🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:34:56 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote
in alt.atheism:

>On Aug 3, 4:18?pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> rbwinn wrote:
>> > On Aug 3, 8:12 am, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> >> rbwinn wrote:
>> >>> On Aug 2, 8:53 pm, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 00:08:55 -0700 (PDT), rbwinn <rbwi...@juno.com> wrote
>> >>>> in alt.atheism:
>> >>>>> On Aug 1, 2:30?pm, DanielSan <daniel...@speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>> rbwinn wrote:
>> >>>> ...
>> >>>>>>> Discuss it with John after the resurrection.
>> >>>>>> No proof of this alleged "resurrection", is there?
>> >>>>> Well, actually there is. The apostles were witnesses of the
>> >>>>> resurrected Christ on two separate occasions.
>> >>>> No evidence backs up your claim.
>> >>> Well, I could send you a copy of the Bible if you want one.
>> >> I have a Bible. There's no evidence in there to back up your claim.
>>
>> > John 20:19 ?Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the
>> > week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for
>> > fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto
>> > them, Peace be unto you.
>>
>> > John 21:9 ?As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of
>> > coals there, and fish laid thereon, and bread.
>> > 10 ? Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now
>> > caught.
>> > 11 ? Simon Peter ?went up, and drew the net to land full of great
>> > fishes, an hundred and fifty and three: ?and for all there were so
>> > many, yet was not the net broken.
>> > 12Jesus saith unto them Come and dine, And none of the disciples durst
>> > ask him , Who art thou? knowing that it was the Lord.
>> > 13 ?Jesus then cometh , and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish
>> > likewise.
>>
>> > 14 ?This is now the third time that Jesus shewed himself to his
>> > disciples, after that he was risen from the dead.
>>
>> No, that's not evidence. ?That's a claim.
>>
>Well, you have to understand something about rules of evidence.  If
>something exists, it can be entered into evidence.  The Bible
>exists.

Yes, it does and it can be used as evidence about what is written in the
Bible. It cannot be used as evidence about history or science or the
existence of any gods. It is demonstrably unreliable.

>So what is your position, that the Bible does not exist, therefore it
>cannot be entered into evidence?

That is not my position. You know that, but you have chosen, of your own
free, twisted will to lie about it.

>This is the same tactic you have used from the beginning concerning
>Hezekiah's tunnel.

Again, you have chosen to lie about that.

Too bad you have to lie about everything here.