bribery the soldiers secretly being followers of his or them being ordered by a higher roman official who was a follower of his So you think it was a conspiracy? That has a lot of problems in itself as the link points out. --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878237188] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Axiom posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote>ROMAN soldiers yo</quote> You keep saying that like Roman soldiers weren't completely corrupt and couldn't be bribed. Honestly there's any number of reasons that could explain the body being gone. Bribery the soldiers secretly being followers of his or them being ordered by a higher roman official who was a follower of his</quote> So you think it was a conspiracy? That has a lot of problems in itself as the link points out.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 05/01/17 12:00:05 AM #46:	Saloonist posted... If, for example, you doubt the historicity of the Gospels altogether, essentially all of ancient history must be rejected. Why? There are plenty of 'historical' documents that have some truth to them, but also have parts that are verifiably proven false. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:878237222] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>If, for example, you doubt the historicity of the Gospels altogether, essentially all of ancient history must be rejected.</quote> Why? There are plenty of 'historical' documents that have some truth to them, but also have parts that are verifiably proven false.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scoobydoobydont 05/01/17 12:00:21 AM #47:	QuantumScript posted... scoobydoobydont posted... QuantumScript posted... scoobydoobydont posted... Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. Get off your high horse. What a worthless response. Your entire opinion is worthless Nah, my "opinion" is common sense backed up by every credible historian on the planet and the scientific method. You're an angry child buttmad that I dismissed a fairytale you believe in. --- http://i.imgur.com/Lz9KiZA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/eUg3mP6.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MK8vbmw.png https://i.imgur.com/DNvL8q5.jpg <cite>scoobydoobydont posted [p:878237232] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote><cite>QuantumScript posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>Working for a c-list college doesn't lend the author any credibility. And I'll post wherever I want, not indulging you in your delusions doesn't take me out of anything. </quote> Get off your high horse.</quote> What a worthless response.</quote> Your entire opinion is worthless</quote> Nah, my "opinion" is common sense backed up by every credible historian on the planet and the scientific method. You're an angry child buttmad that I dismissed a fairytale you believe in.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
JE19426 05/01/17 12:00:43 AM #48:	Saloonist posted... Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link". When it comes to discussing historical events, the only times a philosopher isn't a random person, is if they were a witness or have expertise in areas beside philosophy. <cite>JE19426 posted [p:878237248] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link".</quote> When it comes to discussing historical events, the only times a philosopher isn't a random person, is if they were a witness or have expertise in areas beside philosophy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
scoobydoobydont 05/01/17 12:04:59 AM #49:	JE19426 posted... Saloonist posted... Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link". When it comes to discussing historical events, the only times a philosopher isn't a random person, is if they were a witness or have expertise in areas beside philosophy. QFT. This guy is as credible on the issue as a music teacher or football coach. --- http://i.imgur.com/Lz9KiZA.jpg http://i.imgur.com/eUg3mP6.jpg https://i.imgur.com/MK8vbmw.png https://i.imgur.com/DNvL8q5.jpg <cite>scoobydoobydont posted [p:878237444] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link".</quote> When it comes to discussing historical events, the only times a philosopher isn't a random person, is if they were a witness or have expertise in areas beside philosophy.</quote> QFT. This guy is as credible on the issue as a music teacher or football coach.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Saloonist 05/01/17 12:05:11 AM #50:	JE19426 posted... Saloonist posted... Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link". When it comes to discussing historical events, the only times a philosopher isn't a random person, is if they were a witness or have expertise in areas beside philosophy. Well he's a well-known and respected Christian apologist. I don't know what more you people want. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft?wprov=sfla1 --- BasileosPetros, KhanofKhans, CokeZero, and many more <cite>Saloonist posted [p:878237450] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>JE19426 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote>Btw the author is a philosopher at Boston College, so it's not a "random link".</quote> When it comes to discussing historical events, the only times a philosopher isn't a random person, is if they were a witness or have expertise in areas beside philosophy.</quote> Well he's a well-known and respected Christian apologist. I don't know what more you people want. You can read about him here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kreeft?wprov=sfla1</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Current Events > How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus