Originally posted by sonshipIt's not about offence, no one was offended. It's about your pride preventing you from admitting when you are wrong and someone Easley is right about something.
Not really, I think you should go back and read my response.
You know a person can say -
" I am sorry that you were offended."
And a person can say - "I am sorry that I purposely offended you."
Any apology that you deem I owe you is probably along the line over these years as - "I am sorry that you were offended."
Sometimes people are ...[text shortened]... u any apology for sometime vigorously disagreeing with you.
I am sorry that you were offended.
Your post here is just a further example of this pride.
Originally posted by divegeester...I would be as likely to engage with you intellectually, as I would to be cross the road and piss on your head if your hair was on fire.
Please stop being silly. I said you are a one dimensional twit who is incapable of using a different style. You're an irritating, boring individual who brings absolutely no value to this forum whatsoever, except perhaps for this controversy over your honestly and integrity.
But to be perfectly frank with you, if there was more going on in the forum ...[text shortened]... intellectually, as I would to be cross the road and piss on your head if your hair was on fire.
Says the guy who is not only engaging him (if not overly intellectual in the process) AND pissing on him.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI guess it depends on ones definition of "engage", "intellectual" and "pissing". If by "engage", you mean exchanging a few posts about his silly behaviour, and if by "intellectual" you benchmark your own ramblings about flat-earths and tin-foil-hatted conspiracies, and if by "pissing" you mean saying it as it is...then yes I would agee with you.
Says the guy who is not only engaging him (if not overly intellectual in the process) AND pissing on him.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 17
Originally posted by divegeesterSays the guy who is demonstrably humble himself? 🙄
It's not about offence, no one was offended. It's about your pride preventing you from admitting when you are wrong and someone Easley is right about something.
Your post here is just a further example of this pride.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeIf you are genuinely interested in the evidence have a look at this link:
Please provide the evidence you spoke of for the Resurrection, which according to you, outweighs that of Reincarnation.
Yes, the Resurrection was written about in the Gospels. Is that the sole basis of your 'evidence?' If so, does that mean anything written down (ever) is consequently to be considered evidence?
And you asked for information on ...[text shortened]... on. Did you even bother to follow the link I provided in the OP, or were your words just hollow?
https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-For-The-Resurrection.pdf
I find it interesting that you are willing to consider people's claims about what happened in their own minds as evidence for reincarnation yet you readily dismiss all evidence of the resurrection.
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou said you had 500 eyewitness accounts but then refused to show me any of them. Have you withdrawn the claim?
If you are genuinely interested in the evidence have a look at this link:
https://www.josh.org/wp-content/uploads/Evidence-For-The-Resurrection.pdf
I find it interesting that you are willing to consider people's claims about what happened in their own minds as evidence for reincarnation yet you readily dismiss all evidence of the resurrection.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 May 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFFrom the link I gave ghost:
You said you had 500 eyewitness accounts but then refused to show me any of them. Have you withdrawn the claim?
One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi, Associate Professor of History at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, emphasizes: "What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within 30 years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago. Let's take the more than 500 witnesses who saw Jesus alive after His death and burial and place them in a courtroom. Do you realize that if each of those 500 people were to testify for only six minutes, including cross-examination, you would have an amazing 50 hours of firsthand testimony? Add to this the testimony of many other eyewitnesses and you would well have the largest and most lopsided trial in history"
15 May 17
Originally posted by dj2beckerSo you don't have 500 eye witness accounts after all.
From the link I gave ghost:
One of the earliest records of Christ's appearing after the resurrection is by Paul. The apostle appealed to his audience's knowledge of the fact that Christ had been seen by more than 500 people at one time. Paul reminded them that the majority of
those people were still alive and could be questioned. Dr. Edwin M. Yamauchi ...[text shortened]... any other eyewitnesses and you
would well have the largest and most
lopsided trial in history"
Originally posted by dj2beckerYour "Associate Professor of History" doesn't have 500 eye witness accounts either, and he wouldn't have passed any history exams or gained any of his qualifications in history by pretending that he did, regardless of how much attention he gets for making the claim when he's wearing his evangelical hat.
Yeah I guess you are in a better position than an Associate Professor of History to judge the legitimacy of historical evidence. 🙄
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by FMFSure if you don't want to believe that Jesus appeared to 500 witnesses at once that is your choice. Many people who have a better working knowledge of history and what suffices as historical evidence believe it is not unreasonable to believe he did.
Your "Associate Professor of History" doesn't have 500 eye witness accounts either, and he wouldn't have passed any history exams or gained any of his qualifications in history by pretending that he did, regardless of how much attention he gets for making the claim when he's wearing his evangelical hat.
And besides the 500 witnesses is merely one pebble in a mountain of evidence.
Originally posted by dj2beckerMany people who have a better working knowledge of history and what suffices as historical evidence believe it is not unreasonable to believe he did.
Sure if you don't want to believe that Jesus appeared to 500 witnesses at once that is your choice. Many people who have a better working knowledge of history and what suffices as historical evidence believe it is not unreasonable to believe he did.
No they don't. If they do so, then they do so as an upshot of their Christian faith and superstition. They do not do so legitimately in their capacity as professional historians. Even someone testifying today - 15th May 2017 - about an event that took place yesterday - 14th May 2017 - would not create evidence of 500 people witnessing something by simply claiming they had done so without proof or corroboration.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by FMFOf course you will say that any historian who believes there is reasonable evidence for the resurrection does so because of their Christian faith and superstition. You don't know this to be a fact yet you choose to believe so. What about all the atheists who have made it their life ambition to disprove Christianity, who went and studied the evidence with the intention of invalidating it, and became Christians because of the overwhelming evidence they found?
[b]Many people who have a better working knowledge of history and what suffices as historical evidence believe it is not unreasonable to believe he did.
No they don't. If they do so, then they do so as an upshot of their Christian faith and superstition. They do not do so legitimately in their capacity as professional historians. Even someone testifying t ...[text shortened]... people witnessing something by simply claiming they had done so without proof or corroboration.[/b]