For_The_Kingdom wrote:
I repeat; I disagree..thus, the debate. People don't debate over stuff that they agree on...they debate over stuff that they disagree on. .
You aren't even understanding our current conversation.
You and I already disagree on the credibility of the Gospel Rumors. You want to use the Gospel Rumors as evidence that Jesus lived, argued with his religious superiors, and was crucified and died because this is what the rumors claim.
I already have no reason to accept any of that.
But then you want to debate one whether or not Jesus was resurrected
based on information obtained from these very same Gospels Rumors.
How can you not see why this would be an utterly absurd debate?
You are trying to use the Gospel Rumors as evidence for the things you can to claim are carved-in-stone truths, while expecting me to debate against that backdrop.
I can't imagine anyone who would want to fall for such a debate scam.
Heck, the Gospel Rumors claim that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son. If we have to accept what the Gospel Rumors claim how can we argue with that?
You simply cannot use the Gospel Rumors as any sort of evidence for anything in your argument that Jesus was resurrected. And if you can't do that, then what on earth could you possibly hope to use in your argument?
So I can already tell you what a video debate between you and I would look like. Not need to actually video it.
You would appear with your smiling face proclaiming that you can show that Jesus was resurrected.
Then I would appear with my smiling face stating that I have accepted your video debate challenge.
Then you would make your case
necessarily referencing claims made by the Gospel Rumors.
I would then simply say, "
I see no reason to believe that anything in the Gospel Rumors has any credibility".
Now what are you going to do? Change the debate topic from "
The Resurrection of Jesus" to "
Are the Gospel Rumors Credible?".
That would be a whole different debate. One that I didn't sign up for. It's also one that I would not agree to having until you can first debate why we should believe in the Old Testament God.
So everything would crash and burn from there. Not to mention the fact that we would have moved so dramatically far from the original debate topic that we would be lost in Never Never land.
If you want to debate with me on the credibility of Hebrew mythology you need to start debating at Genesis Chapter 1 and we'll walk through the whole shebang from there. And trust me, we'll never need to discuss the New Testament or the resurrection of Jesus because we'll never get past the extreme problems contained in the Old Testament.
In short, until you can make a compelling case for the existence of Yahweh any arguments that try to claim that Jesus was his so-called "Son" are futile.
By the way, the claims in the New Testament that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son prove the fallacy of the New Testament right there.
This religion is supposed to be monotheistic. And it's not even being claimed that Jesus was the demigod Son of Yahweh. To the contrary Jesus has to be a direct incarnation of Yahweh. And so having Yahweh refer to himself as his own Son is already an extreme absurdity and contradiction.
So the New Testament Gospel Rumors contain their own proof of their own fallacy.
Would you like to me to put this rebuttal to your Jesus Resurrection argument on video? Would that make you happy?
![Think :-k](./images/smilies/eusa_think.gif)