Another Dumb Apologetic for the Resurrection?

[POI]

It's 16 minutes.

For Debate:

Christians, is the argument, "who's going to die for a lie", a good and sound argument to present to skeptics? If so, please watch the counter arguments in this above video, and then place your counter answers accordingly.

Mind you, this is also just ASSUMING that all his close followers did indeed martyr themselves....

[otseng]

Funnily enough, you accept the Bible can be wrong about the parts you don't believe, but find it hard to understand skeptics who don't believe more of it than you don't.

Never said that. Another example of skeptics throwing out false attribution.

So your inability to recognize when rational argumentation passes you on the sidewalk is not the fault of skeptics, so much as your being real proud of believing there's a god who created an entire universe, then set about sacrificing some poor Jewish carpenter just so that god there could fit more folks in the pews.

Evidence please. What examples of rational argumentation can you present from the skeptics in that thread? From the sheer size of the thread, there should be massive examples of this. Instead, it's few and far between.

[JoeyKnothead]

Funnily enough, you accept the Bible can be wrong about the parts you don't believe, but find it hard to understand skeptics who do isn't believe more of it than you don't.

Never said that. Another example of skeptics throwing out false attribution.

If you believe the Bible contains errancies, by all logic, you must not believe those errancies.

Edit to fix quotes...

So your inability to recognize when rational argumentation passes you on the sidewalk is not the fault of skeptics, so much as your being real proud of believing there's a god who created an entire universe, then set about sacrificing some poor Jewish carpenter just so that god there could fit more folks in the pews.

Evidence please. What examples of rational argumentation can you present from the skeptics in that thread? From the sheer size of the thread, there should be massive examples of this. Instead, it's few and far between.

You mentioned irrational arguments first, so let's have have you present here which you find so irrational. Then we can fuss about how come they ain't.

[TRANSPONDER]

From the free book: Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ: A New Transdisciplinary Approach (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies) 1st Edition, Kindle Edition

Thelinkhttps://www.amazon.com/Investigating-Resurrecti ... B087YT8YDW

Re Luke

In Luke 24:1–53, Jesus’ resurrection, all of his appearances, and his ascension to heaven are narrated as though having occurred on that Sunday. That Luke compressed the events in this manner is clear, since in the sequel to his Gospel, Luke says Jesus appeared to his disciples over a period of forty days before ascending to heaven (Acts 1:3–9).

Loke, Andrew. Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies) (p. 65). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

Re Narratives:

For all their apparent differences in the minor details, the Gospels’ accounts show sequential similarities concerning the main outlines of the story with the early tradition in 1 Corinthians 15:3–8, such as concerning Jesus’ death, burial, resurrection on the third day, appearances to individuals and appearances to the group of disciples (Allison 2005a, pp. 235–239). The following is one logically possible scenario which takes into consideration the other details:10 10 Adapted from Casteel (1992, pp. 212–213); Bock (2002, pp. 394–404); Geisler and Howe (1997, pp. 365, 377, 400). Very early11 a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels appearing in human form are sent; there is an earthquake and one angel rolls back the stone and sits upon it. The soldiers faint and then revive and flee into the city. The women arrive and find the tomb opened.12 Without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord’s body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John.13 The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels14 appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples.15 Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary Magdalene following. Peter and John enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and then return to the city, but Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb weeping. She saw two angels,16 who ask why she is weeping, and Jesus makes his first appearance to her.17 Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus then appears to Peter. He appears subsequently to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas in Jerusalem.18

Loke, Andrew. Investigating the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies) (pp. 63-64). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

I encourage you to read the whole book. I just don't think there are contradictions that cannot be resolved as you attest rather than the obvious differences we would expect from the capturing of eyewitness testimony about an event from different people and groups.

I encourage you to address the contradictions posted and answer them yourself; YOU read the book. YOU do the work. We have before now seen this dull, tatty old subterfuge of 'go off and do the research and you'll find I'm right and you're wrong'. That is not how debates are won.They are won by presenting the best case and refuting the other one. If you don't do that, then you end up with no observable case.

Sorry I was too quick. You posted an extract by way of explanation, but it is rubbish, and you should know it already. "Without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord’s body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John." This is refuted by Matthew who says that Mary Magdalene with the other Mary hears the angel explain to them outside the tomb, and Mark who says they went in and an angelic being explained to them that Jesus had risen. Luke had a whole gaggle of ladies, but says that it was all of them that reported back to the disciples about the angels and their message. The explanation is apparently either ignorant of what the Bible says or lying about it. I can't see into this persons' mind, but I should love for a deconverted apologist to explain why they fiddled the evidence like this. But I can guess, and will explain.

I may argue as a reason NOT to go chasing that or any other Christian apologetic s book is they they cannot correctly apply critical thinking. What they do is sophistry - using the methods of critical thinking but distorted to fit the belief. This is what happens at best. And I find it hard to recall an honest example. Most of them that I can recall are based on ignorance, real or feigned. Such as your excuse that the disciples could have fitted a trip to Galilee into Luke's narrative. Either you didn't read the actual narrative and see that there is no time for it, or you might have applied the "witness error" excuse that in fact there was a trip to Galilee in there and there was a time -gap that Luke didn't mention...etc.

This is what I call rewriting the Bible and making stuff up. Not that you did it - you preferred not to answer at all but preferred to miserable misdirection of telling me to go and read a book rather than read it and make your own case.
But supposing you'd employed that excuse - it is not critical thinking but a skewed and biased argument based on Faith: - "I start from the Faithbased assumption that the Gospel narrative is true. Therefore these apparent contradictions can be explained"... even by waving a magic wand, as you did with explaining hos Jesus could be in two places at once. or by fiddling the evidence as Loke the liar does and ignoring anything that doesn't fit. The problem with making stuff up is that there is not a scrap of evidence for it. It is a scenario - excuse made up to explain the problem away. That is why this in not critical thinking - it ignores the conclusions based on the Bible text and what it says and prefers to make stuff up themselves to make the Faith work. That is why I do not think that Christian apologists, excuse me, are capable of critical thinking, but can at best wangle the evidence to make it support the Faith. And you may safely gamble your house,car and laptop on that. Now,I suggest that you make your own case to address the contradictions I pointed out or admit that you can't, even if you cling to your Faith rather than actually deal with the argument.

P.s I was curious about this fraud and his wretched book and I looked him up

Andrew Loke Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Andrew_Loke
Andrew Ter Ern Loke is a Singaporean Christian theologian and philosopher. He is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy ...

I want to weep. Supposedly respectable research organisations employ liars and frauds like this as faculty members. Is it any wonder i feel impelled to post and only feel frustration that we goddless have nothing like the push, funding and exposure that these bamboozlers and fraudsters for the Faith get. And get PAID to do it as well

He obviously has a lot of knowledge (so they often do) but it is misused to make the faith work so even a dumbcluck like me can point up how he simply fiddles, not to say lies, about what the Bible actually says. Lane Craig does the same with the resurrection apologetic.

There is a critique that is worth reading entirely but here's a sample to show I'm not making invalid criticisms of Loke's methods.

CRITICISM #2:
Loke displays an uncritical partiality for his faith tradition. The way he characterizes ancient Christians in contrast to ancient pagans and Jews is quite obviously biased and relies on speculation rather than evidence. He paints the ancient Christians in a dignified light of critical reasoning and pure sincerity, while those dirty non-believers are simply unreasonable, scrambling tools of superstition with bad motivations and excuses. This perspective seems to be nothing more than repackaging from the biased, polemical caricatures of the Bible, chiefly in the Gospels and Acts. (Eric Bess)

I am a bit more steamed because I love Singapore (in small doses) and their airline is a favorite of mine and they deserve to have better than this scammer for Jesus poisoning their minds. But regrettably, westernised Chinese see Christianity as something progressive and cool compared to Taoism for example. I get it, But critical thinking is better than myths.



(Macau allows firecrackers, which are banned in Hong Kong)

Though Ill attend that rather than a Christian rock concert.

[TRANSPONDER]

And more from this dumb apologetic"

Andrew Loke may have just lifted his apologetics (too trustingly) from earlier apologists.

For example citing Geisler and Howe and a quick look at Geisler's ten defenses of the resurrection spoiled my breakfast. I have never heard such a passel of self - serving appeals to previous deluded believers as Authority. I swear the deeper one digs the muckier the depths of the deception gets.

"1. This passage is part of a historical narrative in a historical record—the Gospel of Matthew. Both the larger setting (the Gospel of Matthew) and the specific context (the crucifixion and resurrection narrative) demand the presumption of historicity, unless there is strong evidence to the contrary in the text, its context, or in other Scripture—which there is not.

2. This text manifests no literary signs of being poetic or legendary, such as those found in parables, poems, or symbolic presentations.* Hence, it should be taken in the sense in which it presents itself, namely, as factual history.

3. This passage gives no indication of being a legendary embellishment, but it is a short, simple, straight-forward account in the exact style one expects in a brief historical narrative.

4. This event occurs in the context of other important historical events—the death and resurrection of Christ—and there is no indication that it is an insertion foreign to the text. To the contrary, the repeated use of “and” shows its integral connection to the other historical events surrounding the report.

5. The resurrection of these saints is presented as the result of the physical historical resurrection of Christ. For these saints were resurrected only “after” Jesus was resurrected and as a result of it (Matt 27:53) since Jesus is the “firstfruits” of the dead (1Cor 15:20). It makes no sense to claim that a legend emerged as the immediate result of Jesus’ physical resurrection. Nor would it have been helpful to the cause of early Christians in defending the literal resurrection of Christ for them to incorporate legends, myths, or apocalyptic events alongside His actual resurrection in the inspired text of Scripture.

6. Early Fathers of the Christian Church, who were closer to this event, took it as historical, sometimes even including it as an apologetic argument for the resurrection of Christ (e.g., Irenaeus, Fragments, XXVIII; Origen,Against Celsus, Book II, Article XXXIII; Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, Chap. XIII).

7. The record has the same pattern as the historical records of Jesus’ physical and historical resurrection: (a) there were dead bodies; (b) they were buried in a tomb; (c) they were raised to life again; (d) they came out of the tomb and left it empty; (e) they appeared to many witnesses.

8. An overwhelming consensus of the great orthodox teachers of the Church for the past nearly two thousand years supports the view that this account should be read as a historical record, and, consequently, as reporting historical truth.

9. Modern objections to a straight-forward acceptance of this passage as a true historical narrative are based on a faulty hermeneutic, violating sound principles of interpretation. For example, they (a) make a presumptive identification of its genre, based on extra-biblical sources, rather than analyzing the text for its style, grammar, and content in its context; or, (b) they use events reported outside of the Bible to pass judgment on whether or not the biblical event is historical.

10. The faulty hermeneutic principles used in point 9 could be used, without any further justification, to deny other events in the gospels as historical. Since there is no hermeneutical criterion of “magnitude,” the same principles could also be used to relegate events such as the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection of Christ to the realm of legend."

The ten further refutations that follow are even worse as they argue that doubt and question conflicts with the doctrine of inerrancy, well, tough tomatoes Geisler old son,. maybe that doctrine is just wrong.

But there's the problem. Education and erudition are of no use when misused to try to make tall tales and fairy stories look convincing.

Comments on the arguments above
1 the text does query the historicity.
2 poetry or legend is not the argument - it is presented as fact but is plainly fabrication.
3 same argument; same rebuttal.
4 fiddling around one insert or add on doesn't help. The contradictions alone rebut reliability
5 Norm does himself no favours by citing Matthew's zombies shambling out of their graves as valid evidence.
6 Church fathers being only 200 years removed from the event rather than 2000 are not therefore going to know more about it.
7 This is evidently related to Matthew's resurrected saints.Using a less ludicrous but still fabricated resurrection as support doesn't help nor in fact add up to critical thinking, but deceptive apologetics.
8 is comment needed?
9 Look in the mirror, Dr. pot kettle
10 I'm quite happy to use the arguments against the Jerusalem zombies, the descending angel, the shekel eating fish, the mobile star and in fact pretty much everything that Matthew wrote.

I won't go on, but it should be clear why I place no trust in Authorities or the published tomes of professional apologists.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #63]

You also skip and wangle the issue horribly - and you ain't the first Your fiddling of the end skips over the fact that Mark says they said nothing to anyone. That is a clear contradiction where in other gospels, they say plenty.

OK on this. How on earth did Mark know they said, 'nothing to anyone'? I don't think it ever implied they never spoke of the morning ever again.

Sorry I was too quick. You posted an extract by way of explanation, but it is rubbish, and you should know it already. "Without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord’s body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John." This is refuted by Matthew who says that Mary Magdalene with the other Mary hears the angel explain to them outside the tomb, and Mark who says they went in and an angelic being explained to them that Jesus had risen. Luke had a whole gaggle of ladies, but says that it was all of them that reported back to the disciples about the angels and their message. The explanation is apparently either ignorant of what the Bible says or lying about it. I can't see into this persons' mind, but I should love for a deconverted apologist to explain why they fiddled the evidence like this. But I can guess, and will explain.

In Mark 16 it names some women and then switches to they/them. In John 20 it has Mary running off. Both can be valid. Mark doesn't preclude or contradict John 20:1-2.

I may argue as a reason NOT to go chasing that or any other Christian apologetic s book is they they cannot correctly apply critical thinking. What they do is sophistry - using the methods of critical thinking but distorted to fit the belief. This is what happens at best. And I find it hard to recall an honest example. Most of them that I can recall are based on ignorance, real or feigned. Such as your excuse that the disciples could have fitted a trip to Galilee into Luke's narrative. Either you didn't read the actual narrative and see that there is no time for it, or you might have applied the "witness error" excuse that in fact there was a trip to Galilee in there and there was a time -gap that Luke didn't mention...etc.

This is what I call rewriting the Bible and making stuff up. Not that you did it - you preferred not to answer at all but preferred to miserable misdirection of telling me to go and read a book rather than read it and make your own case.
But supposing you'd employed that excuse - it is not critical thinking but a skewed and biased argument based on Faith: - "I start from the Faithbased assumption that the Gospel narrative is true. Therefore these apparent contradictions can be explained"... even by waving a magic wand, as you did with explaining hos Jesus could be in two places at once. or by fiddling the evidence as Loke the liar does and ignoring anything that doesn't fit. The problem with making stuff up is that there is not a scrap of evidence for it. It is a scenario - excuse made up to explain the problem away. That is why this in not critical thinking - it ignores the conclusions based on the Bible text and what it says and prefers to make stuff up themselves to make the Faith work. That is why I do not think that Christian apologists, excuse me, are capable of critical thinking, but can at best wangle the evidence to make it support the Faith. And you may safely gamble your house,car and laptop on that. Now,I suggest that you make your own case to address the contradictions I pointed out or admit that you can't, even if you cling to your Faith rather than actually deal with the argument.

This is diatribe unless you see something I should discuss.

P.s I was curious about this fraud and his wretched book and I looked him up

Andrew Loke Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Andrew_Loke
Andrew Ter Ern Loke is a Singaporean Christian theologian and philosopher. He is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy ...

I want to weep. Supposedly respectable research organisations employ liars and frauds like this as faculty members. Is it any wonder i feel impelled to post and only feel frustration that we goddless have nothing like the push, funding and exposure that these bamboozlers and fraudsters for the Faith get. And get PAID to do it as well

He obviously has a lot of knowledge (so they often do) but it is misused to make the faith work so even a dumbcluck like me can point up how he simply fiddles, not to say lies, about what the Bible actually says. Lane Craig does the same with the resurrection apologetic.

There is a critique that is worth reading entirely but here's a sample to show I'm not making invalid criticisms of Loke's methods.

CRITICISM #2:
Loke displays an uncritical partiality for his faith tradition. The way he characterizes ancient Christians in contrast to ancient pagans and Jews is quite obviously biased and relies on speculation rather than evidence. He paints the ancient Christians in a dignified light of critical reasoning and pure sincerity, while those dirty non-believers are simply unreasonable, scrambling tools of superstition with bad motivations and excuses. This perspective seems to be nothing more than repackaging from the biased, polemical caricatures of the Bible, chiefly in the Gospels and Acts. (Eric Bess)

I am a bit more steamed because I love Singapore (in small doses) and their airline is a favorite of mine and they deserve to have better than this scammer for Jesus poisoning their minds. But regrettably, westernised Chinese see Christianity as something progressive and cool compared to Taoism for example. I get it, But critical thinking is better than myths.

This is ad hom.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #63]

You also skip and wangle the issue horribly - and you ain't the first Your fiddling of the end skips over the fact that Mark says they said nothing to anyone. That is a clear contradiction where in other gospels, they say plenty.

OK on this. How on earth did Mark know they said, 'nothing to anyone'? I don't think it ever implied they never spoke of the morning ever again.

well exactly. Apart from being woefully inadequate, Mark makes no sense. Even less if we credit John and remove the angel and his message, then we just have the absurd empty tomb and the women running away and saying nothing. It is no evidence and no sense.

Sorry I was too quick. You posted an extract by way of explanation, but it is rubbish, and you should know it already. "Without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord’s body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John." This is refuted by Matthew who says that Mary Magdalene with the other Mary hears the angel explain to them outside the tomb, and Mark who says they went in and an angelic being explained to them that Jesus had risen. Luke had a whole gaggle of ladies, but says that it was all of them that reported back to the disciples about the angels and their message. The explanation is apparently either ignorant of what the Bible says or lying about it. I can't see into this persons' mind, but I should love for a deconverted apologist to explain why they fiddled the evidence like this. But I can guess, and will explain.

In Mark 16 it names some women and then switches to they/them. In John 20 it has Mary running off. Both can be valid. Mark doesn't preclude or contradict John 20:1-2.

Why do you take the passages out of context as well as misrepresent them? The synoptics in all case agree that Mary and Mary (plus the other women in Luke) all went back to the disciples and reported what had happened. Luke confirms the vision of angels. John having Mary (plus the other one standing there) professing complete ignorance of why the tomb was empty. Fiddle it how you like (I show a sight more respect for Holy Writ than you do) John having no angel or message confirms this with Mary and Mary saying that they assume that someone has removed the body .Absolutely conflicts with the angelic explanation.

I may argue as a reason NOT to go chasing that or any other Christian apologetic s book is they they cannot correctly apply critical thinking. What they do is sophistry - using the methods of critical thinking but distorted to fit the belief. This is what happens at best. And I find it hard to recall an honest example. Most of them that I can recall are based on ignorance, real or feigned. Such as your excuse that the disciples could have fitted a trip to Galilee into Luke's narrative. Either you didn't read the actual narrative and see that there is no time for it, or you might have applied the "witness error" excuse that in fact there was a trip to Galilee in there and there was a time -gap that Luke didn't mention...etc.

This is what I call rewriting the Bible and making stuff up. Not that you did it - you preferred not to answer at all but preferred to miserable misdirection of telling me to go and read a book rather than read it and make your own case.
But supposing you'd employed that excuse - it is not critical thinking but a skewed and biased argument based on Faith: - "I start from the Faithbased assumption that the Gospel narrative is true. Therefore these apparent contradictions can be explained"... even by waving a magic wand, as you did with explaining hos Jesus could be in two places at once. or by fiddling the evidence as Loke the liar does and ignoring anything that doesn't fit. The problem with making stuff up is that there is not a scrap of evidence for it. It is a scenario - excuse made up to explain the problem away. That is why this in not critical thinking - it ignores the conclusions based on the Bible text and what it says and prefers to make stuff up themselves to make the Faith work. That is why I do not think that Christian apologists, excuse me, are capable of critical thinking, but can at best wangle the evidence to make it support the Faith. And you may safely gamble your house,car and laptop on that. Now,I suggest that you make your own case to address the contradictions I pointed out or admit that you can't, even if you cling to your Faith rather than actually deal with the argument.

This is diatribe unless you see something I should discuss.

Disgraceful pretext for dismissal of my rebuttal of your attempt to wangle a trip to Galilee into a 40 day staying put as ordered, and your insultingly clumsy attempt at misdirection. But you carry on like this, as you only hurt yourself with such apologetics, not me.

P.s I was curious about this fraud and his wretched book and I looked him up

Andrew Loke Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Andrew_Loke
Andrew Ter Ern Loke is a Singaporean Christian theologian and philosopher. He is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Religion and Philosophy ...

I want to weep. Supposedly respectable research organisations employ liars and frauds like this as faculty members. Is it any wonder i feel impelled to post and only feel frustration that we goddless have nothing like the push, funding and exposure that these bamboozlers and fraudsters for the Faith get. And get PAID to do it as well

He obviously has a lot of knowledge (so they often do) but it is misused to make the faith work so even a dumbcluck like me can point up how he simply fiddles, not to say lies, about what the Bible actually says. Lane Craig does the same with the resurrection apologetic.

There is a critique that is worth reading entirely but here's a sample to show I'm not making invalid criticisms of Loke's methods.

CRITICISM #2:
Loke displays an uncritical partiality for his faith tradition. The way he characterizes ancient Christians in contrast to ancient pagans and Jews is quite obviously biased and relies on speculation rather than evidence. He paints the ancient Christians in a dignified light of critical reasoning and pure sincerity, while those dirty non-believers are simply unreasonable, scrambling tools of superstition with bad motivations and excuses. This perspective seems to be nothing more than repackaging from the biased, polemical caricatures of the Bible, chiefly in the Gospels and Acts. (Eric Bess)

I am a bit more steamed because I love Singapore (in small doses) and their airline is a favorite of mine and they deserve to have better than this scammer for Jesus poisoning their minds. But regrettably, westernised Chinese see Christianity as something progressive and cool compared to Taoism for example. I get it, But critical thinking is better than myths.

This is ad hom.

No. It is rebuttal of any of these Bible -thumping Dudes as some kind of authority. Sorry, chum, you will have to do your own work, not let these liars for Jesus do it for you, forget about me doing it.

[otseng]

If you believe the Bible contains errancies, by all logic, you must not believe those errancies.

What I do not believe in is the doctrine of inerrancy. But it does not necessarily mean all the errors are false. For example, there are conflicting accounts of the number of angels at the tomb after the resurrection. It still could be one of those is the correct one, not that all of them are wrong.

So your inability to recognize when rational argumentation passes you on the sidewalk is not the fault of skeptics, so much as your being real proud of believing there's a god who created an entire universe, then set about sacrificing some poor Jewish carpenter just so that god there could fit more folks in the pews.

Evidence please. What examples of rational argumentation can you present from the skeptics in that thread? From the sheer size of the thread, there should be massive examples of this. Instead, it's few and far between.

You mentioned irrational arguments first, so let's have have you present here which you find so irrational. Then we can fuss about how come they ain't.

Well, since you asked, we can start with your posts. I've summarized my objections to your posts here:
viewtopic.php?p=1111671#p1111671

[JoeyKnothead]

If you believe the Bible contains errancies, by all logic, you must not believe those errancies.

What I do not believe in is the doctrine of inerrancy. But it does not necessarily mean all the errors are false. For example, there are conflicting accounts of the number of angels at the tomb after the resurrection. It still could be one of those is the correct one, not that all of them are wrong.

Not knowing which contradictions are wrong is to not know which ones are correct. The most rational position is a provisional disbelief in all of them.

There's also the issue of an inability to show angels exist. Provisional disbelief is the more rational pisition.

More on the tomb here in a bit ..

Well, since you asked, we can start with your posts. I've summarized my objections to your posts here:
viewtopic.php?p=1111671#p1111671

I previously fessed to a misunderstanding regarding "son of God", while the following facts remain...

The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to a person for whom we have no contemporary images.

The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to someone for whom we do not have a reliable sample.

What we have is an alleged birth from a woman impregnated by what / who's sperm? If we can't confirm how this virgin was impregnated, we can't confirm she got pregnant by this heretofore hypothetical method, we can't confirm a birth.

If we can't confirm this magical (my term) pregnancy and birth, we can't confirm Jesus even existed as the story asserts.

If we can't confirm existence, the story of a tomb can't be confirmed.

Or, we rationally conclude Jesus and Paul Bunyan have some kinfolk in common.

Sorry if that's all gallopy, it's as brief as I could be and tell it.

[TRANSPONDER]

If you believe the Bible contains errancies, by all logic, you must not believe those errancies.

What I do not believe in is the doctrine of inerrancy. But it does not necessarily mean all the errors are false. For example, there are conflicting accounts of the number of angels at the tomb after the resurrection. It still could be one of those is the correct one, not that all of them are wrong.

Not knowing which contradictions are wrong is to not know which ones are correct. The most rational position is a provisional disbelief in all of them.

There's also the issue of an inability to show angels exist. Provisional disbelief is the more rational pisition.

More on the tomb here in a bit ..

Well, since you asked, we can start with your posts. I've summarized my objections to your posts here:
viewtopic.php?p=1111671#p1111671

I previously fessed to a misunderstanding regarding "son of God", while the following facts remain...

The image on the shroud has not been shown to belong to a person for whom we have no contemporary images.

The blood on the shroud has not been shown to belong to someone for whom we do not have a reliable sample.

What we have is an alleged birth from a woman impregnated by what / who's sperm? If we can't confirm how this virgin was impregnated, we can't confirm she got pregnant by this heretofore hypothetical method, we can't confirm a birth.

If we can't confirm this magical (my term) pregnancy and birth, we can't confirm Jesus even existed as the story asserts.

If we can't confirm existence, the story of a tomb can't be confirmed.

Or, we rationally conclude Jesus and Paul Bunyan have some kinfolk in common.

Sorry if that's all gallopy, it's as brief as I could be and tell it.

That's good, and thanks for it, but I have to observe that even if the Nativities are fake (as they plainly and provably are) that does not rule out the broad outlines of the Jesus - story being true even though the resurrection - stories are debunkable enough. And the empty tomb might be true, too, though Not, I think, in the way the Gospels show it.

[JoeyKnothead]

That's good, and thanks for it, but I have to observe that even if the Nativities are fake (as they plainly and provably are) that does not rule out the broad outlines of the Jesus - story being true even though the resurrection - stories are debunkable enough. And the empty tomb might be true, too, though Not, I think, in the way the Gospels show it.

I'm comfortable thinking a dude got fed up with his carpenter's wages and struck out as a preacher.

What I ain't comfortable with is saying he fed five hundred folks on a five pound minnow.