Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[Kenny]

You are claiming that they are eyewitness accounts. They are not. Plus, they're just stories in a book. We have no way of investigating any of it, especially without any outside sources.

Yes they are and you haven't given any proof it isn't. Just because you say it is a story, don't make it a story. There is enough evidence and enough external support to validate it.

Now, I know you want it to be a story, but history has enough evidence that it is true unless you want to say that Mohammad never existed too.

This doesn't address my point.

I think it does unless you want to rephrase it.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Those aren't "eyewitness [accounts] of resurrection." Why do you think they are?
"Next generation" aren't firsthand accounts either.

For instance you say you have the "empty tomb" as evidence for the resurrection or whatever. But you don't even have that. You have a 2000+ year old claim about an empty tomb that is basically impossible to investigate. In other words, you're confusing the claim for the evidence.

I believe that Jesus' followers inflated the stories about him, and then others contributed to these stories so that the mythology about him expanded and spread to more people. If a far-fetched story is told often enough, eventually some people will start to believe it. We've seen it happen with Trump, who has repeatedly told his supporters that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him, and now his supporters accept his lies as gospel truth, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. No amount of evidence will persuade his faithful supporters that the election was not stolen from him.

 

[Apostle John]

If you want to call evidence nonsense, that's your prerogative. Coming from a person who doesn't understand the first thing about evolution, I'll take your opinion on this for what it's worth, and compare it with those of educated scientists who spend their lives studying this stuff.

Oh good, we've moved onto homophobic nonsense.

Scientists have spent over 100 years studying dark matter but still know nothing about. Same with evolutionists on the exact process how organisms change.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yes they are and you haven't given any proof it isn't. Just because you say it is a story, don't make it a story. There is enough evidence and enough external support to validate it.

No, they are not. Some of them, like Luke, even say so.

Sorry, but I'm going with scholars on this one. Rather than someone who's got a vested interest in the story being true.

The fact that it's a story in a book, makes it a story in a book. Do you have any evidence outside the books of the Bible to corroborate these stories you speak of?

Now, I know you want it to be a story, but history has enough evidence that it is true unless you want to say that Mohammad never existed too.

It's definitely a story in an old book. I can read it right now if I want to.

I think it does unless you want to rephrase it.

Your story is unverifiable. That's the point.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Scientists have spent over 100 years studying dark matter but still know nothing about. Same with evolutionists on the exact process how organisms change.

No, it certainly is not. As just explained.

 

[Soandso]

Oh! It's not often when Christians recognize Mohammad as the true, final prophet of god. Do you also feel that Jesus was only a prophet and not a god as Muslim holy and historical texts state?

 

[Apostle John]

No, it certainly is not. As just explained.

You’ve explained nothing as per usual.

 

[Kenny]

No, they are not. Some of them, like Luke, even say so.

Sorry, but I'm going with scholars on this one. Rather than someone who's got a vested interest in the story being true.

The fact that it's a story in a book, makes it a story in a book. Do you have any evidence outside the books of the Bible to corroborate these stories you speak of?

LOL... no and no supportive documentation of his time.

What I find real enjoyably funny, is that you will take what people say (scholars) who weren't there, weren't present over those who were - and then claim that those who were there are not really witnesses - but those who we know were not there are true... well.... hahahaha.

So, if you want it to be a story book for you, it's a free country.

It's definitely a story in an old book. I can read it right now if I want to.

Reminds me of the statement,

Whether You Believe You Can Do a Thing or Not, You Are Right​

Just change the words a little. If you believe it is a story book, for you it is right.

Your story is unverifiable. That's the point.

Only in your eyes. Cold Case expert J. Warner Wallace would disagree.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that you believe that.

Meanwhile, homeopathy is confirmed bs.

The "theory" of homeopathy literally requires certain molecules (water specifically) to have magical properties that have never been demonstrated to be real.
Au contraire. It has been demonstrated to be false time and again.

When you buy homeopathic "medicine", all you are doing is wasting money on placebo's that literally don't do anything.

"Psychics" are no different.
Same with astrologists, tarrot card readers, etc.

Homeopathy is not confirmed bs. That just shows how much you don't know.

I believe that you believe that. You think you know, but you don't know, you only believe you know.
Knowledge is more than facts. People can know something by experience.

Definition of know

1a(1): to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2): to have understanding of importance of knowing oneself(3): to recognize the nature of : discernb(1): to recognize as being the same as something previously known(2): to be acquainted or familiar with (3): to have experience of

2a: to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain ofb: to have a practical understanding of knows how to write

Definition of KNOW

 

[viole]

Homeopathy is not confirmed bs. That just shows how much you don't know.

Well, I am afraid it is. By drinking homeopathic substances, I probably get more waters molecules which have been in contact with Julius Ceasar pee, than the so called remembered pathogen.

actually, if we think one moment about it, it is clear how ridiculous that is. It really takes some basic science and statistics.

there is clearly no evidence for that. Unless you can show me some certified messenger of homeopathy

ciao

- viole

 

[SkepticThinker]

LOL... no and no supportive documentation of his time.

So we're just going to ignore the fact that Luke states that he is not an eyewitness? We're just going to pretend he is? We're going to ignore the apparent fact that we don't have any actual contemporary accounts of the resurrection? Or how notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony is, if we even had any in the first place? Because why? We want to believe the story is true?

What I find real enjoyably funny, is that you will take what people say (scholars) who weren't there, weren't present over those who were.

Again, there are no eyewitness accounts. Nobody who was supposedly "there" wrote any firsthand accounts of it. What we have are copies of copies of stories that were first passed down orally before eventually being written down. Have you ever played a game of telephone?

Yes, I'm going to take the general scholarly consensus over those of individuals who have a vested interest in the story being true. In other words, I'm going with the people who don't have a bias.

So, if you want it to be a story book for you, it's a free country.

It's a book, or a collection of books in which stories are told. You're seriously disputing this?

Reminds me of the statement,

Whether You Believe You Can Do a Thing or Not, You Are Right​

Just change the words a little. If you believe it is a story book, for you it is right.




Only in your eyes. Cold Case expert J. Warner Wallace would disagree.

You are seemingly immune to evidence, yes.

Oh do tell, how can we verify that a tomb was empty 2000+ years ago? Wow, some due thinks otherwise. Big deal. Where's the evidence?

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, I am afraid it is.

So that's why it is offered as part of the health care systems in many countries.

 

[Kenny]

So we're just going to ignore the fact that Luke states that he is not an eyewitness? We're just going to pretend he is? We're going to ignore the apparent fact that we don't have any actual contemporary accounts of the resurrection? Or how notoriously unreliable eyewitness testimony is, if we even had any in the first place? Because why? We want to believe the story is true?

ROFL... I didn't list Luke as an eyewitness. And, as I said, we have the contemporary accounts of his time. Luke would be a contemporary historian

Again, there are no eyewitness accounts. Nobody who was supposedly "there" wrote any firsthand accounts of it. What we have are copies of copies of stories that were first passed down orally before eventually being written down. Have you ever played a game of telephone?

Yes, I'm going to take the general scholarly consensus over those of individuals who have a vested interest in the story being true. In other words, I'm going with the people who don't have a bias.

This is your version. The fact that the copies of the copies of the copies match the oldest version verifies its veracity. but fell free to accept the "scholars" modern viewpoint that weren't there over those who were.

It would be like someone not accepting what my wife says about me because the scholars said it wasn't true.

Your bias is showing

It's a book, or a collection of books in which stories are told. You're seriously disputing this?

You say "story" and I say "history".

You are seemingly immune to evidence, yes.

Oh do tell, how can we verify that a tomb was empty 2000+ years ago? Wow, some due thinks otherwise. Big deal. Where's the evidence?

That's the point... there was no body They could have just squashed the new movement, after all, the High priest and King Herod were on top of it by placing guards at the tomb.

Of course, I understand your personality has underpinning of skepticism -- or unbelief

 

[SkepticThinker]

ROFL... I didn't list Luke as an eyewitness. And, as I said, we have the contemporary accounts of his time. Luke would be a contemporary historian

ROFL So, which ones do you believe are eyewitness accounts then? I seem to remember you pushing Luke in the past, but I could be mistaken.

You are claiming that there are eyewitness accounts to the resurrection of Jesus. Where are they?

This is your version. The fact that the copies of the copies of the copies match the oldest version verifies its veracity. but fell free to accept the "scholars" modern viewpoint that weren't there over those who were.

No, it's not "my version." It's how things went down, according to known history. There are no originals either.

It would be like someone not accepting what my wife says about me because the scholars said it wasn't true.

Your bias is showing

So we're just making stuff up now?

My bias is, in favour of the evidence, which is lacking here and why I don't buy the story, among other reasons.

You say "story" and I say "history".

And yet you can't demonstrate the historicity of the resurrection story.

I can easily demonstrate that the Bible is a book of stories, because it quite literally is a book of stories.

That's the point... there was no body They could have just squashed the new movement, after all, the High priest and King Herod were on top of it by placing guards at the tomb.

Ah, so the evidence is, there is no evidence. This just gets better and better.

So what do we have here? No evidence. And no eyewitness accounts (which aren't very reliable in the first place, if we even had any, which we don't). What we have are claims in a very old book.

Of course, I understand your personality has underpinning of skepticism -- or unbelief

I used to believe, until I realized I didn't have any good reasons to believe the claims made in the Bible.

 

[Kenny]

ROFL So, which ones do you believe are eyewitness accounts then? I seem to remember you pushing Luke in the past, but I could be mistaken.

You are claiming that there are eyewitness accounts to the resurrection of Jesus. Where are they?

Peter, John Mark, John, James... wait a minute... I already answered that.

Incidentally, they are with Jesus right now

No, it's not "my version." It's how things went down, according to known history. There are no originals either.

your statement doesn't validate your position or invalidates mine

So we're just making stuff up now?

My bias is, in favour of the evidence, which is lacking here and why I don't buy the story, among other reasons.

Which I always will support your position to have unbelief. It is your right!!!

And yet you can't demonstrate the historicity of the resurrection story.

I can easily demonstrate that the Bible is a book of stories, because it quite literally is a book of stories.

No, you don't accept the history of the resurrection. Big difference! you could read the accounts if you want.

Ah, so the evidence is, there is no evidence. This just gets better and better.

So what do we have here? No evidence. And no eyewitness accounts (which aren't very reliable in the first place, if we even had any, which we don't). What we have are claims in a very old book.

LOL... produce evidence of the body of the empty tomb?

I used to believe, until I realized I didn't have any good reasons to believe the claims made in the Bible.

Which I am fine for you to have your belief. I'm not sure why my position irritates you so much (maybe just my interpretation).

 

[viole]

So that's why it is offered as part of the health care systems in many countries.

Yes, some might even offer voodoo, too. or chinese medicine. it is not seldom to see ridicolous horoscopes on otherwise serious newspapers, either.
If people want X, that does not mean that X makes sense. It just means people liking X, are a market.

ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

That would be your opinion.

No, based on the actual documented facts of the history of the scriptures, or the actual lack of scripture written during the life of Jesus and the first ~150 and more years of Christian history.. Opinions and beliefs do not document history.

I would disagree.

Not based on the actual facts documented on film by military aircraft.

 

[shunyadragon]

somehow I believe you do believe that.

The sarcasm of my post went way over your head.

 

[shunyadragon]

I'm sorry, Peter, John Mark, John and James didn't know Jesus Resurrected? Peter, John Mark, and John didn't see the resurrected Jesus? The two who walk on the roan to Emmaus didn't see Jesus?

No... I sorry, you are so mistaken.

If there was a full tomb, all they had to do was produce the body and say "SEE? Here is the BODY!" So simply to refute the story.

There is no evidence that the apostles wrote the gospels. The gospels are edited, redacted documents dated over 150 years after the life of Jesus.

Can you provide any documents written in one generation of the life of Jesus?

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes they are and you haven't given any proof it isn't. Just because you say it is a story, don't make it a story. There is enough evidence and enough external support to validate it.

Now, I know you want it to be a story, but history has enough evidence that it is true unless you want to say that Mohammad never existed too.



I think it does unless you want to rephrase it.

There is absolutely no supporting evidence of even the existence of Jesus during his life.

Where is the evidence and/or documentation of any sort that can be dated to the life of Jesus, and as a matter of fact the life of the apostles?