Summations Only

But that is just you using NewSpeak.It was evidence since that was one of the signs listed as prophecy. It was no different than a scientist fudging the data or making data up to support his position.

That's by far the most likely explaination.

Well the evidence says that Jesus was pretty intelligent and fairly well educated but there is no evidence that Jesus had any knowledge that would have been supernatural.

But what do the Bible stories say?Is there any evidence that Jesus had any knowledge beyond what might have been known by any educated man of the period?The issue is that you worship the Jesus and God that YOU create and not the Jesus or God that is shown in the Bible.AbE: There is little evidence that God has divine foreknowledge and there is evidence that God does not have foreknowledge.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

What I see is you making up stuff that has no foundation other than your feel good needs.

Well, I may have even mentioned this once or twice but what does the evidence show? On the former I simply ask you to explain how you can know a God or any supernatural entity and on the latter I simply quote what the Bible stories say. Well we have learned a few things over the last 2000 years and there is no evidence that Jesus knew about most of them. But what I actually say more often is that we are more moral today than Jesus was and far more moral than the Biblical God character was. And again, I support that by pointing to the evidence; what the Bible stories say.I have never said that your ideas are unique and in fact there is a whole industry in the US marketing what you profess. There is gold in them thar Biblical Christian pockets.

What the hell does "the important thing is that He first knew us" even mean and why would it be important even if true? Again, what the hell does that even mean and why would it be of any importance even if true?And the lesson that should have been easy for even you to learn from the stories is that knowing right from wrong is not easy even for a God and in many cases there is no absolute right or wrong but only slightly more right or slightly more wrong.The lesson is that you need to stop looking to God to define right and wrong and stop looking for God to solve problems.It's all up to you.AbE: Well a great example in addition to those you mention (you forgot Jesus snapping and sassing his mother and that the money spent was not his but rather taken from the Communist community funds) is that we (at least in the US) no longer say silly stuff like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" but rather say "You can't stone people; period!"We allows all citizens to vote. We have laws making discrimination illegal. We grant women rights. We do not crucify people and leave them hanging for display.Edited by jar, : see AbE

Really? Haven't most wars been over "My God has a bigger dick than your God!"Didn't God care enough to be the deity of the Fascists and Nazis and Democracies; of Allies and Axis; of Saracen and Crusader, of Roundheads and Cavaliers, of Kings and Peasant, of Protestant and Roman Catholic ...Haven't you noticed that God is almost always on both sides when it comes to wars?Is it not possible that all live might be important to a God, pond scum and slime mold, human and worm?Or do YOU want to be important to some God?

But are you more important to God than is pond scum?So how does any of this relate to the topic? Well it is more evidence that the Bible is simply the words of men, written for men and reflecting the gods that men create.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

You should acknowledge that much of the morality in the West has been the direct result of a fear of Christian oppression. In particular the protection of religious freedom in the US was a direct result of fear of Puritans gaining power or authority.

And how does anyone know they are in communion with God, whatever that even means?How does one test to see if it really is the real God and not one made up in our heads?The point is when discussing the topic "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" the evidence is the actual words written in the different stories as well as which stories get selected to be included in a particular "Bible".If you then actually look at the evidence several things stand out.First, there is no such thing as "The Bible". Each of the major sects selects which stories should be included or excluded.Second, there is no such thing as "The God of the Bible" rather there are a whole bunch of different and mutually exclusive descriptions of a God, each identified as "The God" within the context of that story. The God of Genesis 1 is totally different than the God of Genesis 2&3 and this pattern continues from beginning to end.For the topic the only available evidence is the content of the stories themselves and it is there where we must look if we are to try to present an opinion on the subject.

Again, what does the evidence show? Are the Ethiopian Long Canon and the Ethiopian Short Canon and the Samaritan Orthodox Canon and the Protestant Western Canon and the Roman Catholic Canon and the Eastern Orthodox Canon all the same list of books?If it was inspired by God then why couldn't God even get the same books listed in all Bibles? Again Phat, you support my point. There is no God of the Bible rather only the God you made up.Based on what is written in the scripture there is no one god but rather a whole bunch of often mutually exclusive little gods.The only evidence there is for the topic "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" is the content of the various Bible stories. But Phat, all that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic which is "Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it the words of men?" and the only evidence is what is actually written. Your beliefs are totally irrelevant to the topic unless you can support your beliefs by pointing to actual content in the stories and then they might be worthy of consideration; but you need to present evidence not simply state your beliefs.

There are several different gods as well as several different Jesus characters in the New Testament. First there is the Jesus as marketed early on by Paul, a messianic figure who will return as conqueror during Paul's lifetime. As it became apparent that Jesus was not going to return as promised the characterization had to change from absolute to general, from specific to vague, with a total revision of what a Messiah would be.Then there is the Jesus character of the synoptic gospels and the entirely different Jesus character found in the Gospel of John. In particular the fourth Gospel is presented from an entirely different perspective than the synoptics, from the perspective of someone not dealing with Jesus the contemporary friend but rather the remembrances of someone from the authors past, not a human being but a demigod.The God character does not play much of a direct part in the New Testament and is relegated to either a character is tales Jesus relates to make a point (basically a recasting of one or more of the Old Testament god characters), a voice from off stage or a character in an apocalyptic tale.

Sheesh Phat, have you ever actually read the Bible?Read early Paul. Paul tells little about Jesus, no real history but just that the end is nigh; don't bother getting married because the world will end long before you could raise kids.This changes as Paul grows old to "No one knows when the end will be".Read the damn Bible Phat.The Synoptics deal with Jesus the human being. They include stuff like his birth, some early childhood tales but John presents a different Jesus, Jesus the LOGOS. John leaves out most of Jesus teachings like the Sermon on the Mount or Jesus temptation or Jesus transfiguration and presents "dialogs" where as in a Greek Play a character misunderstands what is said so that the Jesus character gets to expound on the lesson. John also describes multiple visits to Jerusalem and an earlier mission in Galilee.John also presents miracles is a totally different context that is found in the Synoptics. In the Synoptics Jesus performs miracles because it is what is need to solve a problem at the moment and almost always avoids taking credit or bragging about it while in John the miracles are performed as signs of Jesus divinity.John also presents miracles that should have been significant enough to make it into the Synoptics but that are somehow missing. The raising of Lazarus is a great example.Jesus uses quotes from the Old Testament primarily in the Synoptic Gospels and so the uses reflect the multiple characters found there. There is a difference as I mentioned between Jesus using references to Old Testament stories and the pretty much undefined and featureless God of the New Testament. As I mentioned above what we see of any God in the New Testament is mostly a voice from off stage "This is my son ..." that tells us little about God or (in the Synoptics) Jesus asking God to work through him or pointing out that God worked through others in the past.

But I am responding to you and I have suggested many times it would help if you would actually read the Bible and stop trying to just pull shit out of context.You should know by now that I will not do as the Christian Cult of Ignorance does and just pull a verse from here and a verse from there as though that had any validity.If you need a link to John's Gospel and the Synoptics as well as the Epistles I will gladly provide them but don't expect me to stoop to the Christian Cult of Ignorance topics.I did provide both general and specific examples but it is YOUR responsibility to actually go read the material.And AbE: I imagine almost all of the viewers except the Biblical Christians will have actually read the Bible. It is only Biblical Christians that seem incapable of actually reading the stories.Edited by jar, : see AbE: