You wouldn't consider it a 'miracle' if ding suddenly stopped being a religious hypocrite and asshole? I would.
I agree, the focus of the NT is mainly theological, the history has been seriously massaged to fit. That is a main reason I don't accept assertions of miracles and the resurrection as historical.
If Jesus' closest associates didn't know he was God, how could anyone else know? They saw miracles (the resurrection was just another miracle) but didn't see he was God? Seems unlikely to me.
And yet you reject God’s command in Leviticus 18:22 because according to you God would have to be a pitiful prick of a god.
The focus of the gospels is Jesus, who Jesus is and why he is here.
No, I understand the deeper implications of the Law and comply with it unlike you who has lifted his skirt for every sort of foul and loathsome beast and bird on earth, everything from talking serpents to swine that do not ruminate, maggots, vultures, talking donkeys, wolves, goats, bottom feeders, and creepy things that creep.
You make up your own interpretations to suit your needs. You practice the time honored tradition of political subversive by trying to subordinate religion.
I read the first word and the last word of your post out of respect for you. Out of respect for God and my own beliefs, I skipped past the rest.
You could have just said that you are a faithless coward. But this response is just as good. Thanks for sharing!
Still, Jesuits have all the arguments to prove they are right.
That may be what they say yet just one casual look at what they do sweeps all of those arguments clean away.
Agreed.
I don't accept miracles because I've never seen one. As for the resurrection, it is a great story but hardly unique, I suspect that somehow the story got told and grew legs. Was it a case of mistaken identity or someone convinced the story of Jesus couldn't end on the cross, I don't know. As I recall Elvis had a bunch of sightings after his death.
I wouldn't call the accounts 'perfect' since they do not match each other.
The latest information on the Shroud of Turin is worth perusing.
New methods don't always hold up to scrutiny, we'll have to see. The radio carbon dating on the other hand is well tested.
Is it possible that the carbon dating was contaminated because of the carbon from the fire in 1532 making it appear to have been created in the Middle Ages?
Yet because of over 30,000 denominations it seems that many people have never heard a single word he said.
Anything is possible but something so well known would have been taken into account. These people know what they are doing.
It’s your not accepting miracles which has biased you. I would have said biased your examination of the evidence but you never examined it before.
What you call evidence provided by a written account of what someone else saw and heard amounts to hearsay.
The history of the first Christians worshipping Jesus as God as recorded by non-Christian historians is not hearsay. It’s literally how Christianity began. Christians worshipping Jesus as God is a core Christian belief that dates back to the resurrection of Christ.
