To: malakhi
Obviously the historical question is about purported resurrection, not his existence or death. There is more historical evidence for Jesus than for many figures of distant history. But the claims of the Bible are not historical fact. Catholicguy may accept them as such but that doesnt mean that historians do. It's a matter of faith, not history
105 posted on
01/23/2004 12:42:49 PM PST by
Catholicguy
(MT1618 Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud)
To: Catholicguy
Obviously the historical question is about purported resurrection, not his existence or death. There is more historical evidence for Jesus than for many figures of distant history. But the claims of the Bible are not historical fact. Catholicguy may accept them as such but that doesnt mean that historians do. It's a matter of faith, not history Yes. And what in that do you find offensive? I'll try a rewrite:
Obviously the historical question is about the purported miracles of the Exodus, not Moses's existence. There is more historical evidence for Moses than for many figures of distant history. But the claims of the Bible are not historical fact. malakhi may accept them as such but that doesnt mean that historians do. It's a matter of faith, not history |
Now, I disagree with what this says, but I'm scarcely offended by it.
107 posted on
01/23/2004 1:06:20 PM PST by
malakhi
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson