The inimitable Farrell Till, not allowing a Christian to get by with merely quoting the Bible to prove that the resurrection of Jesus is true (amazing that they would even try that).
From the Errancy discussion list, February, 1998:
You are coming from the viewpoint that the Bible is errant; I am coming from the viewpoint that it is from God and therefore accurate. If you do not want me to use what the Bible says in order to discuss the Bible, then I see no point in being here. You were just asking about spiritual/resurrected bodies. If you don't believe in the Bible, why even discuss it? If you want to discuss the Bible among yourselves with no opposing viewpoint, please tell me why the group is looking for Christians to be involved? To what purpose?
You have a strange way of thinking. Of course, I understand that you think that the Bible is accurate, but I won't allow you to use this assumption to settle any issue that's being debated. I would have to be crazier than a loon to permit that. Don't you think I know that the NT clearly teaches that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and that there will be a final resurrection of all the dead? The issue is not whether the NT teaches these things, because clearly it does. The issue is whether the NT is correct in making these claims. I have no objection to you or anyone else quoting scripture as long as it is quoted simply to show what the NT says, but I have serious objections to your apparent belief that the mere citation of a scripture should be sufficient to settle an issue. If you are going to quote 1 Corinthians 15 as proof that there will be a final resurrection, then you have the obligation to present arguments that will show there are good reasons to believe that what this text says is true. You say that you have no objections to debating the errancy of the Book of Mormon, but if a Mormon were on the list to debate this issue, you surely would not stand still for allowing him simply to quote the Book of Mormon as proof of its own accuracy, would you?