I am responding to David's comments about my essay, "What Jesus Said."
David makes a number of assertions that are simply false.
He said, "The fact that Jesus existed as a historical person is very well documented." That is simply not true and I challenge him to provide the very well-documented historical facts of Jesus. He will not be able to because there is none. Unless he uses the Bible and the Bible is not a source of historical text. There are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, his Sermon on the Mond, or his miracles.
He said, "The very existence of God demands an element of supernatural." An element of the supernatural? Everything about his God is supernatural. He claims his God exists but cannot provide any evidence that he does exist.
He said, "Your argument is only meaningful to those who are already in agreement with you." That may be true but then that would also apply to his claims and arguments about God and Jesus.
He said, "There is nothing persuasive in your argument to change the mind of one who has already considered history in its context." History in its context? I do not know what he means by that. Jesus is not a historical figure. None of his so-called miracles are recorded historical events, except in the Bible.
My essay wasn't an argument about the words of Jesus. It was an essay asking legitimate questions about the authenticity of the words of Jesus in the Bible. He failed to answer those questions.
I have written a more in-depth response to David's comments in an essay titled "What David Said." That essay will be in my new book about God and religion that I hope to release this summer.
Hi
You actually make it seem really easy together with your presentation but I in finding this matter to be actually one thing that I feel I'd by no means understand. It seems too complex and very broad for me. I am having a look forward for your next put up, I'll try to get the cling of it!
https://cutt.ly/r3zggtn
Best Regards
adcardz.com/moneytraffic
adcardz.com/adpost223
adcardz.com/ads25678