Stormbringer's Thunder

I unfortunately get quoted as someone who thinks that Jesus didn't exist, which I think is very strange because I've written an entire book on what Jesus said and for him to say or do anything, he had to exist. I don't think there is any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. — Bart Ehrman It's one thing to deny that Jesus was God in the flesh who is the only way to salvation (John 14.6, Col. 1.16-17). But to deny that Jesus never existed? May as well deny all of ancient history, then. [ 1 ] Some critics object to using the Bible as a historical document because it is attempting to prove something. Well, that's what books do, Derwood! The Bible is one of the best historical documents in existence. [ 2 , 3 , 4 ] There are almost no serious scholars who deny his existence. To me, it is the height of desperation and misotheism to find some fringe scholar to support such arrogant, foolish views. Serious scholars do know that Jesus did exist, and there...

Revised 19 May 2013. I have writte n about this before , but it's time to have another go at it and make it better. It's about accusations of "liar". Some other people and I took someone to task in a forum for using the pathetically obtuse and detestable accusation, "liar for Jesus", something that people like this probably picked up from Dawkins . I have yet to see that garbage used by someone who was not simply attempting to provoke a negative reaction. Here are some reasons that this libelous phrase is agonizingly stupid: It implies that the accuser knows the motives of the person, including a desire to deceive The accuser does not stop to consider that God does not condone lying How it is inconsistent to accuse someone of lying to get someone to believe in a holy God Judging from my own observations and experience, other accusations of "liar" come from people who are unable to differentiate between lies and a difference of opini...