Cop out? This is no cop out...the point is; even if 5 different sources outside of the Bible testified to this mass resurrection, would you be any closer to becoming a Christian? I sincerely doubt it.
So it isn't about what was written/not written. It is about the systematic rejection of Christianity, no matter how much evidence is provided.
Just listen to yourself.
Basically you are saying that even if you had a good argument, you wouldn't present it because you don't think I would become any closer to becoming a Christian again. That is a cop out. It's as if you don't care about what the readers of these threads think. Note, I do not post thinking that I might change your mind. Really, I don't. I sincerely believe that your religion fills a need that you have that I personally don't. I post to learn for myself and for the readers of these posts.
Clownboat wrote:
Imagine the impact that would happen on this planet if Elvis got out of his grave and made himself known.
Imagine the impact that would happen if Jesus' got out of his tomb and made himself known.
I imagine the impact would be the beginning of the world's largest religion in terms of followers.
Hundreds of years later? Obviously a resurrected person is not what got this religion off the ground.
Here is your scenario:
Person A: "Oh look! Elvis got out of his grave is alive again!"
Person B: "I can't wait to see what kind of impact this will have on the world hundreds of years from now".
Then there is also the fact that the Jehovah's Witnesses were not thought up until 1870. That's darn near 2,000 years after the claimed resurrection, so clearly this religion is expanding into more and more denominations, but not due to a dead body being back to life.
Clownboat wrote:
It seems to me that the claim that Jesus, Lazarus and many of the saints coming back to life were taken no more seriously than claims we have today of people seeing Elvis.
"No more seriously"...it is the world's largest religion with over a billion followers...yet, it was taken "no more seriously.."
SMH.
What point are you failing to make here?
Please clarify what the billions of Muslim followers mean about the truth of Allah? Perhaps that will help me understand this argument from population.
Clownboat wrote:
It seems reasonable that Jesus sightings were no different than Elvis sightings of today. However, back in such superstitious times, people were probably more likely to accept such a claim.
Genetic fallacy.
Not so fast...
Do you actually disagree with the statement that people 2,000 years ago were more accustomed to superstitious claims like demi-gods and such?
To me, it seems like you are just trying to dodge a fact that is uncomfortable for you.
Clownboat wrote:
After all, Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis and Attis, Dionysus were also believed to have returned to life.
Archaic religious deities that didn't really outlive the people that once believed in it.
Your statement fails to address the point that demi-gods and gods being claimed to resurrect were much more normal back in the day when Jesus's followers started to claim that he also resurrected.
Clownboat wrote:
Apples to bowling shoes. You see, Elvis was laid to rest in his own grave, Jesus in another mans.
Irrelevant.
False.
There would be no reason to move Elvis from Elvis's grave.
There would be a reason to move Jesus from Joseph's grave.
This is very relevant, but I understand why it is uncomfortable for you and why you would prefer to not address it. Your silence speaks to the readers I trust.
Clownboat wrote:
Also note that Jesus had 100 lbs of myrrh and aloes placed on him and then the disciples set off for Galilee, a logical burial place for Jesus. Seems reasonable to me that they took the body with them. Therefore, having Joseph of Arimathea's grave empty would be expected, not a surprise.
Hmm..you sound an awful like TiredoftheNonsense. Hmmm.
Well... I am not. Sorry.
Notice readers how when a point is made, rather than addressing it, there are cop outs and dodges. Why no rebuttal... I think we know.
Clownboat wrote:
Do you not find such a thing to be reasonable? If not, why?
I find it reasonable that you and TOTN are the same poster. I could be wrong. But typing styles/point of views are like fingerprints..DNA.
In other words; identifiers.
Is there anything you have been correct about in this entire post of yours?
Readers, notice that when asked if he thinks moving Jesus from a tomb that was not his to a more natural burial place for Jesus, like Galilee to be reasonable or not, once again we get a dodge. Why address a difficult point when you can deflect?
Readers, please decide for yourselves if you find these responses to be adequate or not. I can surely say I have learned nothing.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.
I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU
It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb