Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 16:56:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 18, 2017 17:06:13 GMT
tpfkar St. Nick jetting across the sky as well. Science proven wrong yet AGAIN.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 17:10:13 GMT
Compelling? It's laughable.
Their "facts" are all "things that scholars agree that the bible says".
Sorry, but even if every scholar who ever lived agreed that the bible said those things, that doesn't make it so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 17:11:27 GMT
Another good one:
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 18, 2017 17:13:53 GMT
|
|
squeaky
Freshman
@squeaky
Posts: 86
Likes: 14
|
Post by squeaky on Apr 18, 2017 17:15:47 GMT
Notice the atheists who havent watched the entire video are disagreeing with it.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Apr 18, 2017 17:17:57 GMT
tpfkar Why don't one of you compelled ones articulate the best argument of the video? You said I was wrong which is attacking me rather than my argument.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 18, 2017 17:18:34 GMT
Notice the atheists who havent watched the entire video are disagreeing with it. Blade, why are you using a sock account?
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Apr 18, 2017 17:30:37 GMT
Yeah, I'm sure lots of non-Christian historians accept the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. All four of the alleged facts are hearsay. There are no primary or secondary sources which make those claims nor is there any corroboration from outside sources. The only fact about these are that they were included in the Gospels. We do not have anyone's personal accounts. Even if the disciples did believe Jesus rose from the dead doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many PhDs Craig has in philosophy and theology. He doesn't speak for actual objective historians.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:06:05 GMT
Yeah, I'm sure lots of non-Christian historians accept the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. All four of the alleged facts are hearsay. There are no primary or secondary sources which make those claims nor is there any corroboration from outside sources. The only fact about these are that they were included in the Gospels. We do not have anyone's personal accounts. Even if the disciples did believe Jesus rose from the dead doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many PhDs Craig has in philosophy and theology. He doesn't speak for actual objective historians. The NT is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, Sulla. As for your point about the disciples. People would die for what they believe to be true, but no one would die for what they know to be a lie.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:09:31 GMT
Compelling? It's laughable. Their "facts" are all "things that scholars agree that the bible says". Sorry, but even if every scholar who ever lived agreed that the bible said those things, that doesn't make it so. This from a guy who believes and accepts virtually anything a scientist throws out there as evidence, even conclusions based on nothing more than conjecture or assumptions.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 18, 2017 18:10:05 GMT
Yeah, I'm sure lots of non-Christian historians accept the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. All four of the alleged facts are hearsay. There are no primary or secondary sources which make those claims nor is there any corroboration from outside sources. The only fact about these are that they were included in the Gospels. We do not have anyone's personal accounts. Even if the disciples did believe Jesus rose from the dead doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many PhDs Craig has in philosophy and theology. He doesn't speak for actual objective historians. The NT is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, Sulla. As for your point about the disciples. People would die for what they believe to be true, but no one would die for what they know to be a lie. How is it an "accurate and trustworthy historical document", Cody?
|
|
|
Post by johnblutarsky on Apr 18, 2017 18:16:15 GMT
The NT is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, Sulla. I thought the sentence stating WLC made a very compelling presentation was going to be the funniest thing that I would read all day. But then I scrolled down a little further.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 18, 2017 18:17:31 GMT
Well at least you tried
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:18:09 GMT
The NT is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, Sulla. As for your point about the disciples. People would die for what they believe to be true, but no one would die for what they know to be a lie. How is it an "accurate and trustworthy historical document", Cody? Ever heard of William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck? Two of the greatest and most respected archaeologists there has ever been, who both happened to be non-christians. They described the bible as being the single most accurate source document from history.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Apr 18, 2017 18:22:10 GMT
How is it an "accurate and trustworthy historical document", Cody? Ever heard of William F. Albright and Nelson Glueck? Two of the greatest and most respected archaeologists there has ever been, who both happened to be non-christians. They described the bible as being the single most accurate source document from history. No, never heard of them. Just looked up Albright, and can't see anything about him not being a Christian, just that he wasn't a biblical literalist. You weren't lying again were you Cody? And after chastising someone for trusting what scientists say, you're seriously going to use an appeal to authority?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:25:03 GMT
The NT is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, Sulla. I thought the sentence stating WLC made a very compelling presentation was going to be the funniest thing that I would read all day. But then I scrolled down a little further. The NT has continually been found to be accurate on it's places referenced, dates, and records of events. This is a fact. Critics like you have long been questioning the NT and time and time again archeological discoveries have silenced you.
|
|
|
Post by Sulla on Apr 18, 2017 18:26:47 GMT
Yeah, I'm sure lots of non-Christian historians accept the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. All four of the alleged facts are hearsay. There are no primary or secondary sources which make those claims nor is there any corroboration from outside sources. The only fact about these are that they were included in the Gospels. We do not have anyone's personal accounts. Even if the disciples did believe Jesus rose from the dead doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many PhDs Craig has in philosophy and theology. He doesn't speak for actual objective historians. The NT is an accurate and trustworthy historical document, Sulla. As for your point about the disciples. People would die for what they believe to be true, but no one would die for what they know to be a lie. No text is given a blanket label of "accurate and trustworthy". Each claim within the document is evaluated separately. Did Caesar exist? Yes, we have primary sources for that. But that doesn't make all the other claims true. I didn't accuse the disciples of lying. They could have been mistaken. Either way all we have is some unknown person's claim that they believed that. We don't have their personal accounts. And we don't know how or why all of them died. What we have is 'tradition'. Just because many people believed something 2,000 years ago doesn't automatically make it true.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2017 18:32:11 GMT
Compelling? It's laughable. Their "facts" are all "things that scholars agree that the bible says". Sorry, but even if every scholar who ever lived agreed that the bible said those things, that doesn't make it so. This from a guy who believes and accepts virtually anything a scientist throws out there as evidence, even conclusions based on nothing but conjecture or assumptions. This from a guy who has no answer to the point raised, so he ignores it and attacks the person who made the point instead - and does so by lying about him, at that. So much for your strong video. It's so weak that even you are instantly reduced to lying about people instead of defending it.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 18, 2017 18:35:58 GMT
Compelling? It's laughable. Their "facts" are all "things that scholars agree that the bible says". Sorry, but even if every scholar who ever lived agreed that the bible said those things, that doesn't make it so. This from a guy who believes and accepts virtually anything a scientist throws out there as evidence, even conclusions based on nothing more than conjecture or assumptions. *IRONY OVERLOAD*
|
|