Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I'm certainly not speaking about all historians who believe in a historical Jesus nor am I speaking about all historians who believe the passage is genuine.
I will ask again. How do I know what?Still driving that Dodge?
![]()
Ok thanks for clearing it up.
And I agree with you. I acknowledge the fact that there are scholars who have no bias for Christianity to confirm in affirming Tacitus is a reliable extra biblical source for the historicity of Jesus.
Indeed. I considered making the effort to get him back on track, then recalled the circular nature of that track, and thought better of it. It's not like we have not already gone down this personal-experiences-as-evidence-for-personal-experiences rabbit hole before.You seem to lose track of the conversation, when it suits you.
It also rests on God being both moral and omnipotent, both of which I have shown to be false.
What design?There is a certain "hiddenness" regarding the Infinite Creator....because the Creator is invisible and not merely material. God is experienced in people's lives in very personal ways.
but we can also see the "product" of His creation.
Features in biological systems which come from Intelligence are "seen" but the Intelligence which engineered these features and infused the information into these systems is NOT seen.
This may not be immediately "theistic" in its conclusion...but the Intelligence Itself is not seen but the results of Intelligent engineering, programming, coding, design ARE seen.
I would really like to believe that, but you can understand how, given your track record, I would be somewhat skeptical. Even so, I remain hopeful that you aren't incorrigible.Really.
What if you have misinterpreted your experiences.
Thank you.I would really like to believe that, but you can understand how, given your track record, I would be somewhat skeptical. Even so, I remain hopeful that you aren't incorrigible.
Exactly...just as there are scholars who have bias for christianity and it taints their view of Tacitus.
Are you done now? Will you address my argument? Or is this entire thread a sham?
Indeed. I considered making the effort to get him back on track, then recalled the circular nature of that track, and thought better of it. It's not like we have not already gone down this personal-experiences-as-evidence-for-personal-experiences rabbit hole before.
If Davian insisted that you believe he was married, but his wife was only "present" in this way, what would you say?You know your wife exists because you have at times been in her immediate and personal presence and communicated with her either audibly or inaudibly.
Notice, I was asked how I "know" something exists, not how I "show" something exists.