The atheist comes back let's take it from there:
Originally Posted by Username
now you are just indulging in open argument from incredulity and poisoning the well. "Well if you have evidence that disproves my thing then I'll refuse to believe it."
Notice the immediate groundless attack on the sources. We can't trust the sources, why? he doesn't know but we just can't. That's part of the incredulity thing, which means "I refuse to believe no matter what." I point out,
that's not an argument, in fact that hurts your position a lot. becasue the only thing you can say to counter a disprove is 'I refuse to believe it, that can't be trusted."
its' silly to throw in the bible can't be trusted becuase you that tack then why speak about the nature of the text anyway? In other word you will never allow anything to count against you because as soon as it does you start whining "no fair ir use good evidence."
even if the NT did have a perfect forensic description of the corpus you would say "O they just made that up." So there can never be evidence.
that just demonstrates the atheist inability to argue fairly!
how do you know stroble can't be trusted? probably because he disagrees with you, right?
See, Meta, nothing you are saying helps.
ahahahahah of course not, but then I don't nee help, you beat self fine. You simply cannot refuse to allow anything to ever counter against your case. remember the little word "falsifiable?" That goes for arguments to. you will not allow your arguments to be falsifiable, because they are disproved you whine it cant' be so. That means nothing more than the fact that your arguments are not logical, they have no basis in logic.
to make a logical argument there must be the possibility it can be beaten. If every time the evidence counts against your argument the evdience must be wrong, doesn't mean you have a good argument, it's the death knell for it.You this is the rhetorical way to handle it. Don't just say "you don't make sense" tell them you jsut undercut your own argument. why? because if "nothing helps" in other words "nothing can ever count against my position" then it's not falsifiable and it can't be proved either. He just made it unprovable. I just today saw good article all Christian apologists should read, Karl Popper explaining why things have to be falsifiable.
Think carefully about it. You are trying to give established scientific facts about how a person dies on the cross, then you REJECT the scientific facts of what happens after being dead for 3 days.
(1) There is no record given either way. you are merely asserting that it should be.nothing actually contradicts scientific fact. its' merely omission.
In other words what I meant was John doesn't say "there was no rigor moritis" there's no contrdition its omission but there's no reason to expect him to include such detail. He did with the fluid in the side that was just luck. They guy was not a Forensic Pathologist so there' no reason to expect him to record all these tell tale signs.
(2) there's no reason to expect that they would have forensic evidence becasue John was not a forensic pathologist and they did not have the scinece at that time.
(3) I prove (with expert opinion from a pathologist) one thing John said does happen to coincide with what would be the scientific fact of a corps so that means there's a good indication he was dead that assertion that he was not is groundless.
It's called SPECIAL PLEADING!!!!!
I can accept that everything the Good Doctor says is true, if it really happened. But then you have a CONTRADICTORY account of MEDICAL FACTS: That Jesus didn't exhibit ANY of the signs of having been dead for 3 Days.
you don't know that he didn't (in fact what I talk about is one so he did exhibit one of them). There is fact no reason why they would have recorded that. they didn't contradict it, just doesn't say so you don't' have an argument.
Just because someone should have died under those conditions doesn't mean they did, or that it was the same person who came back to life, or that the stories are even true.
the medical examiner says he did. because you whine and refuse to believe it:
Look at the arrogance on this turkey!
here's another source.
While death on the cross may have been caused by any number of factors, and likely would have varied with each individual case, the two seemingly most prominent causes of death probably were hypovolemic shock and exhaustion asphyxia (DePasquale, 1963; Davis, 1965). Others have proposed dehydration, cardiac arrhythmia, and congestive heart failure with the rapid accumulation of pericardial and pleural effusions as possible contributing factors (Lumpkin 1978; Clements, 1992, pp. 108-109. The ability of Christ to cry out with a loud voice indicates that asphyxia was probably not the major causative factor.Tomorrow I'll deal with a more rational argument
The finality of death upon the cross often was accomplished by the breaking of the legs of the victims, which caused still more traumatic shock and prevented an individual from pushing up in order to fully respire. In an effort to get the bodies off the crosses before the Sabbath day,
the soldiers therefore came, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other that was crucified with him: but when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: howbeit one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and straightway there came out blood and water (John 19:32-34).
Much speculation has centered on the exact location of the puncture wound and thus the source of the resulting blood and water. However, the Greek word (pleura) that John used clearly denotes the area of the intercoastal ribs that cover the lungs (Netter, 1994, p. 184). Given the upward angle of the spear, and the thoracic location of the wound, abdominal organs can be ruled out as having provided the blood and water.
A more likely scenario would suggest that the piercing affected a lung (along with any built-up fluid), the pericardial sac surrounding the heart, the right atrium of the heart itself, the pulmonary vessels, and/or the aorta. Since John did not describe the specific side of the body on which the wound was inflicted, we can only speculate about which structures might have been impaled by such a vicious act. However, the blood could have resulted from the heart, the aorta, or any of the pulmonary vessels. Water probably was provided by pleural or pericardial fluids (that surround the lungs and heart).
It is with both medical and biblical certainty that we know Christ died upon the cross at Calvary. He was laid in a tomb with nail wounds in His hands and feet, and still possessed those scars following His resurrection. The extreme physical insults to Christ’s body left Him ragged, torn, bleeding, and tormented with pain. Yet He endured willingly all the agony and torment of the cross for each one of us. As Paul wrote:
For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity (Ephesians 2:14-16).
We would do well to heed the advice of the writer of the book of Hebrews, who said:
Let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God (12:2).
Oh, the overwhelming love that God showed each one of us when He allowed His only begotten Son to suffer that excruciating (Latin, excruciates, or “out of the cross”) pain and agony—for our sake!