Comments on: 10 Answers from an AntiChristian

By: 10 Answers from an Epicurean | A Division by Zer0

10 Answers from an Epicurean | A Division by Zer0 — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:45:44 +0000

[...] just posted my answers to 10 questions for an Atheist by Scott Pruet at the ACP. Take a [...]

By: Some answers » The Antichristian Phenomenon

Some answers » The Antichristian Phenomenon — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:08:48 +0000

[...] And my answer to that question is the same as before. [...]

By: LeaT

LeaT — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:49:38 +0000

Why are you complaining when Anath cleared up whatever I wrote?

By: jorrizza

jorrizza — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:30:23 +0000

I've written a reaction on my personal blog, here: http://www.jrrzz.net/2009/04/22/re-10-questions-f...

By: Re: 10 Questions for the Atheist » JRRZZ Blog

Re: 10 Questions for the Atheist » JRRZZ Blog — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:16:29 +0000

[...] Following up on the recent discussions around the post from Scott Pruett on LifeWay and the Antichristian Phenomenon’s rebuttal, here’s my input. I’m very sorry for the late reaction, I have been busy lately. The [...]

By: db0

db0 — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:43:47 +0000

Can we please stop insulting each other on misunderstandings?

By: The Barefoot Bum

The Barefoot Bum — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 13:03:15 +0000

Damn, Lea, fucking idiots like you are even more tiresome, jumping wildly to conclusions. I was pointing out an additional flaw in the Bible, not in db0's analysis. Get a fucking clue: the phrase "missed a trick" means that an opportunity to score additional points was missed.

By: LeaT

LeaT — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:35:47 +0000

Of course it doesn't matter; I was merely pointing out that he probably misunderstood the whole ordeal I admit I didn't read it all either, so I am not entirely sure when or where Joseph was brought up. My point was rather that some people always assume it is either mythical or physical Jesus and cannot perceive that maybe some other kind of Jesus was actually referred to.

By: Anath

Anath — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 18:06:22 +0000

It actually doesn't matter. The names should line up whether Joseph is Jesus' father or not. And additionally it is interesting that the whole "Son of David" thing gets pushed so much, so if Joseph wasn't Jesus' real father, then he's not a "Son of David" in any way…

By: LeaT

LeaT — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 17:24:18 +0000

People like you are always so tiring. So you are suggesting that the Bible supports a matrilineage then? Hurray! It just so seems some people cannot seperate when a reference between a physical Jesus vs mythical Jesus is made. You are ranting on an antichristian site; obviously we would only refer to the physical Jesus as we clearly don't think mythical Jesus existed and that mythical Jesus as his basis in the physical Jesus.