Religion in the USA

Hypocritical given your own self admitted fragile snowflake attributes.

 

Oh My....You know it is impossible yet believe it happened?

I actually AM free of religious belief but am a Member of an internet debate forum which just so happens to have a religion section. Debate usually involves opposing sides in discussion exchanging opinion and data attempting to champion their position with verifiable and pertinent information, in case you were confused.

 

Then perhaps you should talk about something you know something about. In this particular case the story of Jesus' resurrection and post resurrection appearances are recorded our Bible and seen by numerous witnesses. This is where people like you usually say "those claims are fairy tales". Great use of the scientific method. If it ever catches on in the legal profession lawyers will say things like "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I intend to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that my client did not kill Mr. Smith if you ignore the murder weapon, 400 eyewitnesses, and the signed confession".

I don't intend to argue about the resurrection of Jesus, but I am saying that dismissing the evidence because it makes the other guy's case is not an argument.

 

Ironic given your puerile response.

 

Eyewitness accounts require a witness who was there to see what they account. What you have and believe is 2000 year old heresay written down and edited, revised, interpreted and manipulated by hundreds of other people yet you accept it as truth even though knowing it is impossible and saying so....that could easily be used as a definition of silly or insanity.

 

No, that isn't going to cut it, either. I hear this all the time and I have yet to see these edits, revisions, interpretations, and manipulations that would alter the resurrection story.

That's bad scholarship and passing off bad scholarship as fact is silly. Admit it, you are just mouthing atheist talking points.

 

Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb.
Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.
Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.
Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

 

Denial of the FACTUAL EVIDENCE of changes to the bible while believing nonsense without any shred of actual evidence?

http://www.nola.com/religion/index....re_being_studied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html

So there we have the FACT that all of these changes are WELL KNOWN as far the rest of the population goes AND we have the FACT that there are DOCUMENTED CHANGES to the "resurrection story".

And it is NOT just the New Testament either.

https://www.ranker.com/list/has-the-bible-changed/jacob-shelton

 

This is my actual statement:

"I hear this all the time and I have yet to see these edits, revisions, interpretations, and manipulations that would alter the resurrection story."

Did you actually read the article? After all of your ranting, you still have nothing that disproves the resurrection.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension.

 

The resurrection was a story produced by Paul years after the death of Christ, you have yet to see things because you close your eyes to them. The Gospel of Mark is also used as confirmation but has the same "Eyewitness" problems.

 

You were provided with factual proof that at least one of the Gospels has hard evidence that the disciples did NOT witness the resurrection which DOES throw serious doubt on the veracity of those claims in the other gospels.

When you have CONFLICTING eyewitness testimony then it is usually thrown out in court.

And considering that your entire resurrection is based on NOTHING but these DUBIOUS eye witness accounts, now PROVEN to be fabricated in at least one of the gospels, your resurrection has effectively been disproven.

Your confirmation bias indicates that you only read what you want to read and ignore all of the other RELEVANT facts.

 

Yet another internet theologian.

That's not what it says, you need to learn to read. It said that the ending of Mark was not present in the earliest manuscripts, which is noted in just about every modern English Bible printed over the past 20 years or so, for people who actually read the Bible. I know you think you pulled something over on me but I have known about this stuff for years, and most of these things have little or no relevance.

 

A story produced by Paul....source?

I have already explained about Mark.

 

Yet another internet theologian.

That's not what it says, you need to learn to read. It said that the ending of Mark was not present in the earliest manuscripts, which is noted in just about every modern English Bible printed over the past 20 years or so, for people who actually read the Bible. I know you think you pulled something over on me but I have known about this stuff for years, and most of these things have little or no relevance.

 

t

This is the easiest to CopyPaste and is a relatively good synopsis.
"
Textual sources[edit]
The earliest mention of the resurrection is in the letters of the apostle Paul, which tradition dates from between 50 and 58 AD.[22][23] Paul shows very little interest in the teachings of Jesus, focusing attention instead on his role as the suffering, dying, resurrected Christ who would return at any moment to gather the elect and judge the world.[24] In his first epistle to the Corinthians Paul passes on a creed that he says he received shortly after his conversion (1Co. 15:1-8).[25] Christ, he says, was raised on the third day "according to the scriptures: and then appeared to various followers.[a] He lists, apparently in chronological order, a first appearance to Peter, then to "the Twelve," then to five hundred at one time, then to James (presumably James the brother of Jesus), then to "all the Apostles," and last to Paul himself.[25] Paul does not mention any appearances to women at the tomb, and other New Testament sources do not mention any appearance to a crowd of 500.[25] There is general agreement that the list is pre-Pauline, but less on how much of it belongs to the tradition and how much is from Paul: most scholars feel that Peter and the Twelve are original, but not all believe the same of the appearances to the 500, James, and "all the Apostles".[26]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_Resurrection_of_Jesus

 

So were you WRONG when you made this earlier allegation?

Because NOW you are alleging that you have known about the "edit, revisions, interpretations and manipulations" in the resurrection story for the last 20 years.

Which one are we supposed to believe? That the edits, etc never occurred or that you were aware of them but just denied that they existed?

Credibility depends entirely upon a single consistent and verifiable version of the facts. Neither the bible nor the content of your posts rises to that standard.

 

Number one, you misquoted me and number two, the statements I MADE are not incompatible. Reading is fundamental.

 

Of course you don't. You see only what you want to see.

ROFL Isn't that what Sandusky said when he was caught in an compromising position?

 

No, that's what I said when I realized that you didn't get the joke. Is this where you complain about me abusing, trolling, and name calling as you abuse, troll, and call me names? Well, I'd love to stay and chat with you boys but I have to go watch some paint dry.

 

LOL

Dude, do you really want to get into your pot calling the kettle black mode again? You've been repeatedly spanked for name-calling against anyone who disagrees with you.

 

I copied and pasted YOUR EXACT WORDS so it is can NOT be a misquote of what you actually posted.

That you cannot reconcile your own contradictions is not my problem.

Furthermore you cannot deny that the bible has been edited and changed and is therefore not the "infallible word of god" and thus has no credibility beyond those that "believe" the baseless superstitions and fables it contains.

 

Remember the apostle Thomas? He had been a member of Yeshua's posse for several years and knew him personally. He didn't believe it when he supposedly saw the zombie. Yet here you are, 2,000 years later, and believe the fairy tale without a doubt because some writer said that 500 people saw the zombie.

The whole point of the resurrection story is to sell the idea that people have "souls" and that those souls will be resurrected after death and go on to either eternal life in a heaven or paradise or to eternal punishment in a hell. It's actually an universal belief that crosses all time periods and all cultures. So in that regard belief in the zombie Yeshua isn't really required to believe in the superstition. Ancient American Indians and Egyptians Pacific islanders had the same belief and they didn't know Yeshua from a turnip.

 

It would seem the Good Father has tired of this debate and decided instead to retire to his confessional in order to ask his God what to do.

 

I've told you people before, if you tried that in Seminary you'd flunk, Wikipedia is not an accredited source. But, to the "I saw it on the internet so it must be true" crowd it's good as gold.

 

99% of the crap you posted is not even about the resurrection story, except for the one about the ending of Mark You are as dishonest as Max.