A question for christians

thenormalyears · Post by **thenormalyears** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:11 pm

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 12:45 am

To get Cathar to quite posting long columns of other people's ideas, Let me ask a very simple quesion. . .

All the gospels except John have Jesus being asked some form of the question, "Are you the Christ, the chosen one of God?"

All of the gospels have Jesus asserting a response in the positive. "I am, and you will see the son of man . . . "

Isn't this by itself without the added evidence of the meaning of "I AM" vs "I am", enough to show he claimed divinity?

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:01 am

Isn't this by itself without the added evidence of the meaning of "I AM" vs "I am", enough to show he claimed divinity?

No, it only shows the authors of the gospels are saying he claims divinity and they are not consistent.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 1:34 am

Cathar1950 wrote:
Isn't this by itself without the added evidence of the meaning of "I AM" vs "I am", enough to show he claimed divinity?
No, it only shows the authors of the gospels are saying he claims divinity and they are not consistent.

And around we go. . . .

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 2:31 am

Do you believe every one that says they are God that they are God?
Do you believe someone 40 to 100 years later that they said some one said that some one else said they were God to be a good reference?
I don't.
Do you have Jesus on tape?
You don't even have a writing from an eyewitness.
It is not even good hearsay.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:00 am

Do you believe every one that says they are God that they are God?

Nope. Only those who have something to back it up with. Miracles, outstanding intellect, sinnless life. things like this.

Do you believe someone 40 to 100 years later that they said some one said that some one else said they were God to be a good reference?

If three seperate people told me that 40-60 years ago someone answered yes when asked if they were God, I would probably believe them that the person said yes.

Also, please bear in mind that although it took 40-60 years for the first three gospels to be written, they were being preached much sooner than that. Just because they were written later does not mean the message was that old.

Do you have Jesus on tape?

No but I'll call CNN and see if they have him in their records ok? While I'm at it I'll ask about Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle to ok just to be sure they covered everyone.

You don't even have a writing from an eyewitness.

Except Mark writing for Peter. Oh and matthew. Oh yes and Luke who explicitly said that he investigated eyewitnesses. Other than 3 of 4 nope, I guess your right again.

Cathar1950 · Post by **Cathar1950** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:20 am

Nope. Only those who have something to back it up with. Miracles, outstanding intellect, sinnless life. things like this.

You are appealing to the bible for the proof and it is the bible we are questioning. What about in the OT where he says he will chastise him?

No but I'll call CNN and see if they have him in their records ok? While I'm at it I'll ask about Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle to ok just to be sure they covered everyone.

Many believe that Plato was not that accurate when it came to Socrates.
No one is claiming they said they were gods.

Except Mark writing for Peter. Oh and matthew. Oh yes and Luke who explicitly said that he investigated eyewitnesses. Other than 3 of 4 nope, I guess your right again.

All traditions and it is questionable that those were the authors.
Mark was more Pauline then a follower of Peter.
If Matthew and Luke wrote as late as most think then we can doubt the authorship of their works also.
Personally I have no problem with faith I just question the loyalty to a collection of questionable writings and the insistence that they have to be correct with out error and bias. When believers can not find anything wrong with it and defend every little word then they can not compare it to other ancient writings.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:22 am

achilles12604 wrote:.
You don't even have a writing from an eyewitness.
Except Mark writing for Peter. Oh and matthew. Oh yes and Luke who explicitly said that he investigated eyewitnesses. Other than 3 of 4 nope, I guess your right again.

Well, no. Mark was not an eyewitness at all. And Luke definately admitted he was not an eye witness. You are talking about second had accounts (at least). In the case of Luke it might have been third or fourth generation accounts.. although he believed that it came from eye witnesses.

A claimed second or third hand account is still not an eye witness. And apparently, the 'eye witness' wasn't around to correct errors in the case of Mark, else he wouldn't have gotten the geography wrong.

Scrotum · Post by **Scrotum** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:34 am

Nope. Only those who have something to back it up with. Miracles, outstanding intellect, sinnless life. things like this.

Jesus was born from a woman, hence, born as a sinner (as you continuesly claim).

Also, he had THOUGHTS, did he not? Do you think he would ADMIT having devious thoughs such as SEX (oh my). That you claim he would be sinnless is raher silly, as you refuse to accept anyone else as sinnless. Hypocrite i say.

achilles12604 · Post by **achilles12604** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:34 am

goat wrote:
achilles12604 wrote:.
You don't even have a writing from an eyewitness.
Except Mark writing for Peter. Oh and matthew. Oh yes and Luke who explicitly said that he investigated eyewitnesses. Other than 3 of 4 nope, I guess your right again.
Well, no. Mark was not an eyewitness at all. And Luke definately admitted he was not an eye witness. You are talking about second had accounts (at least). In the case of Luke it might have been third or fourth generation accounts.. although he believed that it came from eye witnesses.

A claimed second or third hand account is still not an eye witness. And apparently, the 'eye witness' wasn't around to correct errors in the case of Mark, else he wouldn't have gotten the geography wrong.

Well I don't have time to refute geography attacks right now. Perhaps if you list them and explain I can get back to you.

Your first sentence here however is a wonder. You managed to ignore the entire point of Mark writing for Peter. Outstanding! Bias?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Tue Aug 15, 2006 9:40 am

achilles12604 wrote:
Well, no. Mark was not an eyewitness at all. And Luke definately admitted he was not an eye witness. You are talking about second had accounts (at least). In the case of Luke it might have been third or fourth generation accounts.. although he believed that it came from eye witnesses.

A claimed second or third hand account is still not an eye witness. And apparently, the 'eye witness' wasn't around to correct errors in the case of Mark, else he wouldn't have gotten the geography wrong.

Well I don't have time to refute geography attacks right now. Perhaps if you list them and explain I can get back to you.

Your first sentence here however is a wonder. You managed to ignore the entire point of Mark writing for Peter. Outstanding! Bias?[/quote]

Simple.. because it doesn't matter if it was from Peter or not.. Mark was not an eye witness. It is second hand information.