Running from the Resurrection [W: 646]

[TheNextEra]

You just need to do more research on the subject instead of throwing out these lame platitudes. Then you will know the TRUTH, and the TRUTH shall set you free.

No need to respond anymore until you have a decent argument against the resurrection.

Puuuuhlease, again, there is a reason religion is FAITH and not FACT. I have FACT on my side, you have FAITH. It's fine you hold the belief, but it isn't FACT by any means. There is no need for you to respond to me until you learn the difference between faith and fact.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

The Prophet Muhummad's assession into heaven:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant [Prophet Muhammad] by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Quran 17:1)

“So will you dispute with him over what he saw? And he certainly saw him in another descent at the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary – near it is the Garden of Refuge (Paradise) – when there covered the Lote Tree that which covered (it). The sight (of the Prophet) did not swerve, nor did it transgress (its limit). He certainly saw of the greatest signs of his Lord.” (Quran 53:12-18)

That is the same level of "evidence" as there is for the Resurrection. The same people that will trust an ancient religious text as evidence of the Resurrection will of course dismiss the account of Muhummad ascending into heaven as nothing more than a myth in a book.

 

[csense]

The same people that will trust an ancient religious text as evidence of the Resurrection will of course dismiss the account of Muhummad ascending into heaven as nothing more than a myth in a book.

And there's nothing unusual or unreasonable about that, since, from a theological point of view, both can not be correct at the same time. It doesn't make much sense to believe in the tenets of one religion, and patronize the other which stands in direct conflict. Now, you may be someone who doesn't believe in God, and in which case, all religion would seem unreasonable to you, but it is not hypocrisy if a Christian dismisses Mohammed's ascent, or for that matter, a Muslim who dismisses the divine nature of Christ. Anything beyond that, would be hypocritical.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

And there's nothing unusual or unreasonable about that, since, from a theological point of view, both can not be correct at the same time. It doesn't make much sense to believe in the tenets of one religion, and patronize the other which stands in direct conflict. Now, you may be someone who doesn't believe in God, and in which case, all religion would seem unreasonable to you, but it is not hypocrisy if a Christian dismisses Mohammed's ascent, or for that matter, a Muslim who dismisses the divine nature of Christ. Anything beyond that, would be hypocritical.

I am not saying it would be hypocritical at all. I am merely pointing out that the belief in any miraculous claims of a religion requires faith. There is no evidence of the resurrection, nor is there evidence of Muhammad's ascension into heaven and similarly there is no evidence that lotus flowers grew in the Buddha's footsteps.

 

[Logicman]

Puuuuhlease, again, there is a reason religion is FAITH and not FACT. I have FACT on my side, you have FAITH. It's fine you hold the belief, but it isn't FACT by any means.

Nope, I have evidence, you have denial.

 

[TheNextEra]

Nope, I have evidence, you have denial.

As I pointed out, you have no evidence anymore than someone who writes about real events and then includes Zeus in it is factual. I told you before, there is no need to respond to me until you learn the difference between fact and faith.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Faith is belief in what you know ain't so, as Mr Clemens said. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

 

[Logicman]

The Prophet Muhummad's assession into heaven:

“Exalted is He who took His Servant [Prophet Muhammad] by night from al-Masjid al-Haram to al-Masjid al-Aqsa, whose surroundings We have blessed, to show him of Our signs. Indeed, He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Quran 17:1)

“So will you dispute with him over what he saw? And he certainly saw him in another descent at the Lote Tree of the Utmost Boundary – near it is the Garden of Refuge (Paradise) – when there covered the Lote Tree that which covered (it). The sight (of the Prophet) did not swerve, nor did it transgress (its limit). He certainly saw of the greatest signs of his Lord.” (Quran 53:12-18)

That is the same level of "evidence" as there is for the Resurrection. The same people that will trust an ancient religious text as evidence of the Resurrection will of course dismiss the account of Muhummad ascending into heaven as nothing more than a myth in a book.

One man - Muhammad - went into a cave and came out with his writings.

The New Testament has 27 separate writings by multiple authors and/or eyewitnesses to the resurrection.

There is also this, which Muhammad did not have.

Documenting A Miracle « The Righter Report

 

[Logicman]

As I pointed out, you have no evidence anymore than someone who writes about real events and then includes Zeus in it is factual. I told you before, there is no need to respond to me until you learn the difference between fact and faith.

Back at ya.

 

[TheNextEra]

Back at ya.

I'm not the one trying to pawn off my view as FACT. YOU are. Please tell me why religion isn't known as FACT instead of FAITH. until then, you've lost.

 

[Logicman]

I'm not the one trying to pawn off my view as FACT. YOU are. Please tell me why religion isn't known as FACT instead of FAITH. until then, you've lost.

Dream on.

 

[Ceist]

Ha ha.

Yeah, give me your best ONE (just 1 - your best 1) spoiler and cite the verse(s). Don't spam me with a big cut-and-paste. Just give me your best one from the Gospels, and we'll see if it flys.

I already gave one. Check back in the thread. We have one gospel writer talking about the crucifixion -earthquakes and dead people coming our of their graves - while the others don't even mention it all when they are talking about the crucifixion. Did they have their eyes closed while floating in the air something? They didn't notice any earthquakes or dead people walking around? Or was one of the writers just making it up?

 

[zyzygy]

Nope, I have evidence, you have denial.

Do you believe that Muhammad ascended into heaven?

 

[zyzygy]

I already gave one. Check back in the thread. We have one gospel writer talking about the crucifixion -earthquakes and dead people coming our of their graves - while the others don't even mention it all when they are talking about the crucifixion. Did they have their eyes closed while floating in the air something? They didn't notice any earthquakes or dead people walking around? Or was one of the writers just making it up?

You know that he will ignore all the spoilers. That's why he won't engage with me.

 

[Logicman]

I already gave one. Check back in the thread. We have one gospel writer talking about the crucifixion -earthquakes and dead people coming our of their graves - while the others don't even mention it all when they are talking about the crucifixion.

That's a logical fallacy - the argument from silence - which is a weak argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

"The silence of a second witness, or his testimony that he did not see a certain alleged occurrence, cannot counterbalance the positive testimony of a first witness that he did see it.

Egyptian monuments make no mention of the destruction of Pharaoh and his army; but then, Napoleon’s dispatches also make no mention of his defeat at Trafalgar. At the tomb of Napoleon in the Invalides of Paris, the walls are inscribed with the names of a multitude of places where his battles were fought, but Waterloo, the scene of his great defeat, is not recorded there. So Sennacherib, in all his monuments, does not refer to the destruction of his army in the time of Hezekiah. Napoleon gathered 450,000 men at Dresden to invade Russia. At Moscow the soft-falling snow conquered him. In one night 20,000 horses perished with cold. Not without reason at Moscow, on the anniversary of the retreat of the French, the exultation of the prophet over the fall of Sennacherib is read in the churches."

Augustus Hopkins Strong: The Argument from Silence « Library of Historical Apologetics

 

[Logicman]

You know that he will ignore all the spoilers. That's why he won't engage with me.

You're busted.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...surrection-post1063872395.html#post1063872395

 

[Quag]

When will you disprove the transformation of Io why do you keep runnign away from it!
Is it because you KNOW Zeus is real and just dont want to admit it?

 

[zyzygy]

You're busted.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...surrection-post1063872395.html#post1063872395

Not busted. Nobody is claiming that Napoleon performed miracles or came back from being dead. You either don't get the point or you are pretending not to get the point.

 

[zyzygy]

When will you disprove the transformation of Io why do you keep runnign away from it!
Is it because you KNOW Zeus is real and just dont want to admit it?

He is also very coy about telling us if he believes Krishna exists.

 

[Logicman]

Not busted. Nobody is claiming that Napoleon performed miracles or came back from being dead. You either don't get the point or you are pretending not to get the point.

You're busted.

 

[Quag]

You're busted.

When will you disprove the transformation of Io why do you keep running away from it?

 

[zyzygy]

You're busted.

The other participants in this thread know that is not true. It's meaningless. Claiming victory without any proof to back it up is not very impressive. You resort to this because you are unable to address my points. Your blind faith gets in the way.

 

[zyzygy]

When will you disprove the transformation of Io why do you keep running away from it?

Can I have three guesses?

 

[Ceist]

That's a logical fallacy - the argument from silence - which is a weak argument. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

"The silence of a second witness, or his testimony that he did not see a certain alleged occurrence, cannot counterbalance the positive testimony of a first witness that he did see it.

Egyptian monuments make no mention of the destruction of Pharaoh and his army; but then, Napoleon’s dispatches also make no mention of his defeat at Trafalgar. At the tomb of Napoleon in the Invalides of Paris, the walls are inscribed with the names of a multitude of places where his battles were fought, but Waterloo, the scene of his great defeat, is not recorded there. So Sennacherib, in all his monuments, does not refer to the destruction of his army in the time of Hezekiah. Napoleon gathered 450,000 men at Dresden to invade Russia. At Moscow the soft-falling snow conquered him. In one night 20,000 horses perished with cold. Not without reason at Moscow, on the anniversary of the retreat of the French, the exultation of the prophet over the fall of Sennacherib is read in the churches."

Augustus Hopkins Strong: The Argument from Silence « Library of Historical Apologetics

You don't appear to understand what an argument from silence fallacy is. Those examples are not the same as 4 people who were supposedly present together at the crucifixion, with one making some extraordinary claims that the others don't even mention at all. Violent earthquakes and people rising up out of their graves?

That would be like 4 people together near the twin towers on 9/11 - and when telling stories about that day later, 3 of them don't mention anything about planes crashing into the buildings and the buildings collapsing.

You have amazing capacity for denial....

 

[Logicman]

When will you disprove the transformation of Io why do you keep running away from it?

Why don't you document it?

Let's see a list of all your contemporary eyewitnesses to the event.

Let's see the original manuscript evidence.