Protestantism

» pink101 - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by Migisi:

.
I think these discussions about the historical Jesus are very telling.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by pink101:
.
Brian suggests that if anyone has doubts, they should read the link he provided. I did. I think he's taken Holding's advice - point the doubter to the gospels (he posted previously ..."If you want more than that, then you have the Gospels."), and then leave them alone - since any discussion on the existence of Jesus is silly and a waste of time.
.
I was done with this anyway. Clearly there is no credible secular evidence despite Christian claims that there is.

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by Migisi:

Clearly there is no credible secular evidence despite Christian claims that there is.

uhmmm.. did you forget about my offer to satisfy your search? We got to the life of Jesus (I think).. then I asked you another question... You must have forgotten about me, Mig.. (frown)

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Migisi - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Refresh my memory. In your last post on the subject (#19), you asked me about my criteria. Then you posted your question about Porcupine Tree.

-- posted by Migisi

» _Boanerges_ - from post 19 - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by Migisi:

of Jesus' life

okie.. what is it that you will need to satisfy your decision that proof was given...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Chicanery

In response to from post 19 - evidence for Jesus posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Because I suspect Wendell of being somewhat of an artist in the use of chicanery, I would like a clarification of what he means when he uses the instrument, "... what is it that you will need to satisfy your decision that proof was given...",
.
There are all kinds of proof available. Does Wendell mean hard proof that will stand up to reason or does he mean some soft proof according to logic based on some pretense?
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Chicanery

In response to Chicanery posted by pink101:

Does Wendell mean hard proof that will stand up to reason or does he mean some soft proof according to logic based on some pretense?

oh no, master pink.. the only proof that is required is that which Mig will accept.... That was the question... (you might want to re-read it again!)....

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Credentials

In response to Chicanery posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Thanks, Wendell, that's all I wanted to know.
.
No offense.
.
I did use the qualifier, "I would", in case you didn't notice.
.
But, knowing Migisi as we all know her here, she having been employed on the faculty at a university, I suspect she will require hard evidence.
.
Don't you?
.
Or did you think you could fake her out?
.

.
I suspect her credentials are worthy.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - Credentials

In response to Credentials posted by pink101:

But, knowing Migisi as we all know her here, she having been employed on the faculty at a university, I suspect she will require hard evidence.

All that is required is the question of; what will satisfy your decision that evidence is available! (your=anyone).....

Once I find out what Mig needs to satisfy her, I will then provide that..

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Brian Tubbs - evidence for Jesus

In response to evidence for Jesus posted by Migisi:

Step back from the conclusion, Migisi, and just look at the arguments and evidence in the article. Focus on that.