exchange with some atheist on carm.
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
(1) he can't disprove that the primary gospel material dates to 50.
Which is irrelevant whether or not it's true.
wrong! obviously relevant because the McDowell arguments come in at that point. 18 years after the event most of the eye witnesses are still alive, probalby most of the communities are still together. That creates a very high probability that the story is accurate and reflects eye witness testimony.
(2) can't disprove early independent tradition of Guards on tomb.
Which is irrelevant whether or not it's true.
how? how could be possibly be irrelevant? The Guards on the make me it practically impossible to think that he didn't raise from the dead. That's the holy grail that Josh McDowell didn't have.
(3) can't dispute logic of empty tomb.
This is the only bit which really matters. Was there an empty tomb, or is it just a story?
I'm sorry you can't understand the issues or the consequences of the argument. if you were more considered with learning than with being snide maybe you would pick up something. All the points I've made so far increase the likely hood of this point.
(1) we have 500 eye witnesses most of whom are still alive when this is penned.
(2) that means if it's not true you have 500 chances to contradict it.
(3) we have a second independent tradition from an early period saying there were guards on the tomb. just think about it. if what you say is true you see the empty tomb is significant, well having guards on it is what makes it work as "the empty tomb." Otherwise its just a tomb some took a body out of.
what I've said so far vastly increases the likelihood of guards on the tomb.
Do you have any proof of it? If the tomb has been proven to exist, and to have been used by a man referred to as Christ, and was found empty after three days, how do you know that the emptiness is due to resurrection rather than his body simply being moved?
the guards were stationed to prevent that. No one would mess with Roman soldiers. That' why I say it works as "the empty tomb."
have you never heard of Josh McDowell? Atheists make fun of him but that's because he didn't have the material I'm telling you about. [Not that I think Evidence that Demands a Verdict is some great hall mark of human thought, but if you can connect it to the early date the arguments work pretty well.]
(4) he can't dispute link to eye witnesses such as Apostolic and disciples through
Which could and probably did lie,
why? give me one good reason to think that? Cant' you see what a childish armature silly response that is? you sound bt "I refuse to believe I don't care about the fact, the facts are lies! I will not believe!" silly! That's nothing but gain saying the evdience.
embellish, or otherwise alter the story.[Before he and the other atheists were saying "there's no validity" "there's nothing to back it up" when you show them there is they don't go, "gee really? maybe I should think about it" their knee jerk reaction is"it's a lie!" "I refuse to believe!"]
I refuse to believe therefore it can't be true. so like most atheists the facts be damned. You don't give a rats hind quarters about evidence, logic, facts or arguments. When push comes to shove you can't face the truth honestly you still refuse to believe.
what's the point of talking to you?
thanks for exposing atheism as what it is.
In the same thread a Breif exchange with a character called "Derwood"
Originally Posted by derwood
It doesn't "Make" it true it's the only way to know it's true. Its' silly to disvalue eye witness info because person expedience and direct encounter is still our best way to be sure of events that are not microscopic or telescopic.
The links go to articles that reinforce common knowledge that eye witness testimony can be unrelated. This guy is so stupid because he doesn't understand the basis of historical evidence.Eyewitness is still the best we have on most things, it may suck but it's still the best. If you were on trial for murder would you want 500 witnesses saying "He was with me at the time" or some theoretical deal loosely based upon DNA? legal system and historians both still assume eye witness is best. Historians don't function as archaeologist inferring everything from artifacts. Histoirans use documents and doctuments are only as good as the knowledge of the people who write them. But we have more than eye witness testimony here. What we have here is the witness of several whole communities, not one but at least four or more where the whole community itself testifies to being there.
Why is that not enough to at least prove the events happened, Jesus existed in history, people who knew him at least thought he was great if not Messiah?
If you are relying on that for the 'evidenced' for your Faith, then you'd best find a better faith.
do you even consider for a moment that it might be true. no like the brain washed minion that you are you automatically turn off the facts and turn on the incredulity.
you have proven once again there's no point in talking to atheist. atheists are ignorant, don't are about truth, don't want proof, refuse to consider facts and basically are brain washed ideologues.
(1) The oriignal pre Mark readaction
(2)the Pauline corups
(3)....(a) what he got form people ho were there
(4)....(b) his saying source.
(5)The Gospels themselves which reflect the community as a whole, a whole community full of people who were there.
(6) writers who write about their relationships with those who were there.
That's six levels of verification behind the Gospels. We could include Paul's a and b as part of 5 but it's a matter of where they come to us from. They are not coming to us from the Gospels but form Paul.