(May 30, 2015 at 11:59 am)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:54 pages and no one can tell me why I should believe this particular set of "eye witness accounts" of absurd sounding claims over any other ridiculous things that any seemingly otherwise sane person may tell me.
It's a jesus freak brain fart that these were eye-witness accounts...unreliable as eye-witness accounts would be anyway. No, these are anonymous scribblings of later writers.
What's funny is two of the four are not even attributed to "eye-witnesses", taking Christian claims of authorship at face value. Mark was no witness and neither was Luke. Luke even says so in his opening. And Mark was the original, on which Matt and Luke were clearly based. This stuff really fails right out of the gate.
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
