The Resurrection

[Tawhano]

The argument is and always has been that this is a piece of evidence on the scales against the resurrection. It's never been my claim that this is a knock-down argument. Therefore it cannot possibly qualify as a slippery-slope argument. Your dishonesty perpetuates, to no one's surprise.

Your inability to understand the concept of the slippery slope fallacy does not qualify you to pass judgment and remark that I am dishonest. I am not dishonest. I have been truthful the entire time. You pervert my responses to provide a smoke screen to hide the fact that you never had anything to back up your claims.

You began the ridicule here by telling me I need to read the text before making threads like this…

Guilty as charged. After reading the insulting remarks you made to the other posters I responded in kind. I even admitted this in my reply to another poster here. Was I wrong in doing so? Yes. Am I sorry? Only in that it opened the floodgates of your insulting remarks. Which is worst in your opinion; my indicating you didn’t read the text or you calling me a liar outright?

You seem to not have noticed the part where I say, "BUT IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY THE WOMEN DIDN'T SEE THEM."

First of all it has nothing to do with whether the guards looked into the sepulcher or not, never had and never will. Secondly you have not proven that they didn’t see the guards. All you have is an omission of an event that you believe should have been included because of some idea stuck in your head that you have the ability to ascertain what the author should have written about. You have quoted believability and continuity as the reason for your opinion but are unable to explain it with a plausible argument.

Secondly, I think we've established that the resurrection story, at best, has gaps in continuity, or, at worst, has plot holes. If a story has no corroborating evidence AND has continuity issues, and yet the events are true, then the author of the story has done a very poor job.

No we never established this. This is your opinion based on your view that the author made the story up. The only holes in the story you see is based on that assumption and not on the actual text itself.

This was your response to my remark:

I admitted that I made an error I corrected it. You continually throw this in my face as being dishonest by ignoring the fact that I corrected it. How is that being honest on your part?

You are taking me out of context, either accidentally or deliberately.

And just where did I do this? You make false accusations that you never back up

I've got nothing else for you because you are a dishonest and hypocritical debater, and because you refused to address my paragraph in bold and red twice. You deliberately redact and ignore the strongest points of my arguments in direct opposition to the principle of charity.

You never had anything from the start. You do not have any strong points for me to redact. You have simply ignored my actual position and substituted a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of my position.

 

[Tawhano]

I have a bachelor's in mathematics. Yes I understand logic.

Then you may be interested in this little exercise I found in my notes:

Three college students share an apartment on the edge of town. They draw straws to determine who should go to the store to purchase milk. Bob draws the shortest straw and walks out the front door to head to the store. When Bob arrives at the store he calls the apartment as he has forgotten what brand of milk they usually buy.

Based on the above facts determine which of the below possibilities is the most likely event:

1. Bob walked to the store
   
2. Bod rode a bicycle to the store
   
3. Bob drove a vehicle to the store
   
4. Bob caught a taxi to the store
   
5. Bob used some other form of transportation to get to the store.

Pick from the five modes of transportation or add a sixth scenario and explain why you believe it is the most logical scenario given the facts in the story.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Then you may be interested in this little exercise I found in my notes:

Three college students share an apartment on the edge of town. They draw straws to determine who should go to the store to purchase milk. Bob draws the shortest straw and walks out the front door to head to the store. When Bob arrives at the store he calls the apartment as he has forgotten what brand of milk they usually buy.

Based on the above facts determine which of the below possibilities is the most likely event:

1. Bob walked to the store
   
2. Bod rode a bicycle to the store
   
3. Bob drove a vehicle to the store
   
4. Bob caught a taxi to the store
   
5. Bob used some other form of transportation to get to the store.

Pick from the five modes of transportation or add a sixth scenario and explain why you believe it is the most logical scenario given the facts in the story.

I'm sorry I must've missed your response to my paragraph in red. Surely you wouldn't start a new conversation when you have deliberately dodged questions from the previous one.

 

[Tawhano]

I'm sorry I must've missed your response to my paragraph in red.

My bad; I was under the impression we were at an impasse because you said:

You are a complete waste of time, and I'm out like Benedict XVI.

So I thought maybe we could try another avenue to discuss in civil discourse.

Surely you wouldn't start a new conversation when you have deliberately dodged questions from the previous one.

It is because I do not have an answer. The position you take in the red text is only based on your opinion of what others should or should not do. I disagree with your views and have explained why. I can do no more than that.

A second investigation would need to be performed if the first one was unsatisfactory.

I believe this was covered before. I do not believe the first investigation was unsatisfactory. This is your opinion of which you base your rejection of my views as absurd. How can I answer your questions with that kind of illogical reasoning? It doesn’t matter what I say you will reject it as absurd even when you agreed beforehand it was plausible.

What's even more baffling is that these priests were fully aware that Jesus prophesied he would rise from the dead, and now were firmly believing that there was an earthquake+angel(s)+empty tomb, and STILL none of them, not even one, believed in Jesus.

Yes it is baffling but how in the world do you expect me to tell you why they rejected Jesus? They knew he heal the sick and raised the dead and didn’t believe. I find that baffling as well. I debate non-believers and see the parallels between their reason for not believing and those who do believe. I find that baffling as well. I cannot explain it nor do I care to.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My bad; I was under the impression we were at an impasse because you said:
So I thought maybe we could try another avenue to discuss in civil discourse.

The very first thing you said to me was a hypocritical scolding, so pardon me if I was unaware that you wanted civil discourse.

It is because I do not have an answer. The position you take in the red text is only based on your opinion of what others should or should not do. I disagree with your views and have explained why. I can do no more than that.

So it's my opinion that A second investigation would need to be performed if the first one was unsatisfactory. If the guards are all reporting a fantastical occurrence, then their report is in question. I see. Perhaps it's just my opinion, but I do believe it's more reasonable to believe a dog ate some kid's homework than it is to believe that angel(s) appeared out of nowhere. Grade school teachers never fall for that one, but you want me to believe that these priests, who were among the few educated people, who were among the few people who were even literate, believed the report of the guards? I could see it as plausible that they'd believe an angel appeared to deliver a message from a dead family member or something, but the guards are invoking an angel to explain their failure at their job. You are literally buying the "my dog ate my homework" line.

I believe this was covered before. I do not believe the first investigation was unsatisfactory. This is your opinion of which you base your rejection of my views as absurd. How can I answer your questions with that kind of illogical reasoning? It doesn’t matter what I say you will reject it as absurd even when you agreed beforehand it was plausible.

OK... so this one time I got footage of Big Foot, but I dropped my phone in a creek and lost the data. You believe me though, right?

Yes it is baffling but how in the world do you expect me to tell you why they rejected Jesus? They knew he heal the sick and raised the dead and didn’t believe. I find that baffling as well. I debate non-believers and see the parallels between their reason for not believing and those who do believe. I find that baffling as well. I cannot explain it nor do I care to.

OK, firstly you are completely wrong. They didn't believe Jesus performed miracles. They called him a DECEIVER. Did you not read this part from chapter 27:

62 Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,

63 Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.

64 Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

65 Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.

66 So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

So no, they didn't believe in the miracles from when Jesus was alive. But you have them suddenly believing in miracles willy-nilly, coming just short of believing in the resurrection to the point that they believed supernatural events surrounded the disappearance of his corpse, after he predicted TO THE DAY that he would rise from the dead.

 

[Tawhano]

So no, they didn't believe in the miracles from when Jesus was alive.

(Luke 13:13) And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. (14) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

(Mark 3:1) And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. (2) And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. (3) And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.(4) And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. (5) And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. (6) And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

(Mat 12:24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

They did indeed believe Jesus performed miracles. What they didn’t believe is that he did so by the power of God.

OK... so this one time I got footage of Big Foot, but I dropped my phone in a creek and lost the data. You believe me though, right?

What an evasive reply to my question. Are you not able to answer my question of “How can I answer your questions with that kind of illogical reasoning?” It doesn’t matter what I say you will reject it as absurd even when you agreed beforehand it was plausible.

I don’t blame you for ignoring the challenge in post# 462. Regardless how you choose to answer it, honestly or dishonestly, it would reveal your inability to understand what logical reasoning is and how to use it to construct valid arguments. You could do a search for it on the web because it is an exercise used by colleges and the answer is on several educational facility sites.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

(Luke 13:13) And he laid his hands on her: and immediately she was made straight, and glorified God. (14) And the ruler of the synagogue answered with indignation, because that Jesus had healed on the sabbath day, and said unto the people, There are six days in which men ought to work: in them therefore come and be healed, and not on the sabbath day.

(Mark 3:1) And he entered again into the synagogue; and there was a man there which had a withered hand. (2) And they watched him, whether he would heal him on the sabbath day; that they might accuse him. (3) And he saith unto the man which had the withered hand, Stand forth.(4) And he saith unto them, Is it lawful to do good on the sabbath days, or to do evil? to save life, or to kill? But they held their peace. (5) And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other. (6) And the Pharisees went forth, and straightway took counsel with the Herodians against him, how they might destroy him.

(Mat 12:24) But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

They did indeed believe Jesus performed miracles. What they didn’t believe is that he did so by the power of God.

OK, fair enough. They believed he was capable of miracles. You got me there. But then doesn't that strengthen my case that they should've believed he was God when his most recent miracle seemed to be his own resurrection from the dead? At the very least he was still dead but somehow miraculous events surrounded the disappearance of his corpse on the day that he predicted he would rise from the dead. So you are telling me that they priests knew he committed more miracles than could be written in all books on earth, and they believed in the story that the guards were telling them, but they still didn't believe Jesus was who he said he was... not even one of them.

What an evasive reply to my question.

Lol, that's rich coming from you.

Are you not able to answer my question of “How can I answer your questions with that kind of illogical reasoning?”

What am I supposed to say? You simply label me as being illogical, and then claim you cannot answer me. And now you say I'm not answering you? Here's the phone, it's Abbot & Costello calling.

It doesn’t matter what I say you will reject it as absurd even when you agreed beforehand it was plausible.

Already addressed this.

I don’t blame you for ignoring the challenge in post# 462. Regardless how you choose to answer it, honestly or dishonestly, it would reveal your inability to understand what logical reasoning is and how to use it to construct valid arguments. You could do a search for it on the web because it is an exercise used by colleges and the answer is on several educational facility sites.

Post #462 could not possibly be more off topic. If you want to prove you're smarter than me, I'll whip you up and down the chessboard. If you think we're at an impasse on this subject, feel free to start a new one and see if I care.

 

[Tawhano]

Again: I don’t blame you for ignoring the challenge in post# 462. Regardless how you choose to answer it, honestly or dishonestly, it would reveal your inability to understand what logical reasoning is and how to use it to construct valid arguments. You could do a search for it on the web because it is an exercise used by colleges and the answer is on several educational facility sites.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Again: I don’t blame you for ignoring the challenge in post# 462. Regardless how you choose to answer it, honestly or dishonestly, it would reveal your inability to understand what logical reasoning is and how to use it to construct valid arguments. You could do a search for it on the web because it is an exercise used by colleges and the answer is on several educational facility sites.

You've lost and you have proven it by changing the subject or ignoring it outright. Get back on topic or stop derailing my threads please.

 

[Tawhano]

You've lost and you have proven it by changing the subject or ignoring it outright. Get back on topic or stop derailing my threads please.

I already explained to you that you do not win debates with strawman, sarcasm and slippery slope fallacies. The fact that you do not understand these logically invalid constructs is proven by your delusion that somehow you won.

I am not changing the subject. Whether or not you understand logical reasoning is an important clue as to your failure to supply one shred of evidence to back your OP.

 

[bhsmte]

Again: I don’t blame you for ignoring the challenge in post# 462. Regardless how you choose to answer it, honestly or dishonestly, it would reveal your inability to understand what logical reasoning is and how to use it to construct valid arguments. You could do a search for it on the web because it is an exercise used by colleges and the answer is on several educational facility sites.

What does post 462, have to do with the ressurection?