Divinity of Jesus

Which, essentially, is what I want Raphael to acknowledge. His claim that Jesus ACTUALLY DID these events is not a stance that a historian can take. If Raph had said he BELIEVED Jesus actually did these things then I would not have even replied. It is the abuse of what history is that I am objecting to.You may well have faith that X and Y happened, but when you come to ask someone else to believe that X and Y happened and all you have to convince them of that is your faith,, then how far do you think this stance should get you?Historians need evidence, sources with which to come to conclusions, and I am afraid that becuase someone has faith something happened does not make that event true. it MAY be true, and that's all I am asking Raph to acknowledge. Jesus may have raised Lazurus from the dead, but then again, he may not have. Well we do have a way, it is called research. Is there such a thing as certain knowledge. You didnt strike me as someone who would believe this since your best (only) argument for the eixistence of GOd is that He cannot be disproven. Well, I'd argue that it doesnt occupy the same territory becuase, as I said to Jay, history is really degrees of truth. Now, that someone called Jesus walked the earth 2000 years ago does not really take that much of a leap of faith to believe. There were thousands of Jesus' walking the earth back then, we kow men existed then, we know Jesus/Joshua was a popular name, so it is completely PLAUSIBLE that He existed.Now apply the same appraoch to GOd and we have fairytales to deal with. We have an entity that no one can define, we have an entity that cannot be objectively shown to exist, we have an entity who is said to contradict Himslef every five minutes, we have an all knowing God that appears to be as thick as two short planks, and we have an entity for whom we have no good reason to believe exists etc. So back to the world of circular reasoning Ian?Brian.

HI GDR, But it is foreign to early Jews. Isaiah does not refer to a 'virgin', that was the very point that people make about this verse.The word 'virgin' is a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14, so the word 'virgin' wasn't used.Brian.

Seems like Jesus cannot do anything right.When Jesus' chosen cannot even decide what He is then what chance do we heathens have?If I listen to Peg and she's wrong I'm doomed, if I listen to Jay and he's wrong I'm doomed, if I listen to John 10:10 (who would in their right mind?) and he's wrong I'm doomed.Christianity really is a mess.

Not delighted at all, just desperately sad for both of you. Such a waste of life, so very very sad.

But that's what decent people do Jay. All part of the psychosis Jay. It is your life to waste Jay, still can't help feeling sorry for you though.But, as long as you're happy, that's the main thing. I've read many things about God, however none of them are true.As far as your quote goes, I would take everything Paul said with a very large dose of salt.

Everyone is entitled to give their opinion on any subject they want to here, there's no discrimination. Maybe you would fit in better to a forum for morons?Really John 10:10, you are one of the least Christ-like people I have ever had read.I worked in a Roman Catholic school for a bit a few years ago and in the entrance hall and in all the classrooms were signs saying 'Let Christ Shine Through You', let me tell you, Christ certainly doesn't shine through you, the hatred for your fellow humans oozes out of every pore in your body.If you are a Christian, then I am the Pope!

So am I Sure. Because you have to be mentally ill to ignore the fact that Jesus wasn't a god, or even a Messiah.The evidence is overwhelming, so to ignore it demands a psychological condition.

There is no evidence, hence you are mentally ill.Have a quick think about it.You believe in an entity that has never been shown to exist, despite millions of people devoting their lives over thousands of years trying to prove it does exist. You then wish to claim that this not-proven-to-exist entity came to Earth incarnate as a man you do not even know existed or not. The reason this not-proven-to-exist entity came to Earth as a man whom we do not exist or not was to make things okay between this not-proven-to-exist entity and its creation. We are asked to believe that 6000 years ago this not-proven-to-exist entity went in a mood with its creation because its creation 'disobeyed' this entity, despite not knowing the difference between right and wrong, and ate a fruit that imparted knowledge to those that ate it. And the way to make things okay again? Well, this entity demanded that it was sacrificed to itself! And where do we read this story? In a book full of giants, talking snakes, talking donkeys, ghosts, demons, witches, men living for nearly a thousand years, people coming back to life, inaccurate 'historical' narratives, a flat Earth, internal contradictions, textual transmission errors, mulitple conflicting copies, and not to mention that its followers cannot even agree on what it is saying. There's more, but there's enough there to prove my point.Yes, your faith is very sound.

It’s the logical conclusion, Gzus Sleve how gullible are you?I can only assume that you are not familiar with this ‘debate’, it was a shambles, a shameless piece of Christian propaganda.Tell you what, why don’t YOU look at the ‘evidence’ and come to YOUR own conclusions?I think the only thing I’ve seen that’s more embarrassing than this is Lee Strobel’s ‘Case for Christ’.

Think my cat could too.In his defence though, he did seem well into his dotage, he could harldy string two words together. Also, a debate isn't always the best way to test people's knowledge of a subject, some people do much better when they have time to sit and construct a reply.Habermas' case is the same as any other Christian propagandist, totally circular.

You may think you are John but you aren't. You have too much hate in you, and you even have a go at people without even knowing what their faith teaches. You may address me as 'Your Eminence' if you don't mind.

You cannot even see the problem with your argument here!The wee book of fairytales tells you if someone doesn't believe the fairytales then that is just proof that the fairytales are true. can't you see the problem here? You do know that Paul is now not credited with authorship of about half of the 13? Another Christian lie Jay. When will you wake up? Paul didn't persecute anyone, it's just another lie to convince the gullible. It would more than likely be a waste of my valuable time anyway.

That would depend on who he was debating and what the parameters of the debate were.Why don't you forget Habermas and Flew, we could bat names back and forth between us all year and acheieve nothing.What about if I ask you one question a day for a week, which will give you time to construct an answer, and we will discover how convincing tha arguments are?

Ah, but they weren't. The Gospels are all anonymous, Sunday School stuff Sleve.Even at a very basic level, mark didn't know Jesus, Luke certainly didn't, and John is far too late.Over and above this though, the FACT is, the Gospels are all anonymous works.

Well it is not irrelevant. First hand accounts carry more credence than third, fourth, or even tenth hand accounts.Also, take Luke for example, Luke was a companion of Paul, and we know Jesus was supposed ot be dead before Paul 'met' him on the road to Damascus. Now Luke said he writes from eyewitness accounts, so how do you know he is telling the truth?How do you know if Luke wrote anything that is in the Gospel of Luke that we have? You do know that its unlikely that the Gospel of Mtthew we have is not the same one in early circulation?How many times has the gLuke been edited? Just because the author said he interviewed eyewitnesses it doesn't mean he did. Well, they do contradict in a great many places. Well, since your premise is incorrect your options are nullified.All anonymous works, written decades or more after Jesus was supposed to have lived.I dare say you will wish to go into the contradictions, no probs, but I am out for the rest of the day. My local football team's first ever european fixture tonight and I'm off to meet my mates for tea and scones before the game.See you tomorrow.