[Quix]

Again, all we have is a Bible story written decades later, in retrospect.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . Oh? According to what tangible pseudo-super-rationalist 'PROOF?'

IIRC, At least one of the narratives about the events was written quite close to the events.

However, the point stands again . . . pseudo-super-rationalists cannot live by their own criteria and standards. They can't do it in their personal lives and they can't do it even here in this philosophical discourse.

When the historical record is convenient, the purportedly hyper-consistent, hyper-rational, hyper-tangible-pseudo-scientific-evidence, pseudo-super-rationalist is happy to cite the historical record as allowable evidence.

When the historical record is INconvenient, all bets are off; the record is not 'tangible' enough; the record is not pseudo-scientifically-verifiable ENOUGH; the record is just too obnoxiously in the way so it must be tossed.

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuccccccccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhh

IMPRESSIVE SCIENTIFIC LOGIC, that!

[kosta50]

IIRC, At least one of the narratives about the events was written quite close to the events

They tell me you were there...