RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
November 25, 2014 at 7:24 pm
(This post was last modified: November 25, 2014 at 7:39 pm by Jenny A.)
(November 25, 2014 at 6:47 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:(November 25, 2014 at 3:26 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Yes, but I doubt he'll read it.
Good prediction...because I already read it when I posted it the first time, pages ago...so no further reading is necessary.
I wouldnt' exactly call you a prophet, but that was one good prediction.
OK I've through this whole god-forsaking (literally) thread and I can't find anywhere you posted this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method HINT: It's not about Jesus, It's about historical method. Read it.
(November 25, 2014 at 7:01 pm)His_Majesty Wrote:(November 25, 2014 at 3:33 pm)Esquilax Wrote: We have other sources contemporary with their existence that mention them...something we don't have with Jesus. You think your equivocations are actually going to last more than a few seconds, you blithering moron?
How do you know that the sources are contemporary??? Going RIGHT back to what you were told, right? No way out of that one.
Actually, there are a number of ways to figure out if a writer is writing in the period he says he is. Language changes over time and so does technology. Writers fibbing about the time they are writing tend to leave a trail of anachronisms.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.