MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[Mudhammam]

We really don't know which Paul he met with (Pickup's post above).

Bullshit. He said he only met with Peter, not NONE OF THE OTHER APOSTLES ...so obviously he is talking about Peter, apostle of Jesus (Gal 1:18-24)..and unless you can point out a different apostle that was named PETER, then you are obviously moving the goal posts...Pickup's post will not be able to save you, dear...dodging clear and apparent implications only proves to me that I am winning.

You mean my posts that you failed to respond to? Let's see, you've convinced nobody of your FAITH (which, in fact, seems to amount to very little given your reliance on "arguments"), but you have convinced everybody who wasn't already emotionally invested in heavenly gain that we've been right all along: Christians often serve up the best argument against Christianity.

What else do you call winning?
That mainstream scholarship no longer believes in Christ? That creationism is now a cause worthy of laughter and derision even amongst the educated religious? That the origins of the Universe no longer require a grand magician hiding in a castle in the sky? If you call that winning, you're cognitive dissonance probably rivals that of Charlie Sheen when he was at the height of drug addiction. Question is, what's your excuse?