Checkpoint wrote:
alexxcJRO wrote:
Checkpoint wrote:
Yes, let's do just that.
Arguments, that is, about the two verses this thread has cited, in their contexts.
Arguments, that is, not about the mental or verbal state or abilities of Jesus.
You forgot about this:
Dear sir I said:
“When i said mid-phrase i meant suddenly, rapidly.
Q: Did Jesus changed rapidly the subject, topic?(Yes/No question)�
And you said:
“Whatever.
So wat?
Did Jesus suffer from a psychotic disorder?�
Q: What is happening?
What is happening is you are talking of my past posts.
What I proposed agreed with your suggestion by pointing out what our arguments should include and should exclude.
Deal?
I talked about not making personal remarks and add hominems.
We were talking about :
1. I don’t have to prove “ jumping between unrelated topics, rapidly switching topics: Mathew 27 talking of one topic, Mathew 28 talking of different topic. “ This was your idea.
2. The “Jesus had a fantastical beliefs that he was the son of an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect God, that he had a special power and importance(the savior of mankind), that he was perfect, sinless� is true according to the bible and Christians.
3. Seeing vividly and hearing the voice of an imaginary being(Satan) is called hallucination
Your objection to 1 was :
"No, that's not what we are talking about, but what you are talking about. "
And i responded with:
"Dear sir I said:
“When i said mid-phrase i meant suddenly, rapidly.
Q: Did Jesus changed rapidly the subject, topic?(Yes/No question)�
And you said:
“Whatever.
So wat?
Did Jesus suffer from a psychotic disorder?�
Q: What is happening?Smile)"
No objections to 2.
And your objections to 3 was: "You say God is "an imaginary being", but... "
So what you have is a whole pile of nothing.
Q: Care to bring some serious objections?