LogFAQs > #878234651

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, Database 1 ( 03.09.2017-09.16.2017 ), DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	How do you refute the historical evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus
QuantumScript 04/30/17 11:09:53 PM #22:	Saloonist posted... KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... KiwiTerraRizing posted... Saloonist posted... scoobydoobydont posted... There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. KiwiTerraRizing posted... The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source. I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions. I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof. Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss? You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source. The reliability and consistency of the Gospels as texts is widely accepted. Our manuscripts for them are numerous and consistent. They are closer to the events they describe than the vast majority of ancient history. You may dispute certain events, but there is much in the gospels that is historically accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels?wprov=sfla1 Sure, the resurrection is a good argument. But it's not complete enough, imo. If it really happened, you'd expect the rest of the Bible to be true too. Unfortunately we see that it isn't true, especially with regards to New Testament promises of God's intervention in people's lives. So it's safe to conclude that the arguments for the resurrection are simply the product of 2,000 years of refining an argumentative framework. After that long, any incredible idea can have an appearance of being defensible. <cite>QuantumScript posted [p:878234651] in How do you... [t:75297940]...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Saloonist posted...</cite> <quote><cite>scoobydoobydont posted...</cite> <quote>There is no historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.</quote> <cite>KiwiTerraRizing posted...</cite> <quote>The people who wrote the Bible made it up. There is zero objective historical evidence. The Bible is not a trusted source.</quote> I encourage you to read the link before you jump to conclusions.</quote> I did, the author makes an argument based on assumptions he doesn't prove or back up. It's a bad argument at best and offers zero proof.</quote> Do you have an issue with a particular part of his argument that you would like to discuss?</quote> You don't prove anything with argument. He needs to offer proof. Every assumption and "fact" needs a cited source.</quote> The reliability and consistency of the Gospels as texts is widely accepted. Our manuscripts for them are numerous and consistent. They are closer to the events they describe than the vast majority of ancient history. You may dispute certain events, but there is much in the gospels that is historically accurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels?wprov=sfla1</quote> Sure, the resurrection is a good argument. But it's not complete enough, imo. If it really happened, you'd expect the rest of the Bible to be true too. Unfortunately we see that it isn't true, especially with regards to New Testament promises of God's intervention in people's lives. So it's safe to conclude that the arguments for the resurrection are simply the product of 2,000 years of refining an argumentative framework. After that long, any incredible idea can have an appearance of being defensible.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1