The Resurrection

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

My one sentence----I was not insulting, simply stating the obvious, feel free to do as your conscience dictates--not watching this thread any longer.

You guys are taking this far too seriously.

 

[mmksparbud]

You guys are taking this far too seriously.

I wasn't but now I am!! Tootles--as he said---this is pointless! Why would anyone look for bloody footprints from a corps that has been washed and wrapped in linen? He is not interested in our point of view or discussion so I agree---this is pointless--bye, bye--God Bless!!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I wasn't but now I am!! Tootles--as he said---this is pointless! Why would anyone look for bloody footprints from a corps that has been washed and wrapped in linen? He is not interested in our point of view or discussion so I agree---this is pointless--bye, bye--God Bless!!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sad, if you ask me.

If you're an evolutionist -- and I assume you are -- you are more than willing to play their connect-the-dots game in a positive light, aren't you?

But with theology, you will play connect-the-dots with negative statements.

Evolutionist?

1. Evolution is not a cult.
2. Evolution has occurred, is occurring, and is not up for debate. See retroviral DNA evidence.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Are you confusing me with another poster? I never said such a thing would be moronic, and in fact if it were up to me I'd probably have dispatched such a team myself. But in historical terms, I'm sure the Spanish would have loved to have dispatched a team to convince people that the undefeatable Spanish Armada wasn't defeated, but I think it's actually very difficult to lie about important historical events in the long run.

Wonderful. Then explain why no team was dispatched.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

OK, I'll say that might affect possibility #1. But possibilities #2 and #3 remain.

Yes those possibilities remain. Am I to take this as an admission that the resurrection story makes little sense if there was no investigation of the tomb?

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolutionist?

1. Evolution is not a cult.
2. Evolution has occurred, is occurring, and is not up for debate. See retroviral DNA evidence.

But you're more than willing to play connect the dots between missing links, are you not?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

My one sentence----I was not insulting, simply stating the obvious, feel free to do as your conscience dictates--not watching this thread any longer.

Stating the obvious often times is insulting. Or do you often remark on how fat people are?

So when you go on and on about how they should've dispatched the CSI team and taken DNA samples, you were being quite rude to me.

You say that Jesus would not have left bloody footprints because he was washed... but his wounds were still there, or do you not know the story of Doubting Thomas looking at those holes? Sure, rigor mortis would likely have set in, stopping the bleeding, but then Jesus wouldn't be able to walk, would he? So if he was ALIVE, his blood would be FLOWING, and with OPEN WOUNDS he would BLEED. Duh!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You guys are taking this far too seriously.

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. What it can't be is of moderate importance.

CS Lewis

 

[Nihilist Virus]

But you're more than willing to play connect the dots between missing links, are you not?

Apples and oranges.

In religion, we have what's called divine revelation, so there is no excuse for missing information.

In science, we have to get on our hands and knees in the dirt to find stuff that might not have ever fossilized in the first place due to environmental conditions not being met.

So our choices are to play connect the dots, or else reject evolution. For the first few years of my atheism I did reject evolution. Then I took anthropology 101. Pretty much delivered a clear picture. You can sit in on a course for free.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Stating the obvious often times is insulting. Or do you often remark on how fat people are?

So when you go on and on about how they should've dispatched the CSI team and taken DNA samples, you were being quite rude to me.

You say that Jesus would not have left bloody footprints because he was washed... but his wounds were still there, or do you not know the story of Doubting Thomas looking at those holes? Sure, rigor mortis would likely have set in, stopping the bleeding, but then Jesus wouldn't be able to walk, would he? So if he was ALIVE, his blood would be FLOWING, and with OPEN WOUNDS he would BLEED. Duh!

Yep. Nails through the feet or ankles would make walking quite difficult.

Edit: Then again, getting stabbed in the heart with a spear would make it difficult to walk too.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and, if true, is of infinite importance. What it can't be is of moderate importance.

CS Lewis

So...ahem...why are you taking this so seriously then?

 

[Tawhano]

For someone who chastises me for not reading, you clearly did not read the OP.

I most certainly did read your first post. Did you or did you not ask for evidence in the Bible that recorded someone (“sympathetic, antagonistic, or merely fascinated as a neutral observer”) looked to see if the body of Jesus was in the sepulcher or not? Did you or did you not reply to jason_delisle when he said that the skeptic leadership send guards to look into the matter with the comment “This would answer my question and close the thread.”? Did you or did you not reply “I'm asking why it's not part of the story. Not asking for physical evidence, although that would be great.”? Did you or did you not reply “Why is there no account of an antagonist visiting the tomb in the gospels?” So tell me, what part of your question did I not read correctly?

 

[AV1611VET]

In science, we have to get on our hands and knees in the dirt to find stuff ...

Finding stuff ≠ missing link.

It's your faith between the links that I'm talking about.

One finds an A, then finds a Z and assumes there's a B → Y between them.

Later they find a T and an F and claim that was to be expected.

That's still a lot of faith in the alphabet.

Then, as disappointment begins to creep in, someone makes the point that the alphabet need not even exist for evolution to be true.

That's even making your faith stronger.

Stronger than dirt!

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I most certainly did read your first post. Did you or did you not ask for evidence in the Bible that recorded someone (“sympathetic, antagonistic, or merely fascinated as a neutral observer”) looked to see if the body of Jesus was in the sepulcher or not? Did you or did you not reply to jason_delisle when he said that the skeptic leadership send guards to look into the matter with the comment “This would answer my question and close the thread.”? Did you or did you not reply “I'm asking why it's not part of the story. Not asking for physical evidence, although that would be great.”? Did you or did you not reply “Why is there no account of an antagonist visiting the tomb in the gospels?” So tell me, what part of your question did I not read correctly?

I don't know if I should call it yet...but I will wait a little bit to be sure.

 

[ChetSinger]

Yes those possibilities remain. Am I to take this as an admission that the resurrection story makes little sense if there was no investigation of the tomb?

No, because in my opinion the heart of the resurrection story isn't the empty tomb, but the risen Jesus. It was the risen Jesus, continuing to shepherd his disciples, who started the church.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I most certainly did read your first post. Did you or did you not ask for evidence in the Bible that recorded someone (“sympathetic, antagonistic, or merely fascinated as a neutral observer”) looked to see if the body of Jesus was in the sepulcher or not? Did you or did you not reply to jason_delisle when he said that the skeptic leadership send guards to look into the matter with the comment “This would answer my question and close the thread.”? Did you or did you not reply “I'm asking why it's not part of the story. Not asking for physical evidence, although that would be great.”? Did you or did you not reply “Why is there no account of an antagonist visiting the tomb in the gospels?” So tell me, what part of your question did I not read correctly?

I asked why no one cared to pay a visit after Easter Sunday. It's clearly laid out in the OP. You are reading some kind of slant into it.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

No, because in my opinion the heart of the resurrection story isn't the empty tomb, but the risen Jesus. It was the risen Jesus, continuing to shepherd his disciples, who started the church.

Wonderful, but I don't care about that on this thread.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yep. Nails through the feet or ankles would make walking quite difficult.

Edit: Then again, getting stabbed in the heart with a spear would make it difficult to walk too.

Was in the ribs not the heart.

So...ahem...why are you taking this so seriously then?

Why aren't you?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Was in the ribs not the heart.



Why aren't you?

Because it is hard to take people seriously when they are acting like a couple 9 year old boys arguing over who gets the last cookie.

Are you having fun yet?