was Jesus fully human, or was he God in a disguise?

[Ozzy_O]

Romans 3:23
For everyone has sinned; we all fall short of God’s glorious standard.

Romans 5:12
When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned.

Inerrant scripture words say all men (and women) sinned

Look up the Greek, all and everyone means all and everyone

So every HUMAN sinned per the inerrant scriptures

So, here’s the options:

A) scripture is wrong, everyone didn’t sin and is not born a filthy little sinner

B) Jesus was FULLY MAN, which would have to include sin because the Bible says so, or he wouldn’t be a spotless lamb; He made a conscious decision not to sin, and he absolutely could help it (unlike Paul’s claims in Romans 7)

C) God put on a disguise; He acted like he was fully human but he wasn’t ( in which case living a sinless life is easy for God because he spoke the universe into existence)

Philippians 2:7
….but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.

He only took on the likeness of man not his full sin nature, in which case he didn’t play by the rules for us

No Christian has ever honestly answered this question

Let’s examine the premise we have been programmed to believe and critically examine the text

It has to be all one or the other for the story they tell us to be true

The truth is uncomfortable sometimes

So, which option is least damaging to the narrative?

[OneWay]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #47

If you believe in the gods of Olympus that are confined to space, time and life, and death. Have at it.

Who says they're confined to space, time, life and death? They're gods. If "the God of Israel" doesn't have to be confined to Israel, the gods of Olympus don't have to be confined to Olympus.

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

Can you prove anything you have stated?

Yes I can, I will prove it right here with you.

I say that you cannot prove it.
I can prove that you cannot prove it.

lol

lol

lol

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #47

If you believe in the gods of Olympus that are confined to space, time and life, and death. Have at it.

Who says they're confined to space, time, life and death? They're gods. If "the God of Israel" doesn't have to be confined to Israel, the gods of Olympus don't have to be confined to Olympus.

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

Can you prove anything you have stated?

Yes I can, I will prove it right here with you.

I say that you cannot prove it.
I can prove that you cannot prove it.

lol

lol

lol

If you can't prove your own position, you're just laughing at yourself.

[OneWay]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #47

If you believe in the gods of Olympus that are confined to space, time and life, and death. Have at it.

Who says they're confined to space, time, life and death? They're gods. If "the God of Israel" doesn't have to be confined to Israel, the gods of Olympus don't have to be confined to Olympus.

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

Can you prove anything you have stated?

Yes I can, I will prove it right here with you.

I say that you cannot prove it.
I can prove that you cannot prove it.

lol

lol

lol

If you can't prove your own position, you're just laughing at yourself.

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

No you cannot.

lol

lol

lol

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose it was inevitable that whatever the topic,it would end with a God -believer trying to peddle us a god - claim through First cause with a bit of Woo about unknowns beyond the universe and the old trick of telling us that we aren't atheists but agnostics. But all it does is show that theists never seem to understand atheism (which is based on agnosticism, and is not an extreme replacement for it) and that no quotemining of atheist cosmologists about unknown factors that science hasn't yet discovered makes anything more than a gap for a god.

We smile because, as Joey says, though it is an unknown now, just as instinct (including morality) was an unknown then, and is all very woo - ish, cosmic origins is no more evidence for god than lightning - strikes was evidence for Zeus.

[OneWay]

The point of debating is proving your point.
Not stating unproven opinions as facts.

[OneWay]

I suppose it was inevitable that whatever the topic,it would end with a God -believer trying to peddle us a god - claim through First cause with a bit of Woo about unknowns beyond the universe and the old trick of telling us that we aren't atheists but agnostics. But all it does is show that theists never seem to understand atheism (which is based on agnosticism, and is not an extreme replacement for it) and that no quotemining of atheist cosmologists about unknown factors that science hasn't yet discovered makes anything more than a gap for a god.

We smile because, as Joey says, though it is an unknown now, just as instinct (including morality) was an unknown then, and is all very woo - ish, cosmic origins is no more evidence for god than lightning - strikes was evidence for Zeus.

Is there any part of this you have stated that you can prove as a fact?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to OneWay in post #63

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

No you cannot.

lol

lol

lol

For someone who starts a thread like this.....

viewtopic.php?t=40173&start=20

.....you seem to have turned awfully cagey about what you yourself can prove.

[OneWay]

[Replying to OneWay in post #63

Can you prove any of this you have stated?

No you cannot.

lol

lol

lol

For someone who starts a thread like this.....

viewtopic.php?t=40173&start=20

.....you seem to have turned awfully cagey about what you yourself can prove.

I am not cagey
I am however the wisest of all flesh an blood
upon the face of the whole earth at this present point in time.

Can I prove it
Yes I can.

[TRANSPONDER]

I suppose it was inevitable that whatever the topic,it would end with a God -believer trying to peddle us a god - claim through First cause with a bit of Woo about unknowns beyond the universe and the old trick of telling us that we aren't atheists but agnostics. But all it does is show that theists never seem to understand atheism (which is based on agnosticism, and is not an extreme replacement for it) and that no quotemining of atheist cosmologists about unknown factors that science hasn't yet discovered makes anything more than a gap for a god.

We smile because, as Joey says, though it is an unknown now, just as instinct (including morality) was an unknown then, and is all very woo - ish, cosmic origins is no more evidence for god than lightning - strikes was evidence for Zeus.

Is there any part of this you have stated that you can prove as a fact?

That depends upon how reasonable the person is that the proof is presented to. The logic is that nobody knows what's outside the known universe, nor what made the stuff that made the big bang, and that is the fact; the goddunnit -claim is not.

Since nobody knows, the Fact is that everyone is agnostic, even the ones who ignore the fact and think they know it is a god, name your own. The Fact of the rules of logic is that what you don't know,you don't Believe until you Do know, is true. So the Fact is that atheism is logically and evidentially correct, based on not knowing (agnosticism) and the god claim is not, let alone trying to validate any particular god.

[OneWay]

I suppose it was inevitable that whatever the topic,it would end with a God -believer trying to peddle us a god - claim through First cause with a bit of Woo about unknowns beyond the universe and the old trick of telling us that we aren't atheists but agnostics. But all it does is show that theists never seem to understand atheism (which is based on agnosticism, and is not an extreme replacement for it) and that no quotemining of atheist cosmologists about unknown factors that science hasn't yet discovered makes anything more than a gap for a god.

We smile because, as Joey says, though it is an unknown now, just as instinct (including morality) was an unknown then, and is all very woo - ish, cosmic origins is no more evidence for god than lightning - strikes was evidence for Zeus.

Is there any part of this you have stated that you can prove as a fact?

That depends upon how reasonable the person is that the proof is presented to.

And what or who determines what, is how reasonable?