Was Jesus just a moral Teacher, and nothing more?

[BigChrisfilm]

"I am trying here to prevent anyone from saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him [Jesus Christ]: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on a level with a man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse .... You can shut him up for fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.” - C.S. Lewis

[TRANSPONDER]

Unless you believe the day and night was made before the sun was.

I believe day and night happened as told in the Bible. By what is told in the Bible, it didn't require sun at the beginning.

Then what is said in the Bible is wrong, or certainly is in conflict with science. How many rightwing Religious fundamentalists would maintain that the earth was made before the sun? Never mind a cosmic imitation of day and night, - the Bible saying 'morning and evening'. I can only wonder that you balk at the Bible indicating that the earth was a flat circle.

You should also see that Luke says that Mary Magdalene saw the angel and heard what it said.

Please give the scripture that says so.

Luke 24 10. You should KNOW this stuff - especially since I've surely told you before.
Luke 24 10The women were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James; the others who accompanied them also told this to the apostles, 11 but their story seemed like nonsense and they did not believe them.

Or indeed that the prophecy of Tyre fails. ..

You can't point any real error in what Bible tells about it. And we have no real evidence for that it was rebuilt, which would mean that the old thing would be built again, not that something new would be built on top of the ruins.

You are in denial of history and science and also yourself. Tyre was rebuilt and even if it was not (didn't need to be, as you imply) the prophecy still fails. The sound of Tyrian harps was heard, and it was a prosperous trading place ever after.

I'll post this as it is the excellent Kings and Generals series (I watched all the Baltic crusades and Religious wars episodes). I am so confident that it shows Tyre rebuilt, flourishing and strong that I post (with apologies for adverts - it can't be avoided) I'll post it without watching it first.


Of course you will say 'Ha! Old Tyre was never rebuilt. New Tyre may have been".

No. The point is that Tyre was ALL rebuilt, Mainland, Island and causeway as is known Geographically today, Present Tyre covers all the old Tyre and the present ruins were all later (Roman) build outside the rebuilt city. (an example of the dangers of going with 'how things look' rather than the science that corrects misunderstandings)

All you have left is the ''different new city is not the old one' excuse. But then, no cities have ever been rebuilt There were different cities built on top and just given the same name. Prophecies mean nothing as they can be twisted to excuse failure. As usual, any excuse for you to deny the evidence will do, but will it convince impartial readers?

[1213]

Then what is said in the Bible is wrong, or certainly is in conflict with science. How many rightwin Religious fundamentalists would maintain that the earth was made before the sun? Never mind a cosmic imitation of day and hight, - the Bible saying 'morning oand evening'.I can only wonder that you balk at the Bible indicating that the earth was a flat circle.

In any case, by what is told in the Bible, sun was made after earth. And I believe Bible is correct.

In the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. So, it is like a continent. And continents are relatively flat. I believe the original single continent had circular edge. What we can see in modern world indicates it to be true. The circle was about the same as the Ring of Fire on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire

You should also see that Luke says that Mary Magdalene saw the angel and heard what it said.

Please give the scripture that says so.

Luke 24 10. You should KNOW this stuff - especially since I've surely told you before.

I don't think Luke supports you, sorry.

The sound of Tyrian harps was heard, and it was a prosperous trading place ever after.

How do you know Tyrian harps was heard and that it was a prosperous trading place ever after? I don't believe that.

[TRANSPONDER]

Then what is said in the Bible is wrong, or certainly is in conflict with science. How many rightwin Religious fundamentalists would maintain that the earth was made before the sun? Never mind a cosmic imitation of day and hight, - the Bible saying 'morning oand evening'.I can only wonder that you balk at the Bible indicating that the earth was a flat circle.

In any case, by what is told in the Bible, sun was made after earth. And I believe Bible is correct.

In the Bible earth means dry land, not the whole planet. So, it is like a continent. And continents are relatively flat. I believe the original single continent had circular edge. What we can see in modern world indicates it to be true. The circle was about the same as the Ring of Fire on earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Fire

You should also see that Luke says that Mary Magdalene saw the angel and heard what it said.

Please give the scripture that says so.

Luke 24 10. You should KNOW this stuff - especially since I've surely told you before.

I don't think Luke supports you, sorry.

The sound of Tyrian harps was heard, and it was a prosperous trading place ever after.

How do you know Tyrian harps was heard and that it was a prosperous trading place ever after? I don't believe that.

You fiddling about the term 'earth' (Genesis refutes that when it says making heaven and earth first day. but in any case it maked even less sense (or nore science denial) if you claim the sun was actually made later than that.

And the 'Ring of fire' isnothing to do with anything relating to Genesis, Eden (which I recall you tried to argue was the circle scribed out on a round earth) or anything other than tectonic plate movement cause by the splitting up of continents. You just seem to make stuff up out of nowhere that has no relevance to anything, let alone any scientific validity.

As to Tyre, It is obvious that the place was rebuilt as it was taken over by the Romans and they built within, and without the city, so then at least, it had been rebuilt. And the simile' harps' means there was music in nit. The burden of proof is on you to argue there wasn't.

I read there was a siege of Tyre by one of the rulers after Alexander but the histories tend to lose interest after Alexander's taking of Tyre (Nebuchadnezzar is a red herring as clearly the city was rebuilt and flourishing by the time Alexander decided to reduce it), but I'll try to get details of the rebuild of the city after Alexander.

Here we go In 315 BCE, Alexander's former general Antigonus began his own siege of Tyre.[36] The city had recovered rapidly after Alexander's conquest,[31] " (wiki)

You haven't a leg to stand on. Without trying to make words'stand on their heads' (Gimli) evasions, and excuses, the prophecy of Tyre fails.

[1213]

And the 'Ring of fire' is nothing to do with anything relating to Genesis, Eden (which I recall you tried to argue was the circle scribed out on a round earth) or anything other than tectonic plate movement cause by the splitting up of continents. You just seem to make stuff up out of nowhere that has no relevance to anything, let alone any scientific validity.

By what is said in the Bible, earth means dry land. The circle was not drawn on earth, it was drawn over water, which covered planet earth, before earth (dry land) was created.

As to Tyre, It is obvious that the place was rebuilt as it was taken over by the Romans and they built within, and without the city, so then at least, it had been rebuilt. And the simile' harps' means there was music in nit. The burden of proof is on you to argue there wasn't.

That is like, "God is real, it is your burden to prove He is not".

[TRANSPONDER]

And the 'Ring of fire' is nothing to do with anything relating to Genesis, Eden (which I recall you tried to argue was the circle scribed out on a round earth) or anything other than tectonic plate movement cause by the splitting up of continents. You just seem to make stuff up out of nowhere that has no relevance to anything, let alone any scientific validity.

By what is said in the Bible, earth means dry land. The circle was not drawn on earth, it was drawn over water, which covered planet earth, before earth (dry land) was created.

Look chum. I am merely going by what you said last time, which (I recall) was a circle of land representing Eden from Cush to mesopotamia. Now you want to say a flat circle scribed out on water and dry land appearing...which is still a flat circle on what is as likely to be a flat area of water as a globe, Just as you did with daylight before the sun, you seem to make up different excuses, none of which alter the surmise that the Bible is wrong. About the order of creation (unless like you, science is denied) and is wrong about the sun made after daylight (and after the earth itself apparently) so, why would we credit these hoottenanny attempts to make a Babylonian snowdomec-osmos in the Bible somehow fit science - at least science you are not determined to deny?

As to Tyre, It is obvious that the place was rebuilt as it was taken over by the Romans and they built within, and without the city, so then at least, it had been rebuilt. And the simile' harps' means there was music in nit. The burden of proof is on you to argue there wasn't.

That is like, "God is real, it is your burden to prove He is not".

That is your constant inverted logic of Bible apologetics. God is a faithclaim without any valid evidence; it IS Your burden of proof. Tyre in history and archaeology was rebuilt after each siege - Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander and Antigonus. We know if you have a city, it has nusic.Burden of proof is on you to show why there was no music in Rebuilt Tyre like the prophecy says should be, not on me to prove there wasn't.

[1213]

...Now you want to say a flat circle scribed out on water and dry land appearing...which is still a flat circle on what is as likely to be a flat area of water as a globe,

Circle can be drawn to any surface, doesn't mean the earth or planet was flat.

That is your constant inverted logic of Bible apologetics. God is a faithclaim without any valid evidence; it IS Your burden of proof. Tyre in history and archaeology was rebuilt after each siege - Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander and Antigonus. We know if you have a city, it has nusic.Burden of proof is on you to show why there was no music in Rebuilt Tyre like the prophecy says should be, not on me to prove there wasn't.

Why do you think you or historians don't have to prove claims the same way as Christians have to?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Now you want to say a flat circle scribed out on water and dry land appearing...which is still a flat circle on what is as likely to be a flat area of water as a globe,

Circle can be drawn to any surface, doesn't mean the earth or planet was flat.

That is your constant inverted logic of Bible apologetics. God is a faithclaim without any valid evidence; it IS Your burden of proof. Tyre in history and archaeology was rebuilt after each siege - Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander and Antigonus. We know if you have a city, it has nusic.Burden of proof is on you to show why there was no music in Rebuilt Tyre like the prophecy says should be, not on me to prove there wasn't.

Why do you think you or historians don't have to prove claims the same way as Christians have to?

Because, unless one rejects science, the claims are already in place. We have seen the problem. The cetan sequence was proven by the evidence, but you tried to wriggle your way out with excuses and evasions (leg bones were the best design - even if true, the rest of the morphology proves an evolutionary process) but shark fins disproves that, or trying to make a silly 'Butterflies into mammoths' fiddle. Denying the sun was made before the earth or maybe not ...a cosmic daylight before the sun but the earth existing.Y ou hardly seem to have coherent arguments, just denial of everything. Including the resurrection contradiction, where I have to keep reminding you of what your own Bible actually says, or your efforts to wriggle out of the Tyre prophecy fail.

These are knows, but given the facts (unless one denied history, science and even what the Bible says) then of course, the burden of proof is of course on those who say it is other.

So the circle of the earth is another attempt as evading the plausible claim that it is the same flat circle the other ancients believed, but in this case (though you apparently suppose the sun was made later than the earth) the earth is round and a circle was scribed on a globe of water and dry land appeared. Where is that circle of land? I recall you tried to draw it around the Pacific which makes no sense.

But I will not cheat even at the cost of giving you an Out - it could be Lemuria before the continental breakup. I'll only say the point was made - the Bible says a flat circle, whether one sees it as the Babylonian snow -dome or a circle scribed on a curved surface. The hebrew means flat circle, not a globe.

[LittleNipper]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

[The Nice Centurion]

CHRIST was the fulfillment of the WORD. The very SON of the LIVING GOD, which in fact makes HIM --- GOD.

Can you explain that rationally, please

[Mae von H]

[Replying to BigChrisfilm in post #1]
You are absolutely right and deserve my full support here. Because why say such sentences about someone who with a probability of two out of three never existed.

Same goes for Mohammed who with a probability of 50% never existed. Therefore people who call him things like Pedophilian I find just silly.

Except if they want to talk about a fictional Mohammed. But fans could easily create a way out of this for the prophet by "researching" that he secretly fought Pedophilianism and solely took Aisha in to protect her from sexual advances.

That would be the fanfiction I would love to read.

Learned historians KNOW that the man Jesus lived and died in the first century. It is not a matter of debate among the educated.