I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[omjag86]

If someone lives as a peasant without mention, and then suddenly 40 years after his death is claimed to have possessed supernatural powers, it just looks like those powers were made up on the spot.

I've already addressed that extremely pessimistic and antipathic view. I'm not going to repeat myself or give your post a serious treatment, because it adds nothing to the discussion.

Your not going to give his post serious treatment because it is a direct challenge to your belief about Jesus. He's skeptical, so what's your response? To attack his question as "extremely pessimistic and antipathic"
SO why all the overeaction and drama from such an incredibly intelligent person? (I mean, I can't keep up with what your writing on quantum physics-you are amazing-truly Jon Paul I mean this most sincerely)
I'm wondering if the reason could be is that you know at the core of your argument is your desire to overpower people your belief in magic? That maybe that is all that is behind the curtain of your intellectualism, a desire to control and be in power. That maybe that is all your faith is?
Or not.
And if not, what strikes me is that if you are wanting to sharpen your skills, such emotionally charged harsh responses are getting in the way of your ability to make a convincing case for your beliefs.
Peace In
Omjag86

---

It was not valid. It was taking the most pessimistic viewpoint as to the Gospel dating and proclaiming victory. The first versions of the first Gospel was written down possibly as close, to the contrary, as within 15 years of Jesus death, meaning in the time of his contemporaries. Of course, that is only possible so long as one doesn't presuppose that the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem was not just either a coincidental (and somewhat vague) prediction and therefore naturally possible, from the naturalistic standpoint, OR a priori exclude the Christian viewpoint of the possibility of such a prediction. Both options are perfectly possible, rather than taking it to mean that the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate. In this case, it depends on what is mandated by philosophical presuppositions brought in ready-form to the material.

This is what I was talking about yesterday. There are no proven facts here, and you know it, so you throw up a curveball of "possibilities" and "Naturally possible" "Perfectly Possible" until you arrive at "the first Gospel was written down later than all other facts indicate" I'm so dizzy I can barely clarify that you have presented no facts just arguments of possibilities that you have researched and tracked down to support your belief about Jesus being magic. Are you Sean Hannity? Bill O'Reilly? You could be, you would blow those guys off the set!