Changes

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute.  "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone.  Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary.  All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account.  Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well.  I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)

:The distinction is that Ceaser being the emperor of rome is not disputed by anyone, whereas the nature of the divinity of Christ, even among Christians, is under dispute.  "Jesus' divinity is known by revelation," only to those who know it, not to everyone.  Among even people who believe in the truth of his teachings there are legitimate arguments as to whether or not the account of the bible regarding the virgin birth, miracles, etc., is true, or even necessary.  All I'm asking for is that such statements of divinity which historians and christians themselves have disagreements on simply be clarified as being the bible's account.  Saying its not necessary simply because the majority of christians believe in it sends us down the rabbit hole of deciding which religion is "true" by majority as well.  I'm sorry, please help me here, why is there such opposition to simply adding the phrase "According to the Bible" once or twice?--[[User:RexMundane|Rex Mundane]] 10:23, 17 May 2007 (EDT)