New Posts For Thread: Resurrection - Nohttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_NoThe evidence for the resurrection of Jesus as an historical event is of very poor quality. It's no more capable of persuading an impartial onlooker that such an event happened in history than any other of the resurrection stories of antiquity.The inFr. Teilhard appreciates the Compliment, no matter how grudging or un-intended ...http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497579129#497579129Fr. Teilhard appreciates the Compliment, no matter how grudging or un-intended ...Tue, 31 May 2011 22:49:44 -0500So much for teilhard the scholar!http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497491465#497491465So much for teilhard the scholar!Tue, 31 May 2011 04:45:43 -0500(1) Again ... YOUR Claims are based upon your a priori Premises, which I reject ...(2) Yes, yes, yes ... And some People think -- CONTEND !!! -- that The Moon Landings were faked and Elvis is still Alive ... So ... ???http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497476525#497476525(1) Again ... YOUR Claims are based upon your a priori Premises, which I reject ...(2) Yes, yes, yes ... And some People think -- CONTEND !!! -- that The Moon Landings were faked and Elvis is still Alive ... So ... ???Mon, 30 May 2011 21:48:31 -0500teilhardI DON'T "argue" with your AssertionsTrue. But you would if you could. I see NO GOOD Reason to doubt the First-Person Authenticity, e.g., of The "We Passages" in "Acts" ... "Luke" WAS THERE ...Acts, as even you must know, is regarded fohttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497473865#497473865teilhardI DON'T "argue" with your AssertionsTrue. But you would if you could. I see NO GOOD Reason to doubt the First-Person Authenticity, e.g., of The "We Passages" in "Acts" ... "Luke" WAS THERE ...Acts, as even you must know, is regarded foMon, 30 May 2011 21:00:00 -0500(1) Indeed, I DON'T "argue" with your Assertions, since, as I have tirelessly indicated, your Claims are based upon FAULTY a priori PREMISES ...(2) Thank you for your Concession ...(3) I don't think "Events" are susceptible to "Reason" ... "Shttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497451621#497451621(1) Indeed, I DON'T "argue" with your Assertions, since, as I have tirelessly indicated, your Claims are based upon FAULTY a priori PREMISES ...(2) Thank you for your Concession ...(3) I don't think "Events" are susceptible to "Reason" ... "SMon, 30 May 2011 15:59:27 -0500teilhardMy Responses in this Thread have been entirely Reasonable and Consistent ...No, You never make reasoned arguments. You simply make assertions, almost always negative ones - denials or rejections.in YOUR World(View) The (Reported) Resurrecthttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497403997#497403997teilhardMy Responses in this Thread have been entirely Reasonable and Consistent ...No, You never make reasoned arguments. You simply make assertions, almost always negative ones - denials or rejections.in YOUR World(View) The (Reported) ResurrectMon, 30 May 2011 07:28:46 -0500My Responses in this Thread have been entirely Reasonable and Consistent ...I disagree with your a priori Premises ...See ... E.g., in YOUR World(View) The (Reported) Resurrection of The Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth DIDN'T happen because suchhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497372785#497372785My Responses in this Thread have been entirely Reasonable and Consistent ...I disagree with your a priori Premises ...See ... E.g., in YOUR World(View) The (Reported) Resurrection of The Lord Jesus (The Christ) of Nazareth DIDN'T happen because suchSun, 29 May 2011 19:50:13 -0500teilhardYou like to state and understand Questions and Facts and Possibilities (and "Reality" Itself) in Terms of Stark Dualities/Dichotomies ... I do not ...So quite expressly you oppose distinguishing between fact and fiction.Noted.I DO understandhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497367317#497367317teilhardYou like to state and understand Questions and Facts and Possibilities (and "Reality" Itself) in Terms of Stark Dualities/Dichotomies ... I do not ...So quite expressly you oppose distinguishing between fact and fiction.Noted.I DO understandSun, 29 May 2011 18:19:56 -0500(A) You like to state and understand Questions and Facts and Possibilities (and "Reality" Itself) in Terms of Stark Dualities/Dichotomies ... I do not ...(B) I DO understand that you make that ASSERTION ... I disagree with you ...http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497330533#497330533(A) You like to state and understand Questions and Facts and Possibilities (and "Reality" Itself) in Terms of Stark Dualities/Dichotomies ... I do not ...(B) I DO understand that you make that ASSERTION ... I disagree with you ...Sun, 29 May 2011 11:00:57 -0500teilhardThe Distinction between "Historie" und "Geschichte" neither originated with me, nor am I the only Person who understands and affirms it ...The distinction between Historie and Geschichte is that the former is not a word in current standardhttp://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44041/22047645/Resurrection_-_No?post_id=497307993#497307993teilhardThe Distinction between "Historie" und "Geschichte" neither originated with me, nor am I the only Person who understands and affirms it ...The distinction between Historie and Geschichte is that the former is not a word in current standardSun, 29 May 2011 06:02:30 -0500