The Resurrection of Jesus is historically probable

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   
First, I would like to thank mkmasn for having this debate with me. Here is what we agreed to as to the rules of the debate:

10 rounds (5 rounds each)
2500 word limit per post
5 day response deadline
We will use guidelines used by secular historians
This debate is to be a discussion between myself and mkmasn. Neither of us will respond to other posts in the peanut gallery.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that the Resurrection of Jesus is a historical event that probably happened. It is impossible to reach 100% certainty. However, that should not detract from the discussion since that is the way it is in all of history. One can only prove what probably happened. The historical methodology used to ascertain whether something is to be considered a historical fact is the same that secular historians use, is whether the reasons for accepting it outweighs the reasons for rejecting it.


A position is demonstrated, when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for not accepting it... A finding of historicity is essentially a default position, meaning that we have no other reasonable way to account for the presence of a story in the text.


-Robert Miller, "Historical Method and the Deeds of Jesus: The Test Case of the Temple Demonstration." Forum 8 (1992): 5-30


Others include Principle of Embarrassment, Enemy Attestation, Multiple Attestation, etc. Also if the theory explains the facts more so than alternative theories, then according to historical methods, it probably happened. Therefore the Resurrection stands on good ground. Take crime scene investigation for example. One collects all the facts, then has to come up with a theory as to what happened. The theory that takes into account all the facts without adding one theory upon another and that far outstrips alternative theories, then it is reasonable to believe that such and such happened. The reason why I used crime scene investigation is that because they use many of the same guidelines as historians do. For both are trying to discover what happened in the past. As law professor at New York Law school says:



The accuser can meet the burden of proof by offering a certain quantum of evidence, which varies depending upon the nature of the accusation, for example-in the context of legal disputes-proof beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal charges or, for civil charges, proof that makes the truth of an accusation more probable than not.

-Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An AMerican Controversy (Charlottesville, Va.: University Press of Virginia 1997)

As historian C. Behan McCullagh says in his book Justifying Historical Descriptions:


If the scope and strength of an explanation are very great, so that it explains a large number and variety of facts, many more than any competing explanation, then it is likely to be true.


For evidence, my case is cumulative. IF Jesus was crucified, IF his disciples honestly had what they considered to be experiences of the risen Jesus, IF it can be demonstrated that Paul had suddenly converted, IF James who was skeptical brother of Jesus suddenly converted, and IF the tomb was found empty, and IF the alternative theories are not able to provide an adequate answer for the aforementioned facts, that lends strong evidence for the Resurrection. It is my contention that each of these are indeed facts. In fact, they are admitted by most if not nearly all scholars both believing and skeptical to be historical events. It is also my contention that there are no alternative theories that can adequately account for the facts as well as the Resurrection. Therefore, the reasons FOR the accepting the Resurrection outweigh the reasons for rejecting it and thus meet the requirements for historicity, which is called argument to the best explanation.

As for naturalistic theories I will not comment on them as yet. I want to know what my opponent thinks happened. How does he account for those facts? I don't want to waste time and refute something that he himself might not believe in. However, whether my opponent wishes to discuss the particulars in the above mentioned facts or just go ahead as discuss what alternative he thinks is a better explanation, he too, according to historical methodology has to provide evidence. As historians admit:


Third, evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object is established not by nonexistent evidence but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist.

-Hackett, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970 p.62

That means that if someone wants to posit that something else happened, either alternative theory, or say that, for example that Jesus wasn’t crucified, but instead murdered, then the burden is also upon him to provide historical evidence for that.

It is my contention that:

1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.
3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty).

I do not want to get into the specifics right away as to exactly why these are facts or not. I do not want to waste my time in doing so if my opponent is going to agree to them. First I will see what my opponent has to say before responding.

So, the historical question remains. What happened that fateful Easter morning? What happened that could make disciples believe something so much that they willingly suffered and died for? What happened that changed the enemy of Christians (Paul) to suddenly convert without any prior motive to? What could have happened that changed the once skeptical brother of Jesus (James) into becoming a leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem? What happened at the tomb that emptied it?

It is also my contention that since there are no naturalistic explanations that can account for the above facts, the only explanation left is that Jesus has indeed been raised from the dead and therefore it is reasonable to believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead. And why is it important? Because it establishes the truth of Christianity.




posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Turn 1: Prove it.
edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I think my opponent didn't even bother to read my opening statement. If what I have presented (my 5 facts) are indeed historical facts.
1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.
3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty).

If these are indeed historical facts (indeed my opponent concedes the first) then one, according to the guidelines of histiography must come up with a theory that explains the facts. And as stated in my opening statement, according to historians, the theory that best explains the facts is what probably happened. The Resurrection does exactly that, better than naturalistic theories. Indeed, my opponent didn't even bother to address ANYTHING that I had wrote. So, since the resurrection is the only theory that best explains the facts, it is, according to the agreed guidelines, is what probably happened. If that is true, then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead to vindicate his claims as well as establish the truth of Christianity.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


A theory will never explain facts.
Historical facts are just stories - his story (the person who wrote it).
There is one universal truth, everything else is a theory.
edit on 16-8-2012 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I think my opponent didn't even bother to read my opening statement. If what I have presented (my 5 facts) are indeed historical facts.
1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.
3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty).

If these are indeed historical facts (indeed my opponent concedes the first) then one, according to the guidelines of histiography must come up with a theory that explains the facts. And as stated in my opening statement, according to historians, the theory that best explains the facts is what probably happened. The Resurrection does exactly that, better than naturalistic theories. Indeed, my opponent didn't even bother to address ANYTHING that I had wrote. So, since the resurrection is the only theory that best explains the facts, it is, according to the agreed guidelines, is what probably happened. If that is true, then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead to vindicate his claims as well as establish the truth of Christianity.


Is that your turn 2? Let me use my second turn to sum up my theory, argument and facts:

Prove it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:17 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 




Sorry, but I actually lol'd at this. Too funny.

Carry on.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


lol you call that debating?

pity you and op didnt do this in the debates forum

mods would have reamed you a new one

not that i'm in agreement with the op

after all there is the "his disciples stole the body and hid it" accusation/hypothesis
to contend with

especially with the rumors of the soon to be revealed corpus delecti



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


I think my opponent didn't even bother to read my opening statement. If what I have presented (my 5 facts) are indeed historical facts.
1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.
3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, suddenly changed. This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.
5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty).

If these are indeed historical facts (indeed my opponent concedes the first) then one, according to the guidelines of histiography must come up with a theory that explains the facts. And as stated in my opening statement, according to historians, the theory that best explains the facts is what probably happened. The Resurrection does exactly that, better than naturalistic theories. Indeed, my opponent didn't even bother to address ANYTHING that I had wrote. So, since the resurrection is the only theory that best explains the facts, it is, according to the agreed guidelines, is what probably happened. If that is true, then it is reasonable to believe that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead to vindicate his claims as well as establish the truth of Christianity.


Is that your turn 2? Let me use my second turn to sum up my theory, argument and facts:

Prove it.


Well, I think I got the jist of what my opponent is doing. I seriously doubt he was ever interested in a serious debate. So far he has not even disproved one of the historical facts I have presented. Let alone produce a theory to explain the facts (which is one of the rules of the debate he agreed to). He stated that he read the bible, did all kinds of research. And yet, what is his refutation? Silence.

As for proving it, I am, according to the rules of historiography (which is what this debate is about). Since the facts of the case stand (since there is no refutation of them) and since the only theory that explains the facts is the Resurrection (since there is none put forth by my opponent that explains the facts better than the resurrection, again which is part of the agreed upon rules) then my case is reasonably proven. That the Resurrection is what probably happened.

Again to quote:



A position is demonstrated, when the reasons for accepting it significantly outweigh the reasons for not accepting it... A finding of historicity is essentially a default position, meaning that we have no other reasonable way to account for the presence of a story in the text.


So, yes, I do think I am proving my case as historically probable.


However, if all my opponent wishes to do is sit there without doing any kind of work, which would be incumbent upon someone who stated that he agree to have a debate, who agreed upon the rules of the debate, to provide E V I D E N C E for his contention (he stated that he does not believe the resurrection took place). I will wait for one more post, if it is the same thing, then I will not waste any more of my time and the readers with someone that is being, I think, intellectually dishonest. Which I sincerely hope that is not the case. So since my opponent said he did all this research, then PLEASE bring out the big guns! I will help him out. Either refute the five facts I put forth with historical evidence, or if you agree with them, provide a competing theory that is rival to the resurrection so that we can weigh them to see which is superior. Somehow I doubt this will happen. Hopefully I am wrong.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
(I want to go to bed)

Turn 3, 4: Prove it.

Turn 5: I move to have this debate thrown out, based on the fact 4 of the 5 arguments presented by my opponent are logical fallacies.




1.Jesus was indeed crucified and buried. This is attested to not only in the Gospels, but also by Paul and extra-biblical sources. And is admitted to as fact by almost all scholars.




2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose from the dead and appeared to them. This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources and is also accepted as historical fact by nearly all scholars.




3. Paul, who was an enemy of the church suddenly changed. This is stated by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ. Usually people will convert on the word of someone else, that is a secondary source. But Paul's conversion is due to something that he himself experienced. That is a primary source. Again, almost all scholars accept this as fact.


Appeal to Popularity, Ad Populum
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.



5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (*1) (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty). (*2)


*1 Appeal to Popularity, Ad Populum

*2 Biased Sample, Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner.


Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, historian, and philosopher of religion.
edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)
edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: Your argument was cumulative, so point 4 is moot



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by mkmasn
 




Sorry, but I actually lol'd at this. Too funny.

Carry on.



I lol'd the whole time.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mkmasn
(I want to go to bed)

Turn 3, 4: Prove it.

Turn 5: I move to have this debate thrown out, based on the fact 4 of the 5 arguments presented by my opponent are logical fallacies.

Appeal to Popularity, Ad Populum
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.



5. The tomb was found empty. This is accepted by the majority of scholars also (*1) (Gary Habermas did a study on the state of scholarship to date. He reports that 75% of scholars agree that the tomb was indeed found empty). (*2)


*1 Appeal to Popularity, Ad Populum

*2 Biased Sample, Biased Statistics, Loaded Sample, Prejudiced Statistics, Prejudiced Sample, Loaded Statistics, Biased Induction, Biased Generalization
This fallacy is committed when a person draws a conclusion about a population based on a sample that is biased or prejudiced in some manner.

Gary Robert Habermas (born 1950) is an American evangelical Christian apologist, historian, and philosopher of religion.
edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)


Untrue. I only mention that these are accepted facts because of the evidence for them. I even give the evidence for each in my statements! Never did I say that I believe these are facts BECAUSE they are agreed upon. I challenge my opponent to show where I stated such. Anyone can make accusations, it is another to prove it.

Genetic fallacy concerning Mr habermas. You have to P R OV E that it was a bias stats, sample etc. I didn't have space to go into the reasons for the empty tomb prior, but will be happy to do so now

Here are the reasons for accepting the empty tomb:
The Jerusalem factor. It is conceded by everyone that the disciples first started their preaching in Jerusalem, right where everything is said to have taken place. Since the resurrection is a bodily one (Jews who believed in a resurrection held that it was a bodily event to happen at the end of time). . The Pharisees believed in a bodily resurrection and the Sadducees didn't believe in it. All the cultures involved, then, both pagan and Jewish, held that the word for resurrection, meant a bodily one.. However, that being said, if the tomb was not empty, Christianity would be dead right out of the starting gate.

There is no historical evidence whatsoever that those who opposed Jesus produced a body, which again would have destroyed their preaching.

The testimony of Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. Paul mentions the crucifixion, burial and resurrection. Since, according to ancient Jews who believed in a resurrection, it is a physical, bodily event. Therefore, since Paul, an enemy of the early church, clearly believes in a resurrection, it implies an empty tomb. Therefore we have a first century historical witness, even before the gospels!. Why is that? Paul himself states that what he is passing on he received, from the apostles. It is universally accepted that the apostles preached the resurrection. Since that is so, it again implies an empty tomb.

The testimony of the women. Female testimony in the first century was not considered entirely trustworthy. Especially in matters of great importance. If they were making it up, they would not have used women as the first witnesses. This is called the principle of embarrassment.

But, to proclaim a resurrection is to admit an empty tomb. And they were in a position to know (right place, right time) if indeed the tomb were empty or not. If not, then they would have been found liars, but, as my opponent admits they were sincere, therefore not conscious liars. This leads to my next clue.

The earliest polemics against the Christians from their opponents admit and empty tomb. From Matthew (Matthew 28: 12-13) to Justyn Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho) to Tertullian (De Spectaculis 30), we know that the Jewish opponents were, for over two centuries, trying to explain the empty tomb. Which means that they too believed it to be empty.

So my opponent hasn't even bothered to refute any of these with any kind of historical evidence. Why? He can't. So, they stand.

He hasn't provided anything that rivals the resurrection? Why, because I don't believe he can provide one and he knows it. And since that is the case, then the Resurrection hypothesis stands. Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the resurrection probably happened. Hence Christianity is probably true and it is reasonable to believe in it.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


This documentary says that the man who went to the tomb carried healing herbs with him not embalming herbs.
It also says that Jesus (or Esa) went to Kashmir to live a peaceful life and died at around 80 years old. He was buried in Kashmir and there is a tomb there.
Jesus was a Buddhist monk (BBC documentary):
youtu.be...



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


All you've provided is circumstantial evidence, your claim was that it is truth because many people believe it to be true.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:37 AM
link   
And with that ladies and gentlemen I guess our "debate" is concluded. Since I think I have made my case, my opponent just plainly refues to engage in any real discussion (as one observer already pointed out). And now my opponent wants to sensor me?!


Really? Is that how enlightened Buddhists work? Not comfortable with an opposing view so try to remove it?


Where is all this serious research that was supposed to crush my arguments? I repeatedly asked for E V I D E N C E. Got none. I was met with complete silence, refusal to abide by the agreed upon rules of the debate, etc.

Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that my opponent did any kind of research at all, and certainly not at all interested in a serious debate on the issue (if that was the case, then why agree to a debate in the first place?) Which smacks of intellectual dihonesty. Really sad.

But I still thank mkmasn for "engaging" me in this "debate". Have a good day all!



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:47 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Sir, you never once challnged me on any of the five facts I have provided. I repeatedly gave reasons for those five facts, one of which you concede!

Jesus crucifixion - attested to in 4 gospels, Paul and extra biblical records.

The disciples sincerity- This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources.

Paul- by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ.

James- This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.

And I gave 6 reasons for the empty tomb! NEVER did I say that they are facts BECAUSE a majority of people believe it! Please point to where I said this. Second, concerning circumstantial evidence, people are sent to prison because of circumstantial evidence. Just because something might be circumstantial, doesn't mean it is unreliable.

So, I must say that it was a disappointment of a debate. I started this in good faith, believing that you actually did do research. However, you have shown this not to be the case in both instances.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Not only do I not claim to be an enlightened Buddhist, I also told you I wasn't interested in a debate multiple times.

In addition, I summed up my entire argument in two words, which you then decided it was in your best interest to attack me, in not one, but two threads, and not my argument.

Edit: I bolded the part where you claimed it was fact because many people believe it.
edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger
 


Dang! I wish I knew there was a moderated debate forum here! However, my opponent refused to have a moderated debate (even a debate site of his choice).

After seeing this "debate" I now know why.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:52 AM
link   
reply to post by bibledefender
 


Oh, and since the burden of proof was in your hands, you should have proved it when I asked you to, instead of wasting your time.



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by bibledefender
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Sir, you never once challnged me on any of the five facts I have provided. I repeatedly gave reasons for those five facts, one of which you concede!

Jesus crucifixion - attested to in 4 gospels, Paul and extra biblical records.

The disciples sincerity- This is attested to by the fact that they willingly suffered for that message. That is accorded to in Acts, as well as extra-biblical sources.

Paul- by Paul himself in a number of N.T. texts and have claimed to have seen the risen Christ.

James- This is attested to in the Bible, and extra-biblical source reports that he was a strict Jew. The Bible also testifies that after the Resurrection, James became a leader of the church.

And I gave 6 reasons for the empty tomb! NEVER did I say that they are facts BECAUSE a majority of people believe it! Please point to where I said this. Second, concerning circumstantial evidence, people are sent to prison because of circumstantial evidence. Just because something might be circumstantial, doesn't mean it is unreliable.

So, I must say that it was a disappointment of a debate. I started this in good faith, believing that you actually did do research. However, you have shown this not to be the case in both instances.


Yes, all circumstantial... That "proof" leaves ample space for other possibilities.


And fallacy
"There is no historical evidence whatsoever that those who opposed Jesus produced a body, which again would have destroyed their preaching. "
edit on 16-8-2012 by mkmasn because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2012 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by mkmasn
 


Again point to where I said that they were fact BECAUSE these facts were almost universally accepted? I simply stated that they were agreed upon and simply gave the reasons WHY they agreed upon, ie gosples record the event, as well as extra biblical sources attest to the fact. So please point to where I said that you should believe it just because they say so? And if you really believed that why didn't you refute any of them with E V I D E N C E? hmmmm?

As far as attacking you- where? please point to the post.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join