Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

idontreply@toemail.com (mclark) wrote in
news:1gbd1u5.m7hq2ub7z7nkN%idontreply@toemail.com:

Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

"mclark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1gbbj1m.1u4c1g8ove58jN%idontreply@toemail.com...

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

[snip]

Reference for the above part:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Further, from another source:

"Circumstantial evidence: is evidence from which a fact may be
inferred as a natural or probable conclusion."

"Direct evidence is evidence of something that a witness has
perceived for themselves through one or more of their five
senses: something they have seen, felt, heard, smelled or
tasted."

So, it would have to be established whether Tacitus and Josephus,
who mclark has cited as "evidence" of something or other, would
be giving direct evidence, and what their actual testimony was in
this regard. Did they say "I saw..."?

Whereas, mclark citing Tacitus and Josephus is, at best, Hearsay.

Clarkie: You're denying the fact that because of the writings of
Tacitus

and

Josephus, the probablility that Jesus did not exist, as some
atheists would have everybody believe, cannot be 0.

Tom: You are denying the fact that even if there was a historical
there is zero evidence that he was the "son" of god.

There is evidence. Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus is trying to get
your attention by knocking on the door of your spiritual heart. But
you are choosing to ignore these convictions.

That's a very...lame excuse for a god you've got there, Clark. Hell, a
three-year-old child is pretty much impossible to ignore, but this?

Tsk.

Clarkie: I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Regardless that hearing

might seem like trying to tune in a weak radio signal, if Jesus sees
that you are sincerely trying to find him then he's going to let you
tune him in.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Regardless that hearing Jesus
might seem like trying to tune in a weak radio signal, if Jesus sees
that you are sincerely trying to find him then he's going to let you
tune him in.

Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

"mclark" <

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

[snip]

Reference for the above part:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Further, from another source:

"Circumstantial evidence: is evidence from which a fact may be
inferred as a natural or probable conclusion."

"Direct evidence is evidence of something that a witness has
perceived for themselves through one or more of their five
senses: something they have seen, felt, heard, smelled or
tasted."

So, it would have to be established whether Tacitus and Josephus,
who mclark has cited as "evidence" of something or other, would
be giving direct evidence, and what their actual testimony was in
this regard. Did they say "I saw..."?

Whereas, mclark citing Tacitus and Josephus is, at best, Hearsay.

Clarkie: You're denying the fact that because of the writings of
Tacitus

and

Josephus, the probablility that Jesus did not exist, as some
atheists would have everybody believe, cannot be 0.

Tom: You are denying the fact that even if there was a historical
there is zero evidence that he was the "son" of god.

There is evidence. Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus is trying to get
your attention by knocking on the door of your spiritual heart. But
you are choosing to ignore these convictions.

That's a very...lame excuse for a god you've got there, Clark. Hell, a
three-year-old child is pretty much impossible to ignore, but this?

Tsk.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

Regardless that hearing Jesus
might seem like trying to tune in a weak radio signal, if Jesus sees
that you are sincerely trying to find him then he's going to let you
tune him in.

Eric Gill <ericvgill@yahoo.com> wrote:

idontreply@toemail.com (mclark) wrote in
news:1gbd1u5.m7hq2ub7z7nkN%idontreply@toemail.com:

Tom <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote:

"mclark" <idontreply@toemail.com> wrote in message
news:1gbbj1m.1u4c1g8ove58jN%idontreply@toemail.com...

Jim07D4 <Jim07D4@nospam.net> wrote:

[snip]

Reference for the above part:

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Further, from another source:

"Circumstantial evidence: is evidence from which a fact may be
inferred as a natural or probable conclusion."

"Direct evidence is evidence of something that a witness has
perceived for themselves through one or more of their five
senses: something they have seen, felt, heard, smelled or
tasted."

So, it would have to be established whether Tacitus and Josephus,
who mclark has cited as "evidence" of something or other, would
be giving direct evidence, and what their actual testimony was in
this regard. Did they say "I saw..."?

Whereas, mclark citing Tacitus and Josephus is, at best, Hearsay.

Clarkie: You're denying the fact that because of the writings of
Tacitus

and

Josephus, the probablility that Jesus did not exist, as some
atheists would have everybody believe, cannot be 0.

Tom: You are denying the fact that even if there was a historical
there is zero evidence that he was the "son" of god.

There is evidence. Revelation 3:20 shows that Jesus is trying to get
your attention by knocking on the door of your spiritual heart. But
you are choosing to ignore these convictions.

That's a very...lame excuse for a god you've got there, Clark. Hell, a
three-year-old child is pretty much impossible to ignore, but this?

Tsk.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Regardless that hearing Jesus
might seem like trying to tune in a weak radio signal, if Jesus sees
that you are sincerely trying to find him then he's going to let you
tune him in.

M. Clark