Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lvdyou · 03-11-2005, 07:25 PM

It would be more aptly said that you can not prove Jesus did not exist given the overwhelming evidence of His existence both man and God, therefore, the burden of the proof lies in you.

Therefore, your oveverassuming betrays you. I will be humble instead in making no assumptions.

lvdyou · 03-11-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Javaman

Which is not at all. I believe that was the point. Unless you have some new information to pass on (?).

On the contrary, yes, all that is needed, now an accomplished fact, so new information is not needed.

Javaman · 03-11-2005, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvdyou

It would be more aptly said that you can not prove Jesus did not exist given the overwhelming evidence of His existence both man and God, therefore, the burden of the proof lies in you.

Again... that evidence is non at all. Do you not get that? No first-hand witness' writings. No contemporary accounts, nothing... really - nothing. I take that back, there is sort of a first-hand account of a ghostly Jesus. You've made the case that there was a person named Yeshua who was God incarnate and therefore the burden is on you to show he existed and was divine. While I may invoke my own burden should I choose to deny he existed, that doesn't absolve you of your own burden. For now, I simply want evidence. Do you have any?

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvdyou

Therefore, your oveverassuming betrays you. I will be humble instead in making no assumptions.

Huh?

GoodLittleAtheist · 03-11-2005, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvdyou

I will be humble instead in making no assumptions.

So you're an agnostic?

lvdyou · 03-11-2005, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GoodLittleAtheist

So you're an agnostic?

Agnosticism is pompous.

Javaman · 03-11-2005, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvdyou

Agnosticism is pompous.

Do you not know what pompous means? To be agnostic is to admit the difficulty in knowing the unknowable. Well, I know the IPU exists (PBUH), but there are those that say it is impossible to know that - so are agnostic. Far from a 'pompous' stance.

ETA: For your edification, there can be (and are) Christian Agnostics and Atheist Agnostics. Labels, labels, labels.

Chris Weimer · 03-11-2005, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvdyou

Actually no. Fundamentalists disagree for they are KJV onlyists, I am not. I believe in the open Bible which gives no inordinate control to any one.

No they don't.

Quote:

Also, what you may define in your flesh as what evangelical means, which is incorrect, also disagree what is stated about pentecostals for example, among other items. Many accept the false tongues of pentecostalism.

How about Bible only? Good enough for you?

GoodLittleAtheist · 03-11-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvdyou

Agnosticism is pompous.

It doesn't get more ironical. :notworthy

lvdyou · 03-11-2005, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Javaman

Again... that evidence is non at all. Do you not get that? No first-hand witness' writings. No contemporary accounts, nothing... really - nothing. I take that back, there is sort of a first-hand account of a ghostly Jesus. You've made the case that there was a person named Yeshua who was God incarnate and therefore the burden is on you to show he existed and was divine. While I may invoke my own burden should I choose to deny he existed, that doesn't absolve you of your own burden. For now, I simply want evidence. Do you have any?

Huh?

Mark and Luke were so close and working with the original apostles that that is considered first-hand accounts anyway. No remaining actual physical parchments in antiquity has so closely been preserved to the time of the event within one hundred years as in Christianity. These are contemporary accounts along with Paul's seeing Christ in Person.

Jesus's resurrection was definitely not ghostly for they could touch him and he could eat with the apostles. There is many different accounts of this in various group sizes amounting to over 500 people that saw Him in his resurrected body. Not all the saved, but at least these 500 in various settings mentioned in the Bible.

The reason the burden is on you is because of the overwhelming evidence. Otherwise, now then the burden would fall on me, but it does not, especially in the light of the fact that you can not even find one mistake and all you do is produce mistakes in your reasoning. Normally when someone gets hit over the head enough times they change their course.

Chris Weimer · 03-11-2005, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lvdyou

Mark and Luke were so close and working with the original apostles that that is considered first-hand accounts anyway. No remaining actual physical parchments in antiquity has so closely been preserved to the time of the event within one hundred years as in Christianity. These are contemporary accounts along with Paul's seeing Christ in Person.

Laughable HaHA!
:rolling:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2005, 07:25 PM	#11
lvdyou Banned Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Texas Posts: 69	It would be more aptly said that you can not prove Jesus did not exist given the overwhelming evidence of His existence both man and God, therefore, the burden of the proof lies in you. Therefore, your oveverassuming betrays you. I will be humble instead in making no assumptions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.