1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

Is there evidence of Jesus' ressurection?

Discussion in 'Debate Forum' started by GhostAnime, Apr 11, 2011.

  1. ChedWick

    ChedWick Well-Known Member

    Oh of course, but something doesn't have to be accurate to be beautiful.
  2. foodmetaphors

    foodmetaphors Well-Known Member

    I would love to see these records. Do you have a source?
  3. Night_Walker

    Night_Walker Well-Known Member

    The only hint of any independent evidence for the existence of Jesus at all is something I think I read somewhere that the Romans have a record of executing someone by the name of Jesus.

    But really look at the dates of the books about Jesus and that should make anyone wary about accepting things - ie the earliest book being written about him dates to 60 years after he supposedly died and the final acceptance of what books were 'real' occurring 300 years later.
  4. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    Provide proof.
  5. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    No. Show us some hard evidence.
  6. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    You have made outrageous claims in this entire thread.

    Now, take every one of those claims and show evidence that you are right.
  7. Neferka

    Neferka Gimmie Kiss ;-]

    That's a joke right? I really, really hope it's a joke...
  8. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    Well, let's start with your carbon dating that proves that Earth is not very old. Show some evidence. And before you ask me to, read back. I posted a link to an article, and someone else mentioned some hills that were a few billion years old.

    Counter-evidence, please?
  9. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    Read my last post instead of ignoring. We have provided evidence. Now practice what you preach.


    No scientist would be against Creationism if there was any evidence pointing towards is. All theories are work models, blueprints if you will. Currently, evolution is the only one that has some hard evidence to back it up. If someone actually found something that disproved evolution, scientists would not argue against it, they would adapt.

    And that is the difference between science and religion. Adaptability or holding on to outdated beliefs.
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2011
  10. Neferka

    Neferka Gimmie Kiss ;-]

    Ok, so I've read over some of your other posts in this thread and I'm calling troll on you because frankly that's the kindest thing to do at this point. The alternative is ignorance on you part about science and evolution on such a monumental level that I feel genuinely sorry for you.

    I could list a number of websites and link some YouTube videos on the subject of evolution, but I highly doubt that you would read or watch them. Your use of language and the so called 'evidence against evolution' you have provided screams creationism brainwashing. Even the Answers in Genesis people (who are on your side!) have acknowledged that it should not be used for the purpose of arguing against evolution any more.
  11. Lbsweet96

    Lbsweet96 &#32

    Because there aren't outdated beliefs in Christianity that the majority of Christians have let go of? And because out of all scientists there isn't some minority, however vocal, that refuses to believe things that modern science has proven false? There's always, no matter what you're discussing, going to be a minority who still believes the earth is flat. The thing that varies is how loud they are.

    And 11DBHK you're making a better argument for the opposing side than your opponents could have ever done.
  12. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    I do acknowledge when I am wrong. This is one of those times. You are correct.

    However, I am still of the conviction that religion was a tool invented by Mankind to explain the inexplainable, and that it should be replaced by science. After all, if there is a God, chances are his existence will be proven at some point. In that case, I can see people worshipping him. But until you know for sure, I must admit that I consider it rather naïve to still hold on to those ancient beliefs that are, logically speaking, most likely wrong.
  13. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    I looked up your claim about the Cro-Magnon species being fake.

    Nothing came up. Nothing at all.

    Care to help me and find something that might help prove this statement of yours?
  14. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    Apparently, I'm not as good at this as you are. Care to link me?
  15. foodmetaphors

    foodmetaphors Well-Known Member

    Talking about evolution is off-topic here. Even if it were proven false tomorrow, it couldn't be used as proof of any religious claims. Likewise, proof against a religious claim in no way affects the Theory of Evolution. And if you make a claim, you have to back it up. You can't just tell people to Google it. It's your claim, so it's your job to show where you got your information.
  16. Neferka

    Neferka Gimmie Kiss ;-]

    You do not care to know about evolution... That statement says so much. The second part is either a lie or self delusion.

    I have looked it up by the way. I did not arrive at the position I have taken by sitting on my hands. Incidentally, since you are positing the claim that 'evolution goes against alot of evidence' the burden of proof is on you. If you fail to provide proof then you have lost the argument by default.

    I have so far not asked for proof of divinity (you must have me confused with someone else), but I find it very interesting that you should bring up the subject of the dead sea scrolls. Especially since they offer an insight into the early versions of the Biblical texts, which suggests to me that the 'word of god' is open to interpretation and/or editing.

    On the subject of contradictions in the bible: Link
  17. Charmander#4

    Charmander#4 Dating Rosie Palms?

    Yeah, like the time they removed reincarnation from the Bible.

    "The theory of reincarnation is recorded in the Bible. But the proper interpretations were struck from it during an Ecumenical Council meeting of the Catholic Church in Constantinople sometime around 553 A.D, called the Council of Nicea. The Council members voted to strike those teachings from the Bible in order to solidify Church control."
  18. 7 tyranitars

    7 tyranitars Well-Known Member

    congratz! you just described religion!

    religion has nothing to back it's claims up evolution does, also where are those supposed contradiction and don't post anything your church indoctrinated into you on their lousy website. gives some hard evidence

    1 word constaninople.

    so how do you make those claims that evolution is fake while you don't even want to know about it? no wonder you can't post evidence...
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2011
  19. Sabonea_Masukippa

    Sabonea_Masukippa Well-Known Member

    Most modern Bibles even acknowledge that some parts (usually a verse here or there) of it are not in the earliest manuscripts that have been found (including parts of the gospels). I'll see if I can dig up some stuff.
  20. cantab

    cantab Well-Known Member


Share This Page