Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by Thunderstick
Originally Posted by Starman
Originally Posted by Thunderstick


Disputing the evidence for the resurrection of Christ is equal to trying to dispute that the American Revolution actually occurred.
We all "believe" it occurred on the basis of evidence.


Initially you claimed it as FACT, now you say its merely based on evidence.

Evidence does not necessarily amount to Proof or established Fact,
and that can be seen in courtrooms across the land on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by Thunderstick
.. In your belief system you choose unbelief--yes a belief system that is based on faith in your own
rational conclusions on what to doubt with a high degree of certainty.


I rely on a lack of proof being provided by christians , and because of such lack , also the absence of establishedFact.

no proof = no established fact.



How are the facts of history established? Are they not based on the laws of evidence? No evidence equals no facts--good evidence establishes the facts. This is not a novel idea.
Webster--Definition of evidence
1a : an outward sign : INDICATION
b : something that furnishes proof : TESTIMONY

In summary the resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history that is established on the basis of good evidence. The denial of the resurrection is not based on good evidence, and therefore is not a factual conclusion, but rather represents a prejudice against the facts.


Testimony alone is not necessarily evidence. The person giving an account of an event may be mistaken, deluded, lying, etc, which is why verifiable evidence is necessary.

We don't have verifiable evidence in the bible. We have what anonymous authors, copying from older material and word of mouth transmission, tell us.


Sir you are really showing desperation here--every court would examine eye-witness accounts and testimonies to establish evidence--which is what the dictionary says. You have to create your own laws of evidence in order to dismiss the evidence--no reasonable person would accept your methodology. If you had a good argument you would not resort to these measures.