Why do you have a problem with "if he existed"? That seems to be the most honest stance to have. You say Rob has an issue with deciding, as if Rob's deciding will have any bearing on Jesus' existence.
Speculating on his existence can be pretty interesting, but that's all it is. Nothing hinges on his having existed. If he didn't, oh well. If he did...oh. Let's say you, Randy, find indisputable proof (not what you have now- very disputable) that he lived. What have you won? Nothing. What else would that prove? Nothing.
You have taken on the impossible task of arguing for the possibility of a resurrection, something we know humans can't do. Something that has never been witnessed, and, even if it was seen, couldn't be explained nor predicted.
Why can't you realize the disconnect? That what you're arguing for is a medical impossibility? You've never seen it and you've never seen anything to hint that it is possible, yet you believe it for no reason.
I don't want to assume too much about you, but, as it appears, your argument for the possibility of a human coming back to life after being murdered must be paper thin, given how much you like to talk, yet we never get out of the gate. It seems like you're hoping that convincing, not proving to, people of his human life will be enough for them to make the leap to believing in a resurrection.
Speculating on his existence can be pretty interesting, but that's all it is. Nothing hinges on his having existed. If he didn't, oh well. If he did...oh. Let's say you, Randy, find indisputable proof (not what you have now- very disputable) that he lived. What have you won? Nothing. What else would that prove? Nothing.
You have taken on the impossible task of arguing for the possibility of a resurrection, something we know humans can't do. Something that has never been witnessed, and, even if it was seen, couldn't be explained nor predicted.
Why can't you realize the disconnect? That what you're arguing for is a medical impossibility? You've never seen it and you've never seen anything to hint that it is possible, yet you believe it for no reason.
I don't want to assume too much about you, but, as it appears, your argument for the possibility of a human coming back to life after being murdered must be paper thin, given how much you like to talk, yet we never get out of the gate. It seems like you're hoping that convincing, not proving to, people of his human life will be enough for them to make the leap to believing in a resurrection.
I can't remember where this verse is from, I think it got removed from canon:
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
"I don't hang around with mostly men because I'm gay. It's because men are better than women. Better trained, better equipped...better. Just better! I'm not gay."
For context, this is the previous verse:
"Hi Jesus" -robvalue
