Open with the same message I did in RD room.

[krkey]

as I said earlier I will do that in a one on one debate. Because I want the infidels in here to do as much leg work as I am. I want them to defend a stated alternative theory. I am waiting for Yahweh to respond, if he doesn't in a day or two how about you Phil.

 

[Keneke]

Re: Re: Re: You need a judge

In other words, I don't expect to be persuaded. I expect to be able to determine who is more persuasive.

Good for salesmen. Bad for finding the truth. I expect nothing concrete out of this debate, for either side.

 

[toddjh]

as I said earlier I will do that in a one on one debate. Because I want the infidels in here to do as much leg work as I am. I want them to defend a stated alternative theory.

I smell an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy in the works. "No one can conclusively prove an alternative explanation, therefore mine must be true!"

That's not going to fly around here, either. You have to make your case completely independently of anyone else's.

Jeremy

 

[Phil]

So why would luke mention her at all. Because Luke, the probable author was their. Well folks you be the judge, who made the stronger argument, me or Phil.

I posted 11 points in defence of an older date. The best Phil can do is find a single reference, to a women who became famous later( as if it that would prove a later date, I suppose a CIA document mentioning George Bush the Elder in the early 1970s most have actually been written later because Bush did not become famous until the Reagen Election of 1980. Brilliant logic)

Why dont you try kicking over my 11 points Phil

As much as I love you, Diogenes, I have to point out to krkey that we are not the same person.

 

[krkey]

still don't get it do you Phil. My point with Ceaser crossing the Rubican is that is not a reproducable event either. I am not claiming the resurrection is reproducable either, I am simply asserting that it is the best explanation for the start of Christianity. Why do I want a one on one debate. Keep things fair, allow me to stay focused. Why do I want my opponent to defend an alternative theory, I feel if any atheist wants Christians to take them seriously they should offer a reliable counter explanation.

 

[krkey]

Sorry about that Phil, I got a bit cross eyed on that post. Mistakes happen, I think everyone understand even with my gaffer what I was saying

 

[Phil]

Sorry about that Phil, I got a bit cross eyed on that post. Mistakes happen, I think everyone understand even with my gaffer what I was saying

No worries.

And I have to apologize. I was supposed to be sitting quietly drinking my beer, which I will return to now with much anticipation.

 

[krkey]

I will state here and now the resurrection is not absolutely provable. I will simply state it is the best explanation for the events concerning the rise of Christianity, If my opponent can offer me a equally explanatory theory as the resurrection as I have said in other forums I will renounce my religion

 

[krkey]

I like that idea of a beer. It is my birthday( I am 25) so I just might go get one. Might ask Phil to pass one to be honest( would you pass a beer to a Christian?)

 

[toddjh]

still don't get it do you Phil. My point with Ceaser crossing the Rubican is that is not a reproducable event either. I am not claiming the resurrection is reproducable either, I am simply asserting that it is the best explanation for the start of Christianity.

Without first establishing the divinity of Jesus (and, before that, the existence of a god), resurrection becomes a physical impossibility. In what sense is it the best explanation?

Why do I want my opponent to defend an alternative theory, I feel if any atheist wants Christians to take them seriously they should offer a reliable counter explanation.

You're the one who came here, wanting us to take you seriously. The rest of us have no burden other than skepticism.

Jeremy

 

[krkey]

last post for awhile, I am going to go get that beer. Lets speak extremely hypothetically here. The resurrection does not absolutely proof God. It merely proofs the resurrection. Other possible( but unlikely explanations)
a.) all the cells came back to life
b.) aliens did it( God only knows why, maybe they liked him)
c.) Jesus was a cyborg from the future
d.) Jesus was resurrected by people from the future as a naughty pranks.

These objections are humorous but they do make a point. In theory the resurrection is possible without God. Thus I do not need to prove God to assert the resurrection. Once you accept the resurrection, it is your choice how you explain it.

 

[Phil]

I like that idea of a beer. It is my birthday( I am 25) so I just might go get one. Might ask Phil to pass one to be honest( would you pass a beer to a Christian?)

So you'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, huh?

One beer coming up. And I hope you're enjoying your birthday.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I like that idea of a beer. It is my birthday( I am 25) so I just might go get one. Might ask Phil to pass one to be honest( would you pass a beer to a Christian?)

Happy Birthday!

And now I shall return to reading with great enjoyment. My one course in New Testament History leaves me ill prepared to participate but I am enjoying the refresher and have even enjoyed a few instances of having anticipated a point before it was made.

I hope Yahweh isn't too busy with homework to play.

"Hello Yahweh's mom, can Yahweh come out to play, please? Just until the street lights come on, ma'am. Thank you."

 

[Beleth]

I cannot show you Fort Sumter being bombed. However I can certainly show you the fort now, the cannon ball holes and witness testimony for it.

The cannon ball holes make all the difference in the world. If you showed a skeptic a pristine Fort Sumter with no cannon ball holes, then no amount of witness testimony would convince him that cannon balls had ever hit it.

 

[krkey]

I was so about to leave, was about to talk out the door, go get the beer but this comment has got to be the silliest statement I have seen yet and it demand a immediate response( and chuckle)


[/B]The cannon ball holes make all the difference in the world. If you showed a skeptic a pristine Fort Sumter with no cannon ball holes, then no amount of witness testimony would convince him that cannon balls had ever hit it [/B]

Perhaps it should be pointed out to the skeptic that people often times repair things and sometimes such repairs will appear as prestine. This is no different then saying " I dont believe in no battle of Gettysburg, look around their aint no corpses or junk on the ground."

Now I am going to get that beer

 

[Keneke]

Bah, you've just elevated the genre of "true fiction" to historical accurate status.

So true fiction and historically accurate documents are different, but Wizard of Oz and the Bible are the same?

 

[arcticpenguin]

I will state here and now the resurrection is not absolutely provable. I will simply state it is the best explanation for the events concerning the rise of Christianity, If my opponent can offer me a equally explanatory theory as the resurrection as I have said in other forums I will renounce my religion

What's your best explanation for the rise of Scientology? Mormonism? Hinduism? Islam? Various Kool-Aid cults? All thosse religions & sects exist (except for the cults that suicided themselves). Does that mean that their myths are true as well?

Stating that the NT is historical is not the same as demonstrating it.

 

[arcticpenguin]

I was so about to leave, was about to talk out the door, go get the beer but this comment has got to be the silliest statement I have seen yet and it demand a immediate response( and chuckle)

Perhaps it should be pointed out to the skeptic that people often times repair things and sometimes such repairs will appear as prestine. This is no different then saying " I dont believe in no battle of Gettysburg, look around their aint no corpses or junk on the ground."

Now I am going to get that beer

I know what you mean; like the James ossuary. Someone certainly tried to make "repairs" on that.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

The resurrection does not absolutely proof God. It merely proofs the resurrection. ...........


Once you accept the resurrection, it is your choice how you explain it.

Before you can assert that the resurrection is the cause of the rise of Christianity you have to demonstrate that the resurrection took place..

In the absence of that demonstration, it is logical to assume something else ( perhaps yet to be determined, doubtful to be agreed upon ) is responsible..

If you want to assert that the belief in the resurrection is the cause of the rise of Christianity, then it might be best that you start another thread...

On the other hand, there might be little objection here to that assertion...

Anyone?

 

[Skeptical Greg]

So why would luke mention her at all. Because Luke, the probable author was their. Well folks you be the judge, who made the stronger argument, me or Phil.

I posted 11 points in defence of an older date. The best Phil can do is find a single reference, to a women who became famous later( as if it that would prove a later date, I suppose a CIA document mentioning George Bush the Elder in the early 1970s most have actually been written later because Bush did not become famous until the Reagen Election of 1980. Brilliant logic)

Why dont you try kicking over my 11 points Phil

I addressed your other points...

As for your other points, most apologetics, when arguing with ' Christ Mythers ', use the argument of " common knowledge ", as an excuse for Paul not having mentioned virtually anything about Jesus ministry, or even Jesus himself.. It's as if there were no information available....

Or, how would you address this problem with the writings of Paul...

You just ignored it...