(November 29, 2014 at 1:08 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: there are others on here just like you...that failed to comprehend what "Part 1" means...and that this post was to set the foundation up for the bigger conclusion of the Resurrection as a whole.
Well, you've spent 41 pages dancing the "Scholars Say" shuffle with regards to the existence of a Jesus of some kind. I'm hoping you'll move on to the "case for the resurrection of Jesus Christ" part of your presentation very soon since, "part I" or no, that is supposed to be the point of this thread.
I'm just breathless with anticipation.
Anytime now.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist