11-24-2017, 01:32 PM
|
#151
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Quote:
Andrew, Clutching at Straws wrote
1. You wish to offer evidence regarding the alleged truth of the the resurrection of Jesus. (Only referenced in the buy-bull)
2. The documents claimed as evidence come from ancient documents which record events, including from eye witnesses, which support the resurrection narrative. These documents for ease of reference are assembled in a book entitled the Bible.
My goodness, are you off base on this one. This has absolutely nothing to do with circular reasoning.
|
Try again fuckbumble, your semantic dribblings change nothing.
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
11-24-2017, 02:35 PM
|
#152
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
Try again fuckbumble, your semantic dribblings change nothing.
|
You are retarded. Who cares how the documents are referenced, it doesn't have anything to do with anything.
|
|
|
11-24-2017, 02:48 PM
|
#153
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
I'd give that one to Andrew.
All positive renditions of dead people walking would have been collated.
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
11-24-2017, 05:46 PM
|
#154
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Yaaay - delighted to learn that Poirot is real!
Wake me up when the resident cuntmuffin posts a non-biblical zombie Jesus doc ....
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 01:43 AM
|
#155
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
Yaaay - delighted to learn that Poirot is real!
Wake me up when the resident cuntmuffin posts a non-biblical zombie Jesus doc ....
|
There would/could never be any. If there was a non partisan witness to any of it they would be included in the book. So if it was true it would still be circular.
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 06:58 AM
|
#156
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Quote:
dogpet wrote
If there was a non partisan witness to any of it they would be included in the book.
|
They had between 50 - 110 years (at best) to get their NT shit together, so I'll wager there's nothing more. Still circular, unconvincing and a load of horse-shit.
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 07:52 AM
|
#157
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Great Ocean Road
Posts: 2,917
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
2. The documents claimed as evidence come from ancient documents which record events, including from eye witnesses, which support the resurrection narrative. These documents for ease of reference are assembled in a book entitled the Bible.
|
These ancient historical documents that preceded and were assembled in the bible. What are they called? where are they. Stop pulling shit out of mid-air.
Did you know the supposedly first gospel of Mark originally ended at the crucifixion and the resurrection narrative was stitched on to the end decades later? it's amazing that they would leave such an important part out of the story. It's almost as if they made it up later.
Once you are dead, you are nothing. Graffito, Pompeii
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 08:41 AM
|
#158
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
Kinich Ahau wrote
These ancient historical documents that preceded and were assembled in the bible. What are they called? where are they. Stop pulling shit out of mid-air.
Did you know the supposedly first gospel of Mark originally ended at the crucifixion and the resurrection narrative was stitched on to the end decades later? it's amazing that they would leave such an important part out of the story. It's almost as if they made it up later.
|
Not only that, but because Mark is the first gospel, we can say that the evidence points to the earliest christians having no knowledge of, or giving any importance to walking dead! Or for that matter, other magic, such as virgin birth.
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 09:08 AM
|
#159
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Looks like proofreading wasn't flavour of the month. When they made up their later shit, nobody thought to check and bring the earlier made up shit up to date! Wankers.
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 10:16 AM
|
#160
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Great Ocean Road
Posts: 2,917
|
I don't reckon making up the second part would have weighed too heavily on their concsiences since they had already made up the first part of the story.
Once you are dead, you are nothing. Graffito, Pompeii
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 01:36 PM
|
#161
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Hello Everyone.
The thread is developing into some lively discussion. The Holy Spirit is obviously touching you all!
Firstly, regarding "circular reasoning" it is not circular to offer evidence from witnessed sources.
And yes, the allegations made by the witnesses are themselves a type of evidence. Again I site an example, the 14 year old girl's testimony alleging sexual interference from Roy Moore. This is "evidence" (one can argue about how strong) that Roy Moore liked young girls.
To examine the evidence one looks for support, including the nature of the way the testimony came to be. Eg. How credible are the witnesses (are they partisan and if so in what way)? Do the witnesses contradict or reinforce certain testimony? How many witnesses are there? Are the witnesses first hand? Have the accounts been transcribed and tampered with?
There are books and debates galore on these subjects regarding the resurrection narrative and Christianity in general. I see that many of you have already to some degree looked into it.
The point I'm making is simply there is evidence in favour of the resurrection narrative, which can and should be sceptically looked at.
Do you guys really want to go deeper and debate the merits of the evidence?
I scoff at Atheists who routinely say "There is not a shred of evidence for God or Christianity" - this is simply an over statement and not true.
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 03:44 PM
|
#162
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
We've moved on from that Andrew. It's decided the resurrection & virgin birth tales are tall.
Mark's sources knew nothing about them so their invention is post Mark.
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 05:02 PM
|
#163
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Andrew is still trying to hammer the square Jesus peg into his triangular butt-hole.
He has no interest in truth, reason or honesty.
He's more than welcome to fuck off.
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 05:41 PM
|
#164
|
Stinkin' Mod
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,616
|
Quote:
Andrew66 wrote
I scoff at Atheists who routinely say "There is not a shred of evidence for God or Christianity"
|
Do you scoff at muslims, hindus, sikhs, joos, mormons, or the other millions of non-christians? You scoffing shitstain.
Stop the Holy See men!
|
|
|
11-25-2017, 08:23 PM
|
#165
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,407
|
Quote:
Smellyoldgit wrote
Do you scoff at muslims, hindus, sikhs, joos, mormons, or the other millions of non-christians? You scoffing shitstain.
|
I scoff at anyone who routinely says "There is not a shred of evidence for God or Christianity"
I don't scoff at anyone otherwise. just smartass liberal elites who think they know more than others, and they don't (like u).
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 PM.
|