The Resurrection of Jesus Christ

[Spartan]

A prejudiced source, such as your church fathers, always has a greater burden of proof than an independent one.

That sucks. What is it with you skeptics that you think the church fathers have to be liars and charlatans? You don't even know them and then you make the half-baked charge that they're prejudiced. Prove it. You made the claim, you prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sucks. What is it with you skeptics that you think the church fathers have to be liars and charlatans? You don't even know them and then you make the half-baked charge that they're prejudiced. Prove it. You made the claim, you prove it.

Where did you get that from? You really have no clue. Try again or you could try to ask questions properly and politely. That means no false assumptions about others are allowed.

 

[Spartan]

You are quoting the Bible. You are quoting Gospel accounts and you believe they are historically absolutely correct.

But read other sources of history as well. And make your assumption. There is no need to say who is right today and thats absolutely not what I meant.

Cheers mate. Have a great day.

I have read other sources. I've seen 40 years of arguments and claims of skeptics and others and have found them wanting. The resurrection is rock solid. And have you noticed not a single soul so far has been able to bust it? They have alternate theories without evidence; claims without evidence.

In addition, "There isn't a single ancient document or claim in which any of the eyewitnesses (of the resurrection of Jesus) ever recanted their statements." - The Case for Miracles, (Chapter on the Miracle of the Resurrection), pg. 206

 

[Spartan]

Where did you get that from? You really have no clue. Try again or you could try to ask questions properly and politely. That means no false assumptions about others are allowed.

OK, so you can't prove the early church fathers were prejudiced, as you claimed?

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, so you can't prove the early church fathers were prejudiced, as you claimed?

Ask proper questions if you want answers. I do get tired of rudeness and dishonesty after a while.

 

[Spartan]

Ask proper questions if you want answers. I do get tired of rudeness and dishonesty after a while.

The dishonesty is yours for making a claim that the church fathers were prejudiced and now you can't back it up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dishonesty is yours for making a claim that the church fathers were prejudiced and now you can't back it up.

Where did I make that claim? Now it appears that you are being openly dishonest.

 

[Spartan]

Where did I make that claim? Now it appears that you are being openly dishonest.

You really are something.

I captured your quote in Post # 341. Your quote was, "A prejudiced source, such as your church fathers, always has a greater burden of proof than an independent one."

You've obviously deleted the original source post to cover your butt.

And if that wasn't enough, in Post # 315 you wrote: "Sorry but the "early church fathers" were for the most part second century or later. It is more likely that they simply believed the myths than did any serious digging into the history of the Gospels."

So you bad-mouthed them a second time, and again without evidence that they were a bunch of flakes who believed in myths (where's your evidence the resurrection is a myth) and didn't know what they were talking about.

 

[JJ50]

The dishonesty is yours for making a claim that the church fathers were prejudiced and now you can't back it up.

Can you provide any evidence that they didn't make up the less than credible resurrection story?

 

[Spartan]

Can you provide any evidence that they didn't make up the less than credible resurrection story?

Evidence for the resurrection is in Post # 98 and other postings. If it's made up then hop out here with your ditty bag full of follies and show us why its wrong.

 

[JJ50]

Evidence for the resurrection is in Post # 98 and other postings. If it's made up then hop out here with your ditty bag full of follies and show us why its wrong.

That is not evidence!

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really are something.

I captured your quote in Post # 341. Your quote was, "A prejudiced source, such as your church fathers, always has a greater burden of proof than an independent one."

You've obviously deleted the original source post to cover your butt.

And if that wasn't enough, in Post # 315 you wrote: "Sorry but the "early church fathers" were for the most part second century or later. It is more likely that they simply believed the myths than did any serious digging into the history of the Gospels."

So you bad-mouthed them a second time, and again without evidence that they were a bunch of flakes who believed in myths (where's your evidence the resurrection is a myth) and didn't know what they were talking about.

Okay, so you screwed up. I did not say That they lied. Now that you posted an error an apology from you would be nice.

But of course you had to add a false claim. Pointing out the facts is not bad mouthing. You used a poor source. You have no reliable evidence for your claims. Can you man up and down up to your errors?

EDIT: And no, I did not delete a post to cover my butt. One has a limited time window to delete a post, just as one has a limited window to edit. Don't trust me? Just try to delete an older post of yours that you don't like any longer. You will not be able to do it. A moderator may be able to, but one would have to ask one to do so. I have not asked a moderator to remove a post, nor have I been moderated in this thread (I know from experience that if one does break the rules and they have to take one's post down that one will get a message from them).

 

[firedragon]

I have read other sources. I've seen 40 years of arguments and claims of skeptics and others and have found them wanting.

Brother. This is the internet and its an online forum. So looking for a number of years of experience or arguments or questioning other peoples academic qualifications here is useless.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Brother. This is the internet and its an online forum. So looking for a number of years of experience or arguments or questioning other peoples academic qualifications here is useless.

Someone can be outed by their claims. I too could claim to have multiple degrees in Bibleistics. I could claim to be the most Biblified person in the world. But I I was ignorant about the problems of the Bible or pretended that those problems did not exist then it would become obvious that I was not anywhere near Bibliferous as I claimed to be.

 

[firedragon]

Someone can be outed by their claims. I too could claim to have multiple degrees in Bibleistics. I could claim to be the most Biblified person in the world. But I I was ignorant about the problems of the Bible or pretended that those problems did not exist then it would become obvious that I was not anywhere near Bibliferous as I claimed to be.

Agreed.

 

[firedragon]

In addition, "There isn't a single ancient document or claim in which any of the eyewitnesses (of the resurrection of Jesus) ever recanted their statements." - The Case for Miracles, (Chapter on the Miracle of the Resurrection), pg. 206

Mate. What is the historical record that speaks about eye witnesses of the resurrection? What do you mean recanted? Seriously brother. Thats not a valid case.

 

[Spartan]

Okay, so you screwed up. I did not say That they lied. Now that you posted an error an apology from you would be nice.

But of course you had to add a false claim. Pointing out the facts is not bad mouthing. You used a poor source. You have no reliable evidence for your claims. Can you man up and down up to your errors?

EDIT: And no, I did not delete a post to cover my butt. One has a limited time window to delete a post, just as one has a limited window to edit. Don't trust me? Just try to delete an older post of yours that you don't like any longer. You will not be able to do it. A moderator may be able to, but one would have to ask one to do so. I have not asked a moderator to remove a post, nor have I been moderated in this thread (I know from experience that if one does break the rules and they have to take one's post down that one will get a message from them).

The system quoted your post in question. I don't believe you otherwise. Don't bother me anymore.

 

[Spartan]

Mate. What is the historical record that speaks about eye witnesses of the resurrection? What do you mean recanted? Seriously brother. Thats not a valid case.

Yeah, it is. If the Gospel accounts are false, show me.

And there's plenty of articles about the eyewitnesses to Jesus on the net. People just need to do their own due-diligence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The system quoted your post in question. I don't believe you otherwise. Don't bother me anymore.

The only thing that you dug up supported my claim. It showed that you did not tell the truth. You falsely claimed that I called the church fathers liars. You could not find such a post. Do you know what that makes you look like?

You need not reply to me, but I will continue to correct your errors here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, it is. If the Gospel accounts are false, show me.

And there's plenty of articles about the eyewitnesses to Jesus on the net. People just need to do their own due-diligence.

Here is the problem, you do not get to assume that they are true. You need to find more evidence than the weak tea that you have served here. Whenever one is on the wrong side of an argument they very often say "disprove my unverified claims" when the burden of proof is upon the person making the claims. What has been shown, and at times by your own links, is that the Gospels are not independent. And since there is no extra-biblical support for their claims there really is no reason to believe them. By the way, referring to Bible believers referring to their personal beliefs based upon the Jesus myths is not an example of "extra-biblical".