You inserted yourself into an Easter thread about the Risen Lord!
You mean back when we were discussing the fact about how we determined the date, and who first came up with that method?
You mean back with I specifically suggested an Easter Truce and was commenting on Lamb and wine?
You seem to forget Easter is now a National Holiday in the United States, AND YOU DON'T OWN IT. We have a secular constitution and non-Christians can choose to celebrate it how they choose, even if that includes posting in a Eastern themed thread on a secular forum.
Before you go throwing stones, perhaps you should go back and look to see who started throwing them first. I'll give you a clue. It wasn't me.
AS,
You are still avoiding the issue. More bobbing and weaving from you.
So, you inserted yourself in a Risen Lord thread and you cannot answer one to the most basic questions in Christianity?
No, I think you are afraid to answer.
btw, here is an excerpt from the Salon article:
White is discrediting hitchens.
“In discussing the exodus, Hitchens dogmatically asserts: “There was no flight from Egypt, no wandering in the desert . . . , and no dramatic conquest of the Promised Land. It was all, quite simply and very ineptly, made up at a much later date. No Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode either, even in passing. . . . All the Mosaic myths can be safely and easily discarded.” These narratives can be “easily discarded” by Hitchens only because he has failed to do even a superficial survey of the evidence in favor of the historicity of the biblical traditions. Might we suggest that Hitchens begin with Hoffmeier’s Israel in Egypt and Ancient Israel in Sinai? It should be noted that Hoffmeier’s books were not published by some small evangelical theological press but by Oxford University—hardly a bastion of regressive fundamentalist apologetics. Hitchens’s claim that “no Egyptian chronicle mentions this episode [of Moses and the Israelites] either, even in passing” is simply polemical balderdash.”
This is a very interesting article. Worth a read. Anyway, notice the criticism that hitchens fails to do even a superficial survey of evidence in favor of the historicity of …..” and later that hitchens claim is “simply polemical balderdash.”
AS pretty much says that hitchens speaks for him and he apparently admires hitchens. One cannot miss how both AS and hitchens ignore certain historical evidence that does not support some biased thesis and that both are guilty of “polemical balderdash.”
Yep, AS and hitchens. Brothers in that spirit of polemical balderdash.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
