Who is Jesus?

[In Between Man]

Luke was hearsay and written much later than Jesus existed. John was again written at least 40 years maybe longer after Jesus supposedly died.

Like I said, if the dates are disputed (in regards to whether Luke or John were actually there) their ability to put the crosshairs on the current times and environment, shows us at the very least that he had interviewed eyewitnesses.

A bird headed man is no more absurd then a fellow that can walk on water.

Really? Tricksters can walk on water. Clever illusionists.

If your accounts are so good how do you explain the inconsistencies? For example two entirely different genealogies?

Different b/w who's versions? Please show me. :smile:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Blah!

 

[Scott Free]

Like I said, if the dates are disputed (in regards to whether Luke or John were actually there) their ability to put the crosshairs on the current times and environment, shows us at the very least that he had interviewed eyewitnesses.

Like I said we have no eye witnesses only hearsay. The information from the eyewitnesses is contradictory and resembles fiction not actual accounts. How do we know this? By the contradictions and the outrageous claims. "Oh he really existed all right because uncle Billy Bob says so.. of coarse the part about him flyin' healin' the sick is all wrong.. but the rest of it.. the parts that sound normal are OK." I just don't buy it.

Really? Tricksters can walk on water. Clever illusionists.

No, they can appear to walk on water which is very different than actually walking on water as the story is told.

Different b/w who's versions? Please show me. :smile:

"The differences between Matthew's and Luke's genealogy has been a problem for both ancient and modern rationalist readers of the Gospels. According to Howard W. Clarke, the two accounts can not be harmonized and today the genealogy accounts are generally taken to be "theological" constructs. More specifically, some have suggested that Matthew wants to underscore birth of a messianic child of royal lineage (mentioning Solomon) whereas Luke's genealogy is priestly (mentioning Levi).[2][3] According to Scott Gregory Brown, the reason for the difference between the two genealogies is that it was not included in the written accounts that the writers of the two Gospels shared (i.e. Gospel of Mark and Q). [4]"
- Wiki

After that go read them yourself and you'll see. They were obviously made up unless you want to argue there were two Jesuses walking around :roll:

 

[In Between Man]

I love this argument! But a man that walks on water, heals the sick, his father is god, dies and is resurrected is more believable!!!!!

Seriously funny stuff.

I can you that as time goes on, the atheistic view is gaining a lot of momentum. Someone like me is sub-human, irrational, not clearly thinking, illogical and unreasonable. Said people are holding back the consciousness of universe, as I believe you put it. That view is becoming more and more accepted with every generation.

Is it plausible that one day, the atheists will make my head swing from the gallows? A new and violent round of McCarthyism ?

Hopefully not. But it is quite amazing that so many people's view could be considered irrational. Rational thought can lead you to the wrong answer. Accusing others of being irrational clearly isn't rational....:lol:

 

[Scott Free]

I can you that as time goes on, the atheistic view is gaining a lot of momentum. Someone like me is sub-human, irrational, not clearly thinking, illogical and unreasonable. Said people are holding back the consciousness of universe, as I believe you put it. That view is becoming more and more accepted with every generation.

Is it plausible that one day, the atheists will make my head swing from the gallows? A new and violent round of McCarthyism ?

Hopefully not. But it is quite amazing that so many people's view could be considered irrational. Rational thought can lead you to the wrong answer. Accusing others of being irrational clearly isn't rational....:lol:

You'll have to forgive my bouts of hyperbole and enthusiasm.

I do not think that you're sub-human or anything else of the kind.

Sure antiquated thinking is holding the species back but I'm sure you'll catch up when it becomes important to your survival. ;-)

I'm not so optimistic for our broken English friends.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Is it plausible that one day, the atheists will make my head swing from the gallows? A new and violent round of McCarthyism ?

Why would you assume that?

If anything it is the churchy folk that are more likely to lash out in order to protect the faith...

 

[In Between Man]

You'll have to forgive my bouts of hyperbole and enthusiasm.

I do not think that you're sub-human or anything else of the kind.

Oh good. Remember, my rational thought could be leading me to the wrong answer. Rational thought is important, but not the silver ticket to the truth.

Sure antiquated thinking is holding the species back but I'm sure you'll catch up when it becomes important to your survival. ;-)

Maybe, who knows what the future holds....lol---you're not threatening me with a noose are ya? :lol:

I'm not so optimistic for our broken English friends.

Their arguments are weak, and embarrassing. For me, when it comes to the big topics, I'm very careful how I post. I try to make my argument as strong as possible, without making it too, too long.....

 

[ahmadabdalrhman]

I love this argument!

But a man that walks on water,

I do not know but If the god ( allah )

give Jesus the almightiness to walk to the water even he do that it be easy to him

we muslims believe jesus was able to is resurrected the is dies

the god give him almightiness to do that when he was on earth

before the god upping the Jesus to him

and Jesus will back to earth again

after one out he the is quack

and Jesus will kill him that truth

I do not have doubt about it

heals the sick,

that the truth he was do more from that allah give him that !!

his father is god,

the one will died no become the god

and the human no become the god

and the human eat food no become the god

004.159

Sahih International: And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness.​

005.117

Jesus will say : -

Sahih International: I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

dies and is resurrected is more believable!!!!!

Seriously funny stuff.

036.078

Sahih International: And he presents for Us an example and forgets his [own] creation. He says, "Who will give life to bones while they are disintegrated?"

036.079

Sahih International: Say, "He will give them life who produced them the first time; and He is, of all creation, Knowing."



the every thing was accident downright he is very funny

 

[In Between Man]

Why would you assume that?

It seems to me, that atheism is pretty prominent nowadays. But now, opposing views which were being criticized(which is fine) are now being dehumanized, for lack of a better term.

If anything it is the churchy folk that are more likely to lash out in order to protect the faith...

True, the churchy folk are more likely, we know that just by history. But were all human, and all fallible. So who knows, maybe some generation down the road, atheists will get sick and tired of being held back, rise up.....

 

[Scott Free]

Maybe, who knows what the future holds....lol---you're not threatening me with a noose are ya? :lol:

No, of coarse not - I'm not religious. :lol:

 

[Scott Free]

we muslims believe jesus was able to is resurrected the is dies

Um.. yeah... you Muslims are pretty gullible actually so I'm not surprised.

But should any Muslim become a Christian you'll kill them... as ordered in the Koran... :roll:

Bahai you just kill for fun?

Seriously... do you guys file your teeth at night :lol:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

It seems to me, that atheism is pretty prominent nowadays. But now, opposing views which were being criticized(which is fine) are now being dehumanized, for lack of a better term.

The veracity of scripture and the role of the church has been challenged at least since Voltaire in the 1700's...

It's just easier for us all to communicate our ideas now than it was 300 years ago...

True, the churchy folk are more likely, we know that just by history. But were all human, and all fallible. So who knows, maybe some generation down the road, atheists will get sick and tired of being held back, rise up.....

Don't worry dude...we love you...

 

[ahmadabdalrhman]

Um.. yeah... you Muslims are pretty gullible actually so I'm not surprised.

do not worry

we have known quran from god we do not change him we save him in we hearts

But should any Muslim become a Christian you'll kill them... as ordered in the Koran... :roll:

Islam News Room - Leaving Islam - Apostasy in Islam

Bahai you just kill for fun?

do not worry Bahai not muslim

If you are talk about Iran

Iran killing sunnah too

Seriously... do you guys file your teeth at night :lol:

 

[ahmadabdalrhman]

YouTube - Jesus in Quran

 

[In Between Man]

Don't worry dude...we love you...

Thanx bud. First of all, forgive the lateness of this reply. Second, I would like to state how pleased I am that a forum exists where I can make friends, have fun, and enjoy intelligent debate.

And with that notion, I would like to consider myself officially broken in on Canadian Content!!!

Which means from this moment on, I will play my hardest when it comes to all debates. Not just the big ones that deal with theism, and related topix.

And I resolve to be less lazy, and back up what I say with links, and sources.

I will reach my goal of joining the brotherhood of championship debaters!!!

*alleywayalwayz dons himself in full ideological armor, and while consuming his milk, slips in his inspirational Hulkamania cassette tape...*

;-)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Thanx bud. First of all, forgive the lateness of this reply. Second, I would like to state how pleased I am that a forum exists where I can make friends, have fun, and enjoy intelligent debate.

And with that notion, I would like to consider myself officially broken in on Canadian Content!!!

Which means from this moment on, I will play my hardest when it comes to all debates. Not just the big ones that deal with theism, and related topix.

And I resolve to be less lazy, and back up what I say with links, and sources.

I will reach my goal of joining the brotherhood of championship debaters!!!

*alleywayalwayz dons himself in full ideological armor, and while consuming his milk, slips in his inspirational Hulkamania cassette tape...*

;-)

I'm too tired to come up with a witty retort, having been involved in a debate as to the lack of corroborating evidence to support the existence of Mohammed as a historical figure...

Now, I'm fully spent...:sleepy2:

 

[In Between Man]

I'm too tired to come up with a witty retort, having been involved in a debate as to the lack of corroborating evidence to support the existence of Mohammed as a historical figure...

Now, I'm fully spent...:sleepy2:

I hear ya.....me too...bed soon....

 

[In Between Man]

..... truth is subjective.

Is that a subjective truth?

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Is that a subjective truth?

Truth is only subjective when an internal and emotional response is applied to external stimuli...

Empirical truths are not subjective, because part of arriving at that truth eliminates the subjective elements before a conclusion is made...

 

[In Between Man]

Truth is only subjective when an internal and emotional response is applied to external stimuli...

It's only subjective in your head! The truth is still objective!

Case in point: In sociology, a human experiment is set up in where a bunch of eyewitnesses see a thief take something unbeknown to the victim. Nobody, including the person who will eventually act upon the thief, will trust what they saw(observation/empirical). For that small moment, the preceived truth is subjective. Even though they observe it with there own eyes, they're not sure.

It's not until someone shouts "Hey! That guy took that man's hat!", that someone acts. It has too be confirmed by others, so that your brain says "Knucklehead! That guy was a thief! Time to be a hero!".

One could even suppress the truth if he so wants, because of his internal and emotional reaction. But truth has nothing to do with our emotions. Something's either true or it isn't. The truth is still objective. The thief stole the poor man's hat.

The reason why I've been trying to get Prax to reply to that statement was because I wished to point that his statement is self-defeating, (and that I hope he wasn't serious). The statement "truth is subjective" holds itself to be a absolute truth, therefore defeating what its trying to prove.

Truth is objective. Alwayz.

When I studied philosophy, it was one of the first things I learned. And I'm glad I did. I'm willing to concede that I could be wrong on a lot of things, including the whole God thing. I've admitted wrong before, but I know I'm right on this one.