RESURRECTION : THE EVIDENCE (+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)

You gutless wonder. What a hypocrite. I suppose it is consistent with your refusal to provide scientific evidence invalidating the theory of evoultion, which you claimed to have, when challenged.Why don't you continue to hide your precious "evidence" under a bush and, to protect it further, don't even let on that you possess it?

The next post I reply to will be your post number 106.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1.61803

​

WT has painted him/her self into the proverbial corner and has hung him/herself . . .

---

???? Are you sure??I thought s/he fell headlong and burst asunder.Amlodhi

And all the King's horses and all the King's men could never put Humpty back together again...unless of course the King planned on reserrecting the egg-man, just like he reserrected so many other fairy tale caricatures

Can we refrain from the drive by one liners?CheersAdminBrian.

Post 30...post 37...38...45...49...59...64 (the books)...66 (your post and you cite McBirnie's Book, which is evidence of the "checkmate")...post 77...and post 101.Allow me to recap.I said from the outset that there is not a shred of evidence in existence that refutes the checkmate claim. The checkmate evidence admits that details vary but the common denominators remain : horrible martyrdom alone for the report of the Resurrection.Now 125 pages into the debate and NOBODY has posted one piece of evidence to refute the claim, including a person who has vast macro and micro knowledge in religious studies. (Brian)When I debated in evolution topics, whatever I offered was instantly
challenged, there wasn't any paucity of opposition evidence, but in this debate not one debater can provide any evidence at all refuting the checkmate evidence.It took a hundred pages before the in house scholar would clearly admit the apostles/disciples lived. In previous posts I repeatedly said Jesus Seminarians admit the apostles/disciples lived. The J.S. are evangelicals worst critics, if they admit Jesus lived/apostles lived then why must I stoop down and defend against one liners/debaters who don't even know where the argument is/status ?Then the debate now focuses on the apostles/disciples deaths/circumstances. Nobody has argued against the claims of post 101.Like who christianized the world ? And it was done in an era that murdered persons for wrong beliefs, contrasted with what would happen today in certain cities.Someone challenged the escape hatch of recanting. Again, the same era said if you would declare "Caesar is Lord" that would spare you a Coliseum trip. This was the climate worldwide - opposing politcal/religious status quo equaled death/martyrdom unless you recanted.I have already refused to actually post martyrdom evidence because :There isn't any evidence to the contrary.It would be desecrated by dead-enders, which is equivalent to debating with dishonest and ignorant persons who have no intention of doing anything but Talibanic destruction.I have already revealed the true intent was to expose this board to the fact driven integrity of a Larry Thomas, a man who would slap the living shit out of the Talibanic fundementalists who have seized atheism and destroyed its backbone of integrity.I cannot even get the collective atheistic presence in this arena to EVEN ADMIT the known claims of christianity (Bible claims to be the word of God etc.etc.) (exception to CA, and maybe Brian). If EvC atheism cannot even acknowledge what christianity claims then this eradicates any frame of reference to intelligently argue from. And it evidences my assertion that revisionism equals fraud.This debate consists of four genuine debaters (Asgara, Chipotera, Trixie, Paulk) and a ringleader (Brian) and numerous dishonest clowns who never acknowledge any content.Presently, we have a single voice of chorus demanding checkmate evidence. I can only interpret this as a compliment to the nature of the evidence, that in lieu of the implications (checkmate true) that this particular evidence is greatly convincing.The sources of scholarship for the entire church world agree in unison that they died alone, horribly, for the Resurrection report.
Non church scholars agree at a rate of 500 to 1. (estimated), the point is that there is no evidence to contradict the checkmate evidence. I define evidence to be "pieces of proof supporting a claimed fact".If someone arbitrarily says "traditions" are not evidence then this makes you an oddball in contrast to thousands of scholars who say it is. Traditions are based on cores of truth, common denominators among the traditions are then accepted as unverifiable historical FACT.But if your worldview places you in a state outside a reachable pale of objectively reviewing the evidence, then no amount will convince you. This is why I have refrained from posting the accessible to anyone checkmate evidence.The claim of fact is made, they died alone, horribly, for the witness of the Resurrection.Can someone please tell me what evidence exists to refute anything that I have said/evidenced ?

And I've yet to see you present one piece of evidence to SUPPORT your claim. All I've witnessed it repeated assertions that such evidence exists. Would you mind sharing it with us already? ...so you've repeatedly CLAIMED but have yet to demonstrate with actual evidence in the case of the apostles. ***Bullshit flag flies up in the air***Quit dodging. Present the evidence to support your claims or retract them. Claims are not true until proven false. I'm well aware of your CLAIMS. All you've done is repeat them. I'm still waiting for you to support them, and it surprises me that you've been allowed to carry on this long in flagrant violation of forum rule #4. Really? Why don't you SHOW me instead of TELLING me? Will you first please give us a reason to believe you're not just blowing smoke up our collective asses?

Well it's quite obvious what you are doing. You know that we DON'T know how the apostles died and so you are refusing to provide the evidence to back up your claims while demanding that that others refute them - knowing full well that the evidence does not exist to do either.You lie about the points made against you - nobody has questioned the existence of the apostles. They HAVE questioned your version of their deaths.NOBODY has produced significant evidence about the deaths of the apostles because there ISN'T ANY. Everyone else in this thread is being honest on that front. Except you.And I've yet to see any evidence that worshipping Caesar was a get-out-of-jail free card in Roman society. Please tell me how worshipping Caesar would get someone out of a charge of settng a fire that caused major damage to Rome. Produce the evidence because I think this is another fantasy you are trying to pass off as fact.And no, traditions are NOT accepted as facts. They are usually regarded as inaccurate at best and not infrequently fictitious. You've had examples of THAT too, in this thread.You haven't produced anything that shows integrity in Larry Thomas. But you have shown us plenty about your own lack of integrity.

Remember willowtree, the absence of evidence to the contrary does not validate a claim in and of itself. You still have to provide evidence that supports your claim. Also, does the sacrifice of your own life based on a set of beliefs in a figure-head automatically make that figure-head divine?Furthermore, the major players, so to speak, of Jesus's circle have occult origins. Christianity actually gets very interesting once we realize that it is a belief system based on ancient myths, just like the rest. People only take offense to calling the bible stories myths b/c of their pre-conceived notion that a Christian god exists and that god had a son that redeemed all of mankind. There are also angels and devils/demons implanted into our psyche at a young age. Even if you are not very religious, the symbols and stories in Christianity are in our memories. One difference I can see between a believer and a non-believer is that the non-believer is not trying to proove or support a subjective idea at all costs. A little objectivity can go a long way.

At EvC Forum, the basis for any debate should be evidence. When an assertion is questioned, evidence supporting it should be offered, otherwise there is nothing to examine and discuss. You offered a list of your posts in this thread as containing evidence: I've examined these messages, and they do not appear to contain any evidence. Evidence is historical writings and artifacts. Non-specific references to writings or artifacts is not evidence. For example, "What about the written records?" is not a reference to evidence because there is no way to know which records. A good reference might be: I've extracted the evidence for apostolic martyrdom from the above posts that you mention:

• Message 30
  ​
  None.
  ​
• Message 37
  ​
  None.
  ​
• Message 38
  ​
  None (because the message is from Chiroptera, not WillowTree).
  ​
• Message 45
  ​
  None.
  ​
• Message 49
  ​
  None.
  ​
• Message 59
  ​
  None.
  ​
• Message 64
  ​
  Provides references to several books, but contains no discussion or evidence about apostolic martyrdom.
  ​
• Message 66
  ​
  From Asgara, who says McBirnie writes about the lack of evidence.
  ​
• Message 77
  ​
  None.
  ​
• Message 101
  ​
  None.

Could you please provide some specific references to evidence?

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Administrator

Stop sniveling for your mommy/Admin to come rescue you. You are obviously out of your league and realm of knowledge. The dogma of your Talibanic worldview places outside the pale of reach of ever comprehending what truth/evidence is.

So you aren't going to support your claims, then, huh?Typical.

To better reflect this topic's content, I have added "(+ Apostolic Martyrdom considerations)" to the topic title.Adminnemooseus

Just because there is no evidence that goes against your claims doesn't mean that what you say is instantly true. You have no evidence that proves there are no monkeys in my rectum. So by your logic, it is a fact that there are monkeys in my rectum. Geez that is like the 10th time I have had to say that on this forum.[This message has been edited by Rand Al'Thor, 03-16-2004]

You really should have them removed.