a. Jesus was crucified and died on the cross.

b. Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

c. Jesus tomb was discovered empty by a group of women

d. The apostles and others experienced visions of Jesus after his

tomb was discovered empty.

e. Jesus' followers suddenly began to believe in the resurrection despite being predisposed to the contrary as first century Jews.

You made this truth claim. Now you need to justify it with reasons, evidence and arguments.>

You followed me from the ultimate blitz challenge kibitz page where I left my mark.

Now, in my experience atheists are usually three things:

1. Arrogant
2. Cowardly
3. Dishonest

They are arrogant because they trumpet assertions that they have no arguments, reasons or evidence for. For instance, "God does not exist".

They are cowardly because when challenged they are "too busy right now" to engage in trenchant debate. Sometimes they hide behind a false pretense of superior aloofness - but we all know that is really just cowardice.

They are dishonest because they lie about their reasons for not "having time" to debate (even though they will have all the time in the world to kick around those that they can). They are dishonest because they refuse to answer honestly and directly when it shows that they have no answers. They are dishonest when they say, "God does not exist" and then run away from a Christian who asks questions.

Now, surely a big, smart atheist like you can easily embarrass a small, dumb, fairy tale believing Christian like me, right? This should be easy pickings for you!

I will prove you are a coward right now by challenging you to debate me on which worldview is more rational to think is true: theism or atheism.

I will say that there are no good arguments, no good reasons, no evidence to justify the proposition, "God does not exist".

You see, "God does not exist" is a proposition. A truth claim. All truth claims need reasons, evidence and arguments to justify thinking that they are true.

Come back here <clemens> and face me in a debate and have some courage!

Or perhaps "drive-by shootings" is too appreciable regarding those people?

"Contributors" such as <OhioChessFan>, <SugarDom>, <Colonel Mortimer> and <Clemens Scheitz> metaphorically "do a dump" in his forum and then run off giggling to themselves hysterically!

Congratulations Colonel! You've just made it onto <Ohio>'s debating team!

1) Compare the mythical Garden of Eden with 1st century Roman-occupied Palestine.

2) Compare the scientific validity of evidencing the universal rule that persons dead for 36 hours do not come back to life with the impossibility of disproving Christ's resurrection from the dead 2,000 years ago.

Now compare the literal existence of Adam & Eve with Christ's resurrection and seriously try to show that they stand or fall together!

Well, this may be a unique opportunity for the two of us.

<1) Compare the mythical Garden of Eden with 1st century Roman-occupied Palestine.>

Every statement in the Bible, every single one, treats the Garden of Eden as a literal place and a historical truth. On what basis do you get to decide it was "mythical"?

<2) Compare the scientific validity of evidencing the universal rule that persons dead for 36 hours do not come back to life with the impossibility of disproving Christ's resurrection from the dead 2,000 years ago.>

That is true in its own right. You are referencing a historical truth regardless of the general scientific principles which might apply.

<Now compare the literal existence of Adam & Eve with Christ's resurrection and seriously try to show that they stand or fall together!>

Both are treated as literal and historical events throughout the Bible, as confirmed by people who could raise the dead.

<You and <OCF> are more alike than you both care to think!>

Me, delete your posts?

Yup - that's what I'm going to do.

You never answered my questions to you, so that shows you aren't interesting in debate or discussion, therefore you have nothing of value to add. If you have nothing of value to add then I'm sweeping up the dirty toilet paper you left all over the floor.

Same for your <sock puppet> account <clemens> - deleting that too, but only after another day or so. I want to give you time to answer before putting you in the garbage.

My forum is not a bathroom wall.

Profound ignorance! >

Agree totally. When people challenge me with the "nothing outside of the NT", I usually respond, "Well, prove to me someone sitting in jail right now committed the crime they were found guilty of, but you have to only use things outside of the trial transcript."

<They need to understand that the gospel accounts are separate accounts, taken in large part from very early traditions dating to within 5 years of the resurrection. The story of the resurrection, historically speaking, is one of the best and most attested accounts of any ancient event in history!>

Now that I've shown the atheists to be the low class, arrogant, ignorant, dishonest cowards that they are (running away like mice), we can just get back to the discussion.

You see, they just can't help themselves from lurking in my forum, where the Word is shared. It makes their skin crawl because they only love what is evil. Believe me, it hurts them just to read along; hurts them badly and convicts them.

Anyways,

<Theists have good naturalistic reasons and arguments for the truth of theism, but atheists do not.

The four central facts concerning the crucifixion, the burial, the discovery of the empty tomb by women followers and the many people who attested to experiencing Jesus postmortem are all widely accepted by historians. Thus, the evidence is not controversial.

What is controversial is the best explanation of those four established historical facts.

We need to make a distinction between the historical facts and evidence, and the explanation of those facts. Two different thing.>

I think one of the most important and interesting approaches to this is to distinguish between the historical facts surrounding the life, death and postmortem appearances of Jesus, and the best explanation of those facts, which is controversially the resurrection.

Atheists have no ground to stand on because they must first assume atheism in order to outright dismiss miracles. They can't do that. They just wish God into the cornfield and that's that.

<<1) Compare the mythical Garden of Eden with 1st century Roman-occupied Palestine.>

Every statement in the Bible, every single one, treats the Garden of Eden as a literal place and a historical truth.>

Every statement in the Bible, every single one, treats the Garden of Eden as a priori assumption.

So for example, when Isaiah prophecies, "The Lord will surely comfort Zion and will look with compassion on all her ruins; he will make her deserts like Eden, her wastelands like the garden of the Lord. Joy and gladness will be found in her, thanksgiving and the sound of singing." (Isaiah 51:3), he is not making a statement about the literal existence of the Garden of Eden, he is using common knowledge about the Garden of Eden to describe the future prosperity of Jerusalem.

<On what basis do you get to decide it was "mythical"?>

It's not me who decides it, but scripture scholars based on comprehensive historical, archeaological, scientific and literary evidence which I happen to agree with.

<<2) Compare the scientific validity of evidencing the universal rule that persons dead for 36 hours do not come back to life with the impossibility of disproving Christ's resurrection from the dead 2,000 years ago.>

That is true in its own right. You are referencing a historical truth regardless of the general scientific principles which might apply.>

Yes.

<<Now compare the literal existence of Adam & Eve with Christ's resurrection and seriously try to show that they stand or fall together!>

Both are treated as literal and historical events throughout the Bible, as confirmed by people who could raise the dead.>

References to Adam & Eve are the same as those to the Garden of Eden as per my above comment.

By comparison, the resurrection of Christ is documented by eye witnesses.

<You simply don't get to capriciously choose which of the Bible accounts that are treated as literal events are in fact literal events and which are myths.>

I'm not choosing, capriciously or otherwise, I'm interpreting the Bible accounts sensibly and correctly based on evidence.

I have explained the reasoning behind accepted biblical scholarship but like all fundamentalists, you have closed your mind to the facts.

Anyway, since I have given you the courtesy of answering your questions, what about answering mine?

Just to remind you...

May-16-16 optimal play: <OhioChessFan: ... The article is the typical fuzzy language of the modern liberal who does verbal gymnastics to avoid addressing the existence of objective truth.> What is the objective truth?

May-22-16 optimal play: <OhioChessFan: ... This would be comical sophistry if it weren't so tragic.> What do you mean?

Nicodemas!

When Jesus told Nicodemus "No one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

Nicodemus replied, “How can someone be born when they are old? Surely they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

(cf John 3)

That's <OCF>'s level of understanding!

Yes, but I'm finding that a surprising number of people don't realize that. Even many Christians.

I've even heard people use the 140 year old argument that the NT was just a rewrite of old pagan myths, completely unaware that NT scholars and critics have dismissed this over 100 years ago. It's like they are taking their cues from Internet infidels on YouTube, and believing it.

People today think they are smart and they want "modern proof" for the resurrection, but they settle for infidel YouTube videos. Unreal.

<optimal play> responded to this concern of mine by saying that first it's the Christians who need to be educated about the historical case for the resurrection before we can educate others. I think he's probably right about that. Granted, people experience God personally and need no arguments, historical or otherwise, to justify their belief or faith, but a great historical case can be made none the less.

But I also want to delete it so that our discussion isn't interrupted. It's not like they are genuinely debating the topics. It's just scribbling on the bathroom wall and running away.

You know who <Opt> reminds me of? <morfishine>!

Fallacy of appeal to authority:

<morf: I can accept that there's a class of people who are satisfied with the simple, stock answer if that makes them sleep better at night. I can also accept that some people are just not interested in certain specific subjects related to the assassination, for example firearms, enough to take the time to learn and understand what an expert is talking about. >

<Opt: It's not me who decides it, but scripture scholars based on comprehensive historical, archeaological, scientific and literary evidence which I happen to agree with.>

<That's <OCF>'s level of understanding!>

<"You said that because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true."

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts or scientific consensus.

Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence.

However it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

Example: Not able to defend his position that evolution 'isn't true' <OCF> says that he knows a scientist who also questions evolution (and presumably isn't a primate).>

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ap...

My appeal was not to authority as such, but referenced authority, and concluded that I was in agreement with mainstream science after conducting my own research.

Now, having concluded that the universe is ~14 billion years old and the earth ~4.5 billion years old, and that all life evolved over the past ~4 billion years, it is evident that the creation account in Genesis is theological, not historical.

That's my level of understanding!

But to <OhioChessFan>...

"We have much to say about this, but it is hard to make it clear to you because you no longer try to understand."

- Hebrews 5:11

- Hebrews 5:11 >

Slam the liars - not each other.

Tossed them both in the garbage.

As soon as you guys see each other, you dig right in to your old familiar positions and quarrel like nobody's business.

Very, very sad.