Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your sites were already shown to have no value when it comes to this debate.
The questions is, why are you so desperate to keep using dishonest sites?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Resurrection is it provable?
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
Your sites were already shown to have no value when it comes to this debate.
The questions is, why are you so desperate to keep using dishonest sites?
But there was light before the sun. Also it would be good to notice, the plants were first only seeds, because:
No plant of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up; for Yahweh God had not caused it to rain on the earth. There was not a man to till the ground,
Gen. 2:5
Sorry, you failed.
I don't think there is any good reason to claim that the earth is flat. But, I don't believe Trump lost and it is possible that the moon landing was fake, there are good reasons to think so.
Very funny. You can't show that.
Altfish
Veteran Member
...and with that I rest my case.
What evidence do you have that the earth isn't flat?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Incorrect. You may not be able to understand that, but you cannot claim that I cannot show that.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh dear. Circular reasoning fail.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Oh lordy! Now we are not being consistent at all.
leroy
Well-Known Member
Once again you are jumping in to a conversation that without understanding the context.
The claim is that events that where interpreted as miracles by some people occured ..... which is a "low level claim " ..... so by your rules all I need is ordinary evidence ,
There really was a Jesus , there rally was a James, a Peter , a John , a John the Baptist, a Pilate a Caiphas, the names of the cessars and herods are correct etc
The role of imeach character is correct for example Pilate really was the guy in charge, Caiphas was the high Priest etc
The towns mentioned in the gospels are real places and where described accurately.
Common names like Marry John Josep Simon etc where also common in the gospels
Etc
These are all examples of testable claims made in the gospels that happen to be true //
So if the authors are correct in most (if not all) the testable claims, why not give them the benefit of the doubt in the rest of the claims.........? For your comfort I am just talking about the ordinary claims (not miracles)
So would you honestly address this point ?
Yes, but earlier than you might think, probably with the 'presbyter-bishop' as the churches became centralized.
leroy
Well-Known Member
@Subduction Zone is an atheist he doesn't have to support any of his claims
Another personal opinion with no supportive documentation. Which you are free to have.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I think you may want to look into photosynthesis and how it works. Plants did not exist before our sun, nor would sufficient light for photosynthesis. The claim is obviously an error, and it is far from the only one of course.
LOL... that is why I really don't answer his questions (most of the time).
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No there aren't.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Yeah ok, that's why.
You have plenty of form for making claims, and then hiding behind the "it's my belief" argument, that's a weak excuse in a debate. You can believe whatever you want, but without any objective evidence defending those claims in a debate is always going to involve not answering questions.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
"Narratives, even ancient fictional ones, certainly can and sometimes do involve persons known to have a real historical existence. And probably most ancient fiction is known to contain scenes based on real ethnic groups, geographic areas and cities."
(Neil Godfrey in: Interlude: Why I Doubt the Historical Existence of Jesus)
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
That is an oversimplification and therefore false. There are many claims of mine that do require support. That I lack belief in a God is not a claim that requires support.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, that is false. The reason why is because my questions show your beliefs to be false. Now you know what he said was false. Why would you as a Christian support that?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, once again this is an observation. This was your chance to ask for evidence. Instead you repeated a false claim about others.
Of course when you know that someone will support their claims with evidence you never seem to ask for evidence. Not asking for evidence in a debate is essentially acceptance.