Originally Posted by AGoodBuzz
Stick your tongue out when you say that... *wink*
And you never do when it comes time to provide proof.
My problem is that I don't enjoy repeating myself. I have said time and time again that I have no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. In case you missed it, I said I have no proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I do, however, believe there is proof to believe beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, there are REASONS to beleive vs. not believe.
We have avaialble proof that Jesus was a real person, but not empirical proof that he was the savior of the world. So in order to make that determiniation, I am placing the entire focus on the resurrection. The reason is because if he really did rise from the grave, they surely he is more than just a man. So now we need to examine the evidence to discover if the resurrection is the most logical conclusion, or the least logical. My problem is that Mike is so historically selective and dumb, that he can't even agree that Jesus was a human who lives 2k years ago. I want to discuss WHY it is more reasonable, and I have posted a website with 10 reasons to believe so, and you did not comment on that. So how about you stop accusing, start reading, and make an on topic responce.