Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (Patrick @ Feb. 14 2012,09:30)|
You mean stuff like this:
|“The problem here is that after 2,000 years, it is impossible to prove something like, say, the resurrection.”|
Well, it depends on what you are willing to accept for proof. If you are willing to accept the overwhelming historical record, including hundreds of eyewitnesses, then yes the resurrection can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
followed by this:
|I never said we have the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses. I said the record states there were hundreds of eyewitnesses.|
A record written decades after the alleged events by persons unknown with political axes to grind, Barry? This is what passes for evidence in Colorado courts?
So... if I say a thousand people saw Arrington raping a duck, that's exactly the same as a thousand people saying they saw him raping a duck. Good to know.
It always amazes me to no end that people who find the Bible abhorent seem to focus only on the few instances where God commands a city destroyed.