(October 17, 2013 at 3:29 pm)John V Wrote: With your belief that people didn't know history from 70 years or so prior.
And yet there were Christians who lived at the time of John who didn't think Jesus was a flesh-and-blood person. Their existence is detailed in the Bible, in passages penned by John. These Christians, by the way, were called "Docetic Christians", those who thought Jesus was an apparition. You'd think the historical reality of Jesus would have been more obvious than when exactly Herod died. Did Jesus not have nieces and nephews who could have testified he was a real person born to a mother in ways apparitions don't need to be? And if early Christians could be confused with that, what makes you so certain that they were all so well educated in exact historical dates in ways that exceed even modern Republican standards?
Your whole apology here is based on some pretty grand assumptions.
Quote:But FWIW, OK - let's see someone prove it.
How many historical texts talk about zombies?
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
