Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: mrclean5

As I posted on a similar thread earlier, the irony of this article is that in order to refute the traditional December birthday, the scientists have acknowledged the existence of an actual historical Jesus Christ (i.e. JESUS WAS BORN . . . . .) Non-believers hoist once again upon their own petard.


40 posted on 12/10/2008 12:59:40 PM PST by Jim Hill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: Jim Hill
As I posted on a similar thread earlier, the irony of this article is that in order to refute the traditional December birthday, the scientists have acknowledged the existence of an actual historical Jesus Christ (i.e. JESUS WAS BORN . . . . .) Non-believers hoist once again upon their own petard.

You are confusing 2 issues. The historical nature of Jesus Christ, and his being the Son of God. I can easily believe the first without believing the 2nd. The petard you speak of must be in your own eye to not see that distinction.

50 posted on 12/11/2008 7:36:06 AM PST by dmz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson