Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 03-18-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

If Jesus didn't rise from the dead then it's all a pack of lies.

Nonsense. It could just as easily be very sincere, but incorrect, folklore, crafted with no intent to deceive. Not everything that isn't true is automatically a lie.

The false dichotomy you present here is a very shopworn one.

regards,

NinJay

It's a true dichotomy.

Quote:

12 And if Christ is preached, that out of the dead he hath risen, how say certain among you, that there is no rising again of dead persons? 13 and if there be no rising again of dead persons, neither hath Christ risen; 14 and if Christ hath not risen, then void is our preaching, and void also your faith, 15 and we also are found false witnesses of God, because we did testify of God that He raised up the Christ, whom He did not raise if then dead persons do not rise; 16 for if dead persons do not rise, neither hath Christ risen, 17 and if Christ hath not risen, vain is your faith, ye are yet in your sins; 18 then, also, those having fallen asleep in Christ did perish; 19 if in this life we have hope in Christ only, of all men we are most to be pitied.

Gullwind · 03-18-2008, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You do realize that the rotting corpse of Jesus or his tomb has never been found, right?

Sure, which supports the idea that he never existed equally well. So what?

Quote:

Besides if it's all a fairytale why do you waste your time even debating it? Do you waste your time debating if little red riding hood was real also?

Because people who believe Little red Riding Hood was real aren't trying to tell me what how to live my life or what I can and can't believe.

-Jay- · 03-18-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Nonsense. It could just as easily be very sincere, but incorrect, folklore, crafted with no intent to deceive. Not everything that isn't true is automatically a lie.

The false dichotomy you present here is a very shopworn one.

regards,

NinJay

It's a true dichotomy.

The fact that I provided a third option invalidates your assertion.

(And using a Bible verse to prove that a claim made within the Bible is true and therefore proves the Bible's divine inspiration is so circular that it's dizzying. You really should try a different approach. This one isn't getting you anywhere.)

regards,

NinJay

blastula · 03-18-2008, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Then the changes added to the last chapter of the earliest copies of the earliest gospel Mark is very relevant, don't you think?

It is very irrelevant.

Mark 16:1-8 clearly show the resurrection

Mark 16:9-20 has a note in some bibles which states "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"

As you can plainly see the resurrection is portrayed in the undisputed text of Mark 16:1-8 thus you point is irrelevant.

LOL.

Taking the gospel as testimonial evidence, there's a big difference between a story that says "some mysterious dude said he resurrected" and one that says "he rose from the dead and several known people saw and heard him." Not that either one isn't suspect.

If that addition isn't suspicious to you, then I think you should send me $100,000 because a guy dressed in white said so.

arnoldo · 03-18-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It's a true dichotomy.

The fact that I provided a third option invalidates your assertion.

(And using a Bible verse to prove that a claim made within the Bible is true and therefore proves the Bible's divine inspiration is so circular that it's dizzying. You really should try a different approach. This one isn't getting you anywhere.)

regards,

NinJay

Ok, so the options in reference to the NT are

A. It's true
B. It's deliberate lies
C. It's innocent folktales

I guess answer A is out of the question so the NT is either B or C, right?

-Jay- · 03-18-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

If that addition isn't suspicious to you, then I think you should send me $100,000 because a guy dressed in white said so.

Hey! A guy dressed in white said that arnoldo should send ME $100,000, too!

arnoldo · 03-18-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

It is very irrelevant.

Mark 16:1-8 clearly show the resurrection

Mark 16:9-20 has a note in some bibles which states "The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20"

As you can plainly see the resurrection is portrayed in the undisputed text of Mark 16:1-8 thus you point is irrelevant.

LOL.

Taking the gospel as testimonial evidence, there's a big difference between a story that says "some mysterious dude said he resurrected" and one that says "he rose from the dead and several known people saw and heard him." Not that either one isn't suspect.

If that addition isn't suspicious to you, then I think you should send me $100,000 because a guy dressed in white said so.

I guess you are correct, the addition proves the entire NT is false.

blastula · 03-18-2008, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

LOL.

Taking the gospel as testimonial evidence, there's a big difference between a story that says "some mysterious dude said he resurrected" and one that says "he rose from the dead and several known people saw and heard him." Not that either one isn't suspect.

If that addition isn't suspicious to you, then I think you should send me $100,000 because a guy dressed in white said so.

I guess you are correct, the addition proves the entire NT is false.

Another false dichotomy and a strawman to boot.

Like, I do accept that Jerusalem was a real place.

arnoldo · 03-18-2008, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NinJay

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

If that addition isn't suspicious to you, then I think you should send me $100,000 because a guy dressed in white said so.

Hey! A guy dressed in white said that arnoldo should send ME $100,000, too!

Yeah, it was probably Lucifer who disguises himself as an angel of light :devil1:

arnoldo · 03-18-2008, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blastula

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I guess you are correct, the addition proves the entire NT is false.

Another false dichotomy and a strawman to boot.

Like, I do accept that Jerusalem was a real place.

Well, that's a start. Do you accept that the State of Israel has a right to exist?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.