Wrong about what? When your facts are wrong, you’re not reliable. That’s axiomatic.
Wrong about the resurrection.
It's the best explanation for the empty tomb and the Apostles sudden belief. Every other explanation fails.
Wrong about what? When your facts are wrong, you’re not reliable. That’s axiomatic.
Even if it is the best, it’s not history. History deals with facts. The resurrection is a magical belief. It’s not an event supported by historical evidence.
Wrong about the resurrection.
It's the best explanation for the empty tomb and the Apostles sudden belief. Every other explanation fails.
Did you watch that video? It was an English-accent, old, bald Brian saying "Jesus rose from the dead because his followers said they saw him rise from the dead."Wrong about what? When your facts are wrong, you’re not reliable. That’s axiomatic.
Even if it is the best, it’s not history. History deals with facts. The resurrection is a magical belief. It’s not an event supported by historical evidence.
No, the theory of the resurrection is beside the point. I wanted to establish that the historical details in the gospels are not reliable. Brian has now admitted that. The miraculous details of the story live outside of history and aren’t relevant to that point.Did you watch that video? It was an English-accent, old, bald Brian saying "Jesus rose from the dead because his followers said they saw him rise from the dead."
Over selling again. You must really hate your faith.Incorrect. The resurrection was a miracle which was supported by the historical facts.
The historical facts point to Jesus's resurrection.
No, the theory of the resurrection is beside the point. I wanted to establish that the historical details in the gospels are not reliable. Brian has now admitted that. The miraculous details of the story live outside of history and aren’t relevant to that point.
I’m pointing out it not a history book. A knowledgeable and honest Christian would agree with that. Your inability to do so speaks volumes about the state of your faith.Some minor historical details in the Gospels are different, but that goes with most other historical documents. You are literally proving nothing with this claim.
The DSS contain no mention of Jesus. Your need to over sell is telling.
Was he there?
Wrong about the resurrection.
It's the best explanation for the empty tomb and the Apostles sudden belief. Every other explanation fails.
The passage was written before the gospels so the writers could have written to the text, not that the text is dispositive on the matter. You and Brian have the same problem with faith, you don’t trust it. Neither do I.You are aware (of course you are) of the fascinating similarities in the messianic text found in the scrolls that link the Old and New despite the fact the writers of the Gospels could not have been around to see/hear of such writings. Peculiar no? I’m sure you will say of course not and that’s ok. No sense debating the undebatable with you.
The passage was written before the gospels so the writers could have written to the text, not that the text is dispositive on the matter. You and Brian have the same problem with faith, you don’t trust it. Neither do I.
The passage was written before the gospels so the writers could have written to the text, not that the text is dispositive on the matter. You and Brian have the same problem with faith, you don’t trust it. Neither do I.
bible says you should pray to God alone and no idols ect ect but the Catholic church prays to Mother Mary , a Pope who is suppose to be Gods voice ( I thought that was the Holy Ghosts job) has Priests hear confessions and give actions to erase sins ( bible says only God can do that) . I am skeptical of anything or anyone who practices the Catholic faith. I find it rather arrogant to claim it is the only true religion when over the course of mankind there have been so many religions practiced . I could easily say Jesus was just the fore father of todays modern hippies and had better weed than the Romans.I don't trust blind faith which is faith without any evidence.
Faith in Jesus is not blind faith.
bible says you should pray to God alone and no idols ect ect but the Catholic church prays to Mother Mary , a Pope who is suppose to be Gods voice ( I thought that was the Holy Ghosts job) has Priests hear confessions and give actions to erase sins ( bible says only God can do that) . I am skeptical of anything or anyone who practices the Catholic faith. I find it rather arrogant to claim it is the only true religion when over the course of mankind there have been so many religions practiced . I could easily say Jesus was just the fore father of todays modern hippies and had better weed than the Romans.
I have no issue with other denominations, as long as they stay loyal to Jesus and his message. I also like all religions, generally speaking.
All faith is blind. You’re a closer skeptic.I don't trust blind faith which is faith without any evidence.
Faith in Jesus is not blind faith.
All faith is blind. You’re a closer skeptic.
History isn’t faith based.You must not believe any ancient history then.
Plenty of things were written about Jesus before the gospels.
He might be referring to Paul's letters. They were written before the Gospels,Well...no