As Arranged, Trump Has Been Acquitted

[SkepticThinker]

Yup, same thing. Go ahead and ignore it.

You're the one claiming similarities. Show me the similarity between Christ in the Bible and the christ of Islam?

Where did your 'humanism' argument go? I see you didn't respond to my reply concerning it. Perhaps it too is irrelevant. Just ignore it.

Good-Ole-Rebel

That poster has given you the similiarities several times now. Each time you've brushed it off and never addressed the points.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You guys are like liberals - history-challenged when it comes to the historical Jesus.

Still not a response to my argument.


Ho hum.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Do better yourself.

Two sources were first century:

Papias - born 60 AD and,

Polycarp - a disciple of the Apostle John - born 69 AD.

And then there's Paul and Matthew, Mark, Luke, Jude, James, and John who wrote in the 1st century.

Oh. My bad, two of your supposed sources were only born 30 and 40 years after the supposed death of your supposed Jesus. That is still 30 and 40 years too late to be a first hand witness..assuming they were 1 year old when they saw it happen.

Ok then lol.

Also, very few legitimate scholars date the gospels to the first century, and even the ones that do date them late in the first century, decades after the fact.

Not that it matters because there is no historical evidence as per just who wrote any of them.

Know that I write this not for you, as I realize nothing I could ever present you with could shake your blind Faith, but for those reading that might still be open to reason.

 

[Spartan]

Oh. My bad, two of your supposed sources were only born 30 and 40 years after the supposed death of your supposed Jesus. That is still 30 and 40 years too late to be a first hand witness..assuming they were 1 year old when they saw it happen.

Ok then lol.

Ok then. By your sophomoric logic any references to historical information about Abraham Lincoln , etc., 30-40 years later should also be thrown into the trash heap. And it doesn't really matter to you that there were eyewitness accounts written either by people who were there (i.e. Matthew, John, etc., etc.). You conveniently kick those to the curb too.

Also, very few legitimate scholars date the gospels to the first century, and even the ones that do date them late in the first century, decades after the fact.

That's just more nonsense.

In addition, the earliest mention of the resurrection dates to only a handful of years after the event.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

It would be great if someday folks like you would dig deeper and do some serious research, instead of just parroting the usual liberal skeptics points.

So far you're about 0-3 because you don't do legitimate reviews and homework.

 

[Spartan]

Telling everybody just to read a book doesn't make your case for you.
Sorry.

You have to actually, you know, make your case.

Like I said, the evidence that blows your claim away is contained in the book you refuse to read. Think about that.

That must be like kryptonite to you folks - to actually read a book that demolishes your weak claims. But then you probably don't want your world upended, do you? You might lose face and have to repent.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Ok then. By your sophomoric logic any references to historical information about Abraham Lincoln , etc., 30-40 years later should also be thrown into the trash heap. And it doesn't really matter to you that there were eyewitness accounts written either by people who were there (i.e. Matthew, John, etc., etc.). You conveniently kick those to the curb too.

No that's not really a fair comparison, as ol Abe has contemporary evidence of a certain thing I like to call existing. He was president, he gave speeches that were written about by those that saw them, he wrote things, the are photographs, etc.
It is precisely this lack of contemporary evidence for your zombie that puts later claims in doubt.

That's just more nonsense.

In addition, the earliest mention of the resurrection dates to only a handful of years after the event.

Earliest Mention of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ

It would be great if someday folks like you would dig deeper and do some serious research, instead of just parroting the usual liberal skeptics points.

So far you're about 0-3 because you don't do legitimate reviews and homework.

My my, that's rather disingenuous of you isn't it. The scripture he speaks of is of course the old testament. What he is saying there that this Jesus fellow, whom he only saw during some sort of epileptic fit after falling off his ride, fulfils some Jewish prophesies.

If I fall and bonk my head and hallucinate a talking frog, that does not fulfil the prophecies of Jim Henson, even if I swear to miss piggy that others(who didn't care to mention it) also saw it.

 

[Spartan]

No that's not really a fair comparison, as ol Abe has contemporary evidence of a certain thing I like to call existing. He was president, he gave speeches that were written about by those that saw them, he wrote things, the are photographs, etc.
It is precisely this lack of contemporary evidence for your zombie that puts later claims in doubt.

Your double standard amuses me. No one from antiquity had photos of them. Not many have writings that date to their lifetime. So go get your history books off the shelf and start ripping out vast sections of them. Just to be consistent. LOL.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If people like you would ever work up a lather and do your proper due-diligence, you wouldn't make such uninformed, vacuous statements.

The evidence that blows your claim away is contained in the book you refuse to read.

You haven't provided any reason to think that this book won't be a waste of time. I have read multiple links from apologists, not one of them of any value. If you want others to take the time to read a book, you need to at least provide a summary of the authors major points making his case. If there's nothing new there, sorry, been there and done that. I'm open to new evidence, but not to rehashed and formerly rejected arguments.

But even if Habermas did have something new, I would need to see it come from a more trusted source than a Christian apologist for reasons previously given. Who knows what he has deliberately omitted that would undermine his argument as I illustrated is commonplace with apologists. Apologists have burned all of their bridges with me.

But I'll give you the chance to do your due diligence.and summarize Habermas' best arguments if you can do that, and give you feedback on that. You may also quote Habermas to support your argument, but it has to come from you, because you're here and he isn't.

I'm not expecting anything from you except more of the same.

By your sophomoric logic any references to historical information about Abraham Lincoln , etc., 30-40 years later should also be thrown into the trash heap.

No, according to his logic, second-hand accounts of extraordinary events should not be believed without better evidence.

I also wouldn't believe a report from an alleged eye witness that Lincoln rose from the dead, much less a second- or third-hand account. And as another poster has told you, we have much better evidence that a man named Abraham Lincoln once lived, was the American president during its civil war, and was later assassinated, than that a man named Jesus was born to a virgin, walked on water, and was resurrected after death.

But that only matters if reason properly applied to evidence is how you decide what is true about the world. Belief should be tentative, the degree of belief (likely, very likely, as certain as is possible, etc..) and should be commensurate with the quality and quantity of all available and relevant evidence supporting that belief, meaning that the degree of certitude is amenable to revision pending new evidence. Using those standards, it is as certain as it is possible to be that Lincoln lived the life we think he did, and as unlikely as possible that anybody was ever revivified after biological death (distinct from sudden death and brain death, both of which recovery from has been documented).

And we can put the life of Julius Caesar, who is the one usually cited in these discussions, between these two, but much closer to Lincoln than Jesus. The existence of Socrates as described and paraphrased by Plato is less certain

But notice also that the claim that there were militaristic emperors, philosophers, and American presidents is much more believable than claims about a risen god coming to earth because we know that lives like the first three have been lived, but not that the last one.

Furthermore, it is unimportant whether any of the first three people lived the lives actually attributed to them occurred. except that of Jesus.

And it doesn't really matter to you that there were eyewitness accounts written either by people who were there (i.e. Matthew, John, etc., etc.). You conveniently kick those to the curb too.

You are aware, are you not, that Luke and Matthew are repeating much of Mark.

And why should I believe any of them? Mark who? What were his issues and agenda? What was his character? How did people who met him feel about him? Was he gullible? Was he earning his keep in this manner and therefore had an incentive to spread this message however much or little he believed it?

Sorry, you do, but I don't have enough faith to believe these anonymous and unvetted voices from the past, and there is no other way to believe them. As even Buddha instructed us centuries before Christ,

• "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations." - Buddha

That's a description of skepticism, one of the best ideas humanity ever concocted, and it advises us to not believe either you or the Gospel writers.

Like I said, the evidence that blows your claim away is contained in the book you refuse to read. Think about that.

What I'm thinking about is your inability to give anybody a reason to read a Christian apologist. I'm pretty sure that I know why.

Know that I write this not for you, as I realize nothing I could ever present you with could shake your blind Faith, but for those reading that might still be open to reason.

That's an important point for all of us to keep in mind when writing to faith-based thinkers and offering them arguments that apply reason to evidence. They aren't interested. Your only weapon is impervious to a faith-based confirmation bias. There has to be another reason to write these posts, and as you said, it's to share with those who can be influenced by compelling arguments.

And that's why part of the process is not just to rebut the faith-based thinker, but also to point out his failure to rebut the argument (as I sure you agree, "Nonsense" followed by irrelevant comments that do not address exactly what element of the argument is being disputed and why are not a rebuttal).

And toward that end, let's not overlook that @Spartan hid from this:

Spartan: "Where's your refutation of the resurrection of Jesus? When have you or anyone else EVER disproven that??"

Me: Have you disproven all of the competing resurrection stories, or is it only yours that requires that disproving in your estimation?

"Examples of gods who die and later return to life are most often cited from the religions of the Ancient Near East, and traditions influenced by them include Biblical and Greco-Roman mythology and by extension Christianity. The concept of a dying-and-rising god was first proposed in comparative mythology by James Frazer's seminal The Golden Bough (1890). Frazer associated the motif with fertility rites surrounding the yearly cycle of vegetation. Frazer cited the examples of Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus and Jesus Christ." - Wiki

Go ahead and disprove that Osiris wasn't resurrected. When have you or anyone else EVER disproven that??
​

< sound of crickets chirping, a pin dropping in the next room, and a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >

Bad faith disputation includes evading salient arguments and offering arguments of a form that one wouldn't accept himself, such as hoping that others will consider it important and relevant that the resurrection can't be disproven, but rejecting that as important when Jesus is changed to Osiris,

Spartan won't care about this post, and if there weren't others like you reading them, there's be no value in writing these posts to anybody but me, meaning I could write them on a Word document and then delete it with just as much benefit.

 

[Spartan]

You haven't provided any reason to think that this book won't be a waste of time. I have read multiple links from apologists, not one of them of any value. If you want others to take the time to read a book, you need to at least provide a summary of the authors major points making his case. If there's nothing new there, sorry, been there and done that. I'm open to new evidence, but not to rehashed and formerly rejected arguments.

But even if Habermas did have something new, I would need to see it come from a more trusted source than a Christian apologist for reasons previously given. Who knows what he has deliberately omitted that would undermine his argument as I illustrated is commonplace with apologists. Apologists have burned all of their bridges with me.

But I'll give you the chance to do your due diligence.and summarize Habermas' best arguments if you can do that, and give you feedback on that. You may also quote Habermas to support your argument, but it has to come from you, because you're here and he isn't.

To recap, you're too lazy to read the book that refutes your "no evidence for the resurrection" claim. Astonishing. You're like the House managers who were too lazy to call their witnesses and then tried to force the Senate to do their due-diligence for them.

And by the way, the amount of evidence in that book for the resurrection would require hours and hours to produce and would result in the mods dinging me for violation of the "fair use" protocol. Read the book.

You are aware, are you not, that Luke and Matthew are repeating much of Mark.

It's pretty much the same story, sport, but each has some info not found in the other Gospels. Plus, it's not certain Mark was the first Gospel. Origen wrote, "Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language" (Commentaries on Matthew [cited by Eusebius in History of the Church 6:25]).

And why should I believe any of them?

You won't. You'll dig up some lame reason to kick it all to the curb because that's your agenda. You'll refuse to read books that contain the evidences that demolish your futile claims. You'll make the lame argument that they're apologists, thus they have to be liars and fools. That's what you do - ignore or conjure up sophomoric reasons not to believe any of it.

Yep, according to you they're ALL LIARS AND CHARLATANS - every last one of them. But you - 2,000 years later - have the truth. You're not fooling anybody. You're just making yourself look weak by not doing your proper due-diligence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you're too lazy to read the book that refutes your "no evidence for the resurrection" claim.

No, just not interested. And I'm pretty sure I know why you won't summarize the findings. You know that there was nothing new there, and that I'm not interested in arguments already rejected.

the amount of evidence in that book for the resurrection would require hours and hours to produce

All I ask for is the best evidence. You apparently don't have any good enough to summarize or even mention. What more do I need to know about your claims for this book? It will disappoint as surely as you have.

Frankly, even if a resurrection did occur, there could be no evidence that it had, so why read a book that claims to have such evidence?

It's pretty much the same story, sport, but each has some info not found in the other Gospels.

Irrelevant.

The point is that the three synoptic gospels are not three separate reports from three independent witnesses, and since I don't belief "Mark," I don't believe his protoges, either. You keep forgetting that there is a huge difference between you and me - I need a reason to believe anything. You don't. You just choose what you wish to be true and assume that it is. So, you believe Mark.

I notice that you chose to evade the matter of being unable to vet "Mark." I guess such things don't matter to you. You're just going to believe him anyway, even though for all you know, he made much of his gospel up to help with the tips he got from preaching, which is easier than laboring. He could be a con man making a living playing religious authority as I assume your man Habermas is doing (he's not giving his book away, is he, even though he represents that it contains some of the most important information that one could have).

Mark no doubt believes things by faith. How much of his account is he just making up and believing by faith? There's no way to tell. So nothing that he says that can't be verified by physical evidence should be assumed to be correct, and even then, I'd be believing the evidence, not Mark..I'm just not that gullible.

You'll make the lame argument that they're apologists, thus they have to be liars and fools.

I made a solid argument against trusting Christian apologists with two good examples of a particular type of dishonesty - lying by omission (C14 dating and human evolution).

You not only failed to rebut that argument (calling it lame isn't a rebuttal, just dismissive hand-waving), you ignored it in the hopes that it would just go away. The argument stands unchallenged and unchanged. Christian apologists should not be trusted.

That argument applies as much to Habermas as any of the rest of them. I do not trust Habermas to be honest and include any evidence or argument that challenges his religious beliefs, either. That's the psychology, culture and reputation of Christian apologetics

If he were to offer the Shroud of Turin as evidence of resurrection, I expect that he would omit the rebuttal to the claims about the shroud. His values are almost certainly not mine, and his way of viewing the world and processing information are not mine, so his conclusions aren't of any value to me. I would surely come to different conclusions just as you and I do for the same reason. Faith corrupts reason and clear thinking, and nothing generated from a faith-based premise is of any value, either. I believe 2 + 2 = 4 and only 4. By faith, one could believe they total five. Or seven. I wouldn't be interested in the output of such a person's arithmetic, either.

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

This guy just disqualified himself as my teacher of anything.

Likewise with any alleged science coming from a creationist. Why would I care about the thoughts of a person willing to believe that evolution is wrong on faith. Maybe you'd like me to read one of their books denouncing science, too. If so, I would say the same thing to you - give me a reason to.better than my reason not to.

That's what you do - ignore or conjure up sophomoric reasons not to believe any of it.

No. My thinking is the same as Buddha's:

• "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations." - Buddha

I like that advice. And I am applying it here. I won't believe what you believe because neither you nor anybody else has given me a reason to believe it. You all just keep insisting that your religious beliefs are true, but can demonstrate none of them, and then become frustrated and abusive ("sophomoric" - you don't want to know what I think of you) when I won't drink the Kool-Aid

according to you they're ALL LIARS AND CHARLATANS - every last one of them

What I said was that they are a community with challenged values and usually a lack of expertise in the area they are criticizing or condemning. Some might not be liars, but I still don't see any reason to go to such people for anything.

Furthermore, there is nothing that is true that is known only to Christians. If a claim found in an apologetics site is accurate, there will be a more trusted site acceptable to us both making the same claim. Refer me to that one. If the claim is nowhere to be found except on apologist sites, then I'm not interested. Either way, there's no reason to open apologetics links.

I understand that that is not how you think, and that you consider my thinking wrong-headed thinking, but I also know that you can't rebut that argument, and likely won't even try.

But you - 2,000 years later - have the truth.

After a period of searching that included a time in Christianity, I finally settled on a worldview that's reasonable, decent, and has helped me navigate life in a way that has been comfortable and satisfying, and largely free of.blemish, shame, and regret. What else could a person want out of a worldview? That's as close to truth as I need - a philosophy that works

I do know better than to go to faith or those who willing to believe by faith for truth. Faith can't possibly be a path to truth if anything or its mutually exclusive polar opposite can be believed by faith. You believe that Jesus was resurrected by faith, but you could have believed the opposite by faith. If this is how one decides what is true about the world, I can't use his "truth".

In fact, the more faith a person indulges in, the worse for them. We have some pretty decent Christians on RF. They are the ones with have taken the smallest drink from that cup. They have a god belief, but have compartmentalized it and have rejected much that the church teaches to those willing to take a bigger gulp - the homophobia, the atheophobia, the idea that the world is a bad place unfit to engage, the idea that higher education is useless or harmful, creationism, and misogyny come to mind as some of the worst and most harmful ideas that the church offers.

Bible literalists have the most faith and are the most damaged. They are willing to believe the unbelievable, and pay a huge price for it socially, intellectually and morally. They're social outcasts wherever they express their beliefs except among their own. They are incredibly uneducated in science, and very poor at critical thinking since they get no practice and are actually advised to not go there.

And pity the poor Christian who feels the need to come to venues like this one unprepared to deal with educated skeptics. I'm sure this isn't fun for you to be so continually rejected. I feel your frustration ("sport", "sophomoric"). You would be happier arguing from this side of the conversation. We don't need to ask people to believe things for no reason, nor do we need to twist reason or moral values. It's nice when the evidence supports your case, and when you don't have to defend slavery or bigotry.

So, you can see why I don't go to such people for truth.

 

[Spartan]

Frankly, even if a resurrection did occur, there could be no evidence that it had, so why read a book that claims to have such evidence?

And that is the crux of your problem and worldview.

Evidently you have a double standard going on - one for the Gospels, and one for other reported events from antiquity. Have you ripped out the pages of your history books - apart from the Gospels - that reference persons and events from antiquity?

What's more, you can't rely on science to conclude for you that God and the supernatural do not and cannot occur. There's no such studies.

So, there's no sense wasting anymore time with you. You mind is made up about the resurrection, but your beliefs are not based in science or evidence to the contrary.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Your double standard amuses me. No one from antiquity had photos of them. Not many have writings that date to their lifetime. So go get your history books off the shelf and start ripping out vast sections of them. Just to be consistent. LOL.

Nonsense.

The reason we view a person as being from 'antiquity' is because we have evidence of their existing in some form.

No such evidence exists for your Jesus, much less any magic you would attribute to 'him'.

Mythological figures are not always, or even usually, from 'antiquity'.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

that is the crux of your problem

Except that I don't have a problem here. You do.

You're trying to sell a claim of resurrection without any evidence to a skeptic. I let you know from the beginning that I am different from you by needing better evidence than that some guy Mark said so, or that some guy named Habermas had better evidence than I've ever seen before, but it's a secret and too complex for you to even refer to what kind of evidence it was.

Evidently you have a double standard going on - one for the Gospels, and one for other reported events from antiquity.

No, I have a uniform standard. I'm also not going to read a book on Lincoln or Caesar for no better reason than just because you think I should, and if you want to tell me that either of them were resurrected without offering evidence, I'll give you the same answer.

Have you ripped out the pages of your history books - apart from the Gospels - that reference persons and events from antiquity?

I don't own a Bible to rip pages from. And I don't care if Jesus, Caesar, or Lincoln actually existed if they're not gods. It's a single standard. The reason that I treat them differently isn't because of my standards, but because of the claims made about them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed. There exists excellent evidence that Lincoln and Caesar existed, less that Jesus existed, and none that any were resurrected from the dead. Belief should be commensurate to that evidence.

you can't rely on science to conclude for you that God and the supernatural do not and cannot occur. There's no such studies.

Irrelevant.

I don't the help of science to be skeptical about unevidenced religious claims. For some reason, you still think that your unevidenced beliefs need to be ruled out by others rather than ruled in by you. You've got that burden of proof thing messed up.

It looks like you just nicked yourself with Hitchens' Razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

You mind is made up about the resurrection

Nope. Yours is. Evidence can change my mind, but not yours. Your mind doesn't require evidence to believe and is not moved by it.

• The moderator in the debate between science educator Bill Nye and Christian creationist Ken Ham on creationism as a viable scientific field of study asked, "What would change your minds?" Nye answered, "Evidence." Ham answered, "Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

That's you and me. Give me some compelling evidence and I'll consider it. You refused, and I rejected your claim.

Here's a similar sentiment:

• "We're not two sides of the same coin, and you don't get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus and Thor and the Kraken, with the stuff that is not evidence-based, stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens ... I'm open to anything for which there's evidence. Show me a god, and I will believe in him. If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the halftime show of this Sunday's Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, well, I'll think ... "Oh, look at that. I was wrong. There he is. My bad. Praise the Lord." - Bill Maher

Those are the rules on this side of the aisle. Do yourself a favor and learn them before wasting any more of your time evangelizing skeptics without evidence. Anybody in marketing will tell you that you need to understand your target audience.

but your beliefs are not based in science or evidence to the contrary.

Yes, they are, which is why you are making no progress getting me to believe in resurrections without it. You've got me confused with yourself.

I have no unjustified beliefs any longer. Once I came to understand the problem with believing by faith, which we all do when young, I gave up the practice, reviewed what it is I believe and why, and discarded the ideas that got in before I had the ability to critically assess them first. If you can demonstrate one for me, I will thank you and expunge it from my mind. Perhaps you are confusing unbelief in gods, or not believing that they exist, with disbelief, or believing that they don't. Only the latter, which is not my position, requires a leap of faith.

 

[Spartan]

Nonsense.

The reason we view a person as being from 'antiquity' is because we have evidence of their existing in some form.

No such evidence exists for your Jesus, much less any magic you would attribute to 'him'.

Mythological figures are not always, or even usually, from 'antiquity'.

Why don't you guys EVER do your homework. Here's 1st century photographic evidence for Jesus carved in stone:

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals Names, Testimonies of First Christians

 

[Spartan]

Except that I don't have a problem here. You do.

You're trying to sell a claim of resurrection without any evidence to a skeptic.

Well, there you go again.

Like I've said before, the evidence that demolishes your "no resurrection" claim is contained in the book you refuse to read.

I've yet to come across a skeptic in these threads that has read this.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well, there you go again.

Like I've said before, the evidence that demolishes your "no resurrection" claim is contained in the book you refuse to read.

And there you go again. You already left this post once before, and I gave my reasons for not reading that book, as well as what it would take to get me to read it, which was a reason beside your recommendation. You weren't interested, yet here you are again even though you still have given me no reason to read a book on a subject that I have no longer have any interest in from a source I don't trust.

I told you I would look at fresh arguments, but I'm very suspicious of the fact you haven't even mentioned what kind of evidence your author is offering or summarized even one claim from him.

I have no reason to believe that this book contains evidence for resurrection, nor even that such evidence could exist had a resurrection actually occurred.

And I have no reason to read a Christian apologist, but good reasons already given not to. It's never been productive in the past. I just don't think like those people do.

I guess that you didn't care to discuss the fact that Habermas is selling a book that, had it contained what it implies it has, I would expect him or the church to give away free of charge like they do Bibles, and for the same reason. It's good for business if you can make a convert who will tithe for years for the cost of a paperback book.

How about you? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I'll give you a mailing address if you care to purchase and ship a copy of that book to me, peruse it, and give you my impression. After all, if it's what you say it is, I'll be converted back to Christianity again. Is that worth the price of a book to you?

You can refer me to the pages that you find most compelling, and I'll start there. My criteria for belief will be the same then as now - compelling evidence best understood as a dead man coming back to life centuries ago, an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence. Can you or your author produce this?

This would be a gift to you, as I still have no reason to do even that much.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Why don't you guys EVER do your homework. Here's 1st century photographic evidence for Jesus carved in stone:

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals Names, Testimonies of First Christians

Oh man. I'll take this source as a concession.

I guess we are done.

 

[Spartan]

And there you go again. You already left this post once before, and I gave my reasons for not reading that book, as well as what it would take to get me to read it, which was a reason beside your recommendation. You weren't interested, yet here you are again even though you still have given me no reason to read a book on a subject that I have no longer have any interest in from a source I don't trust.

I told you I would look at fresh arguments, but I'm very suspicious of the fact you haven't even mentioned what kind of evidence your author is offering or summarized even one claim from him.

I have no reason to believe that this book contains evidence for resurrection, nor even that such evidence could exist had a resurrection actually occurred.

And I have no reason to read a Christian apologist, but good reasons already given not to. It's never been productive in the past. I just don't think like those people do.

I guess that you didn't care to discuss the fact that Habermas is selling a book that, had it contained what it implies it has, I would expect him or the church to give away free of charge like they do Bibles, and for the same reason. It's good for business if you can make a convert who will tithe for years for the cost of a paperback book.

How about you? Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? I'll give you a mailing address if you care to purchase and ship a copy of that book to me, peruse it, and give you my impression. After all, if it's what you say it is, I'll be converted back to Christianity again. Is that worth the price of a book to you?

You can refer me to the pages that you find most compelling, and I'll start there. My criteria for belief will be the same then as now - compelling evidence best understood as a dead man coming back to life centuries ago, an extraordinary claim that will require extraordinary evidence. Can you or your author produce this?

This would be a gift to you, as I still have no reason to do even that much.

You want "fresh arguments," you say. Sounds like what the liberals keep wanting to replace tried-and-true Americanism.

Truth isn't measured by how old it is. Some things remain true forever, like the RESURRECTION OF JESUS.

And still, not one argument disproving the resurrection has ever been seen.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You want "fresh arguments," you say. Sounds like what the liberals keep wanting to replace tried-and-true Americanism.

I'm no more interested in the Republican vision for America than I was in your book. It looks like you don't have any more interest in my reading that book than I do.

And liberals invented liberalism. Your church has never been happy about this church-state separation and freedom of and from religion.

Some things remain true forever

And some were never true and will remain false forever. The arguments I've seen for resurrection have all been rebutted and rejected, so I'm not interested in looking at them again.

And still, not one argument disproving the resurrection has ever been seen.

We've got another Christian in another thread making a similar impotent argument. He's claiming that abiogenesis is a flawed hypothesis because nobody has worked out a complete pathway from simplest chemicals to life. People participating in that thread are just as mystified about why he thinks that that is a rebuttal to abiogenesis. And here you are arguing that the lack of a disproof of resurrection means anything. It doesn't. No disproof is needed to reject the claim. Why can't you learn that simple fact?

On yet another thread, we have been discussing the damage that too much faith can cause to a person's ability to think clearly. We only see these kinds of impotent arguments like yours above from Christians trying to defend their wrong-headed beliefs. You provided a nice example when you were defending biblical slavery. Secular humanists don't do anything like that because they don't have to. They rejected slavery. You can't. You can only either say it wasn't really slavery, or that it was good for the slaves.

And look at you here, unwilling to put your an argument from ignorance to bed. Why is that? Is that the best argument you have for resurrection - that it can't be disproven? What makes you think that matters to anybody?And look how your faith has you out there posting this argument on their behalf in the hope of gaining yet another tither.

Maybe you can get them to pay for the Habermas book.

By the way, "you can't prove I'm wrong" is the second phase of the apologist's decompensation. It begins with an indefensible claim such as that a resurrection once occurred. After this is rejected, we get, "you can't prove I'm wrong." Then comes the anger and insults like "sparky" and "sophomoric." You seem to have pulled back into the second stage, giving up your emotional posting, which was appreciated.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Like I said, the evidence that blows your claim away is contained in the book you refuse to read. Think about that.

That must be like kryptonite to you folks - to actually read a book that demolishes your weak claims. But then you probably don't want your world upended, do you? You might lose face and have to repent.

Then it should be super easy to present this knock-your-socks-off evidence right here and now. Like even, just the best, most compelling piece of evidence.
And yet you still haven't ....

Also, if this book is so compelling, as you say, why is it not bigger news? The book was written 16 years ago. Why isn't this world-shattering news that everybody knows about?
Because it's not.