The case for the Historical Jesus

Author: Shila

Posts

Total: 619
#601
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@zedvictor4


zedvictor4,

YOUR QUOTE TO THE #1 BIBLE STUPID PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN, MISS TRADESECRET:  "Might I suggest that you temper such hypotheses with I would suggest, or in my opinion, or as I see it, or as I interpret things, or it is my belief etc.

Zed, Miss Tradesecret cannot in any way use her "OPINIONS" because as shown in the link below that I called her out upon:

Tradesecrets little girly excuse post as shown in the link below to run away from her opinions that I addressed in the link above:

As shown ad infinitum, Miss Tradesecret may have a "foot fetish" because she always removes one foot to insert the other all the time as shown in the link above!  LOL!

I am sure you would agree, that we need Miss Tradesecret upon this Religion Forum as an example of what a Christian is not to do, and not to act like, praise!


.




#602
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I'll let you off Deb.

But only because it's you.
#603
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Tradesecret to BDT  "You suggest that God condones cannibalism."   

BDT: Tell me if you've heard this statement before, "what part of the following passages don't you understand, Bible fool?"

JESUS AS GOD STATED: “I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh during the stress of the siege imposed on them by the enemies who seek their lives.” ( Jeremiah 19:9)

JESUS AS GOD STATED: “I will make your oppressors eat their own flesh, and they shall be drunk with their own blood as with wine. Then all flesh shall know that I am the Lord your Savior, and your Redeemer, the Mighty One of Jacob.” (Isaiah 49:26)

As shown above, Jesus as God, not only condones cannibalism, but forces it upon His creation in the above passages in His "Godly ways," UNDERSTOOD BIBLE FOOL? HUH?
Well hello BDT. Despite the fact that this is NOT engaging. At least it seems you think it is and I think you that are trying. I know it is difficult for you to try and keep any coherent thoughts in your head and focus at the same time.  So let's see what you think you have "engaged". 

I suggested your initial post implied that God condoned cannibalism. I of course quite sensibly and correctly refuted your implication.  Your response - your attempt at engagement is "tell me if you've heard this before"?  And then you ask a second question: " what part of the following passages don't you understand"? 

If your attempt at engaging is to say - "I refute your refutation, Tradesecret by repeating myself", well again it displays gross ignorance and stupidity.  Especially when all you do is repeat words that I have provided a reasonable explanation of which PROVES God does not condone it.  Repeating the same words - without an explanation of why you think God does condone it would be engaging. You did not do that.  You repeated words which already have a plausible and rational explanation and WHICH DOES NOT require that God condones it.  It appears really that you are the one who does not understand the passage. And the evidence is that you don't bother to engage with the provided explanation of the text.  

The conclusion is therefore - not only did you not engage with me but you are a buffoon who does not understand basic English. 


Tradesecret to BDT   "You suggest that God wants his people to eat people."

In answering your  statement above, Jesus, as God, does not stop His creation from cannibalism as they cry out to Him, and Jesus as God, will not answer them and will hide His face from them, which suggests that Jesus as God wants His people to eat people because He won't forgive them!  ?

Now here we see you are starting to engage.  Not a lot - but it is a start.  Your conclusion seems to be - although it is terribly articulated and reasoned - that since God did not prevent them from cannibalism and did not answer them, and will not forgive them, therefore his punishment is that they eat each other.  That leads you to the conclusion that he wants them to eat each other.  At least you tried. I will give you that at least. 

Of course, you might like to address why God would bother talking to them - and warning them before hand of the implications of their disobedience if he just wanted them to eat each other.  In fact if God just wants them to eat each other - why warn them at all?  Why bother telling them that they could live a life free of cannibalism if that is not what God wanted.  If you would engage with those questions - that would be helpful. 

THE INSPIRED WORD OF JESUS STATED: "And I said: Hear, you heads of Jacob and rulers of the house of Israel! Is it not for you to know justice?— you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin from off my people and their flesh from off their bones, who eat the flesh of my people, and flay their skin from off them, and break their bones in pieces and chop them up like meat in a pot, like flesh in a cauldron. Then they will cry to the Lord, but he will not answer them; he will hide his face from them at that time, because they have made their deeds evil." (Micah 3:1-4)
Absolutely.  notice how it is a warning.  It is beforehand.  I take it you know the difference between warning and actuality.  


TS to BDT: "You suggest that God does this personally." 

DUH! What part of your Bible stupid quote #1 don't you understand AGAIN?  

Of course Jesus does it personally, as NOT being ever loving and forgiving, because His Hebrew people have sinned, get it Bible stupid fool?!
Again you resort to non-engagement again.  Sad really.  At least you acknowledge that God's punishment is in respect to sin? I wonder if you know what sin they committed?  I somehow expect that you might actually condone the sin rather than the fact that they have been warned not to sin.  That strikes me as alarming. 


"The Lord will bring a nation against you from far away, from the end of the earth, swooping down like the eagle, a nation whose language you do not understand, a hard-faced nation who shall not respect the old or show mercy to the young. It shall eat the offspring of your cattle and the fruit of your ground, until you are destroyed; it also shall not leave you grain, wine, or oil, the increase of your herds or the young of your flock, until they have caused you to perish. “They shall besiege you in all your towns, until your high and fortified walls, in which you trusted, come down throughout all your land. And they shall besiege you in all your towns throughout all your land, which the Lord your God has given you. And you shall eat the fruit of your womb, the flesh of your sons and daughters, whom the Lord your God has given you, in the siege and in the distress with which your enemies shall distress you. ..." ( Deuteronomy 28:49-55)
But non-engagement you are good at and here is another example.  Or do you think boldening a sentence is engagement.  Please try and explain the passage. Put it context. Is it a warning to his people not to sin? Is it a proclamation to go out and sin?  After all, most reasonable people would suggest that if someone warns someone from doing something, it is because they DO NOT condone it. 

Here you missed the point.  There is nothing in this passage that says God personally caused this to happen.  Unless of course you are suggesting that since God gave them children - that he wants to them eat the babies.     It is noticeable that you have omitted conveniently the blessings that God will give for obedience. 


YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #4 IN POST #595: "You suggest that eating flesh is somehow acceptable to people of the bible" 

Under certain circumstances, it is , you bird-brained Bible fool!   "And the king asked her, “What is your trouble?” She answered, “This woman said to me, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him today, and we will eat my son tomorrow.’ So we boiled my son and ate him. And on the next day I said to her, ‘Give your son, that we may eat him.’ But she has hidden her son.” (2 Kings 6:28-29)
Again - no engagement - just boldening letters is not engagement.  And you call me stupid and bird brained.   the passage of course is with Solomon is it not? The passage where Solomon is looking to determine - the good mother v the evil stealing mother.  And it seems to be the case that both ate one of the children.  What is not said however is that - people found it acceptable and normal and to be condoned.    I would like to see you articulate this position since you are asserting it. There are precedents, admittedly, where people do eat for survival.  Yet it would be a stretch to say that such exceptional circumstances are normative and condoned.  


YOUR BIBLE STUPID QUOTE #5 IN POST 595:  "Yet none of these things are true."  

With your LYING statement shown above that goes against the biblical axioms that I have shown in this post, then this is where you run and hide AGAIN and then come up with more EXCUSES to run from said Bible facts!!!  ROFLOL!!!  In essence, you should be thanking me because of the FACT that you have never seen the passages of Jesus' cannibalism that I have brought forth in the first place, otherwise you would not have made yourself the Bible fool again in your post #595!  2+2=4.
Ad hominem is not engaging it is running away.   

#604
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


MISS TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, she is an ungodly hypocrite, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”



WAIT, YOU BECAME A HYPOCRITE TO YOUR POST #76 AS SHOWN IN THE LINK BELOW BECAUSE YOU RESPONDED TO MY POST #599 IN THIS THREAD!: “No disappearing here fake man. I just can't be bothered conversing with an ignorant bum.   When you learn to engage - we may converse.  I am not going to hold my breath.” 
 
Isn't there a modicum of knowledge left in your Bible stupidity realm that tells you that Jesus does not like hypocrites like you?  Now that you have became one, let me school you once again in that Jesus does not like hypocrites:

“But Jesus, aware of their malice, said, “Why put me to the test, you hypocrites? (Matthew 22:18)

“And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;” (Mark 7:6)

“You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:” (Matthew 15:7)

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:5)


Miss Tradesecret, once again, take the time to remove all that egg upon your face in turning into an ungodly HYPOCRITE! LOL!


Dear, haven't you ran away from this post of mine long enough? As it states, your SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH FAMILY MEMBERS was explained by you, but it was never explained to me, therefore, is there a link that I and the membership can go and see your explanation to this ungodly despicable act of yours?  Or maybe, you can explain it again to the membership.  Thanking you in advance.


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT WANTS TO DEFY JESUS AND BECOME AN UNGODLY HYPOCRITE, WILL BE ...?

.






#605
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
No hypocrisy in my post.  I said I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to engage. In your last post - there wasn't much engagement, but there was an attempt on your part. I can see how difficult that must have been for your tiny little brain.  I am not a monster.  I like to give simpletons a chance when they at least try.  

The biggest hypocrite on this site is you. You are a buffoon. An ignorant atheist pretending to be the strawman christian - an ignorant atheist who doesn't have the testicles to actually man up and be an atheist.   All of your bluster might appeal to Stephen, but we've read what he said about you - shila highlighted that didn't he? 

He doesn't think you are particularly bright. But hey, I don't want to sabotage your one and only friendship on this site.  I can sense your desperation. 

I am not a sexual devient. I have said this numerous times.  I have explained the other posts numerous times. But I have also indicated that it is irrelevant to this forum.  It is from a completely different site. A now defunct site.  A site which was the spam fest for our recently retired Shila or Harikrish.  

You find it amusing. And well I suppose that reveals where your mind sits. In the gutter. That of course is not surprising for an atheist - and one without any respect for others let alone himself. 

You have revealed time and time again that you are useless at reasoning, at logic, at understanding the bible, at ENGAGING in a topic. Don't think I didn't notice that ONCE AGAIN you avoid ALL of my questions in the last post.    Rather - you do what you always do - ad hominem, and then distract.  You call me names - and then you cut and paste a link and say - "running away again".   Everyone sees it. Do you really think everyone is as stupid as you. 

Please stick to the topic. Engage. If you are able.  
#606
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
 but we've read what he [Stephen ] said about you - shila highlighted that didn't he? 

He doesn't think you are particularly bright.

Let's see what Shilla highlighted then.

#607
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret

.
MISS DR. TRADESECRET, whose gender went from a “MAN TO A WOMAN,” and then to “OTHER,” then went to her being 53 years old, then 12 years old, then changed to being 14 years old, Debate Runaway on Jesus' true MO,  Bible denier of Jesus being God in the OT, the runaway to what division of Christianity she follows, the pseudo-christian that has committed the Unpardonable Sin, the number 1 Bible ignorant fool regarding the Noah's Ark narrative, SHE SAYS THAT OFFSPRING THAT CURSE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD BE KILLED, states there is FICTION within the scriptures, and is guilty of Revelation 22:18-19, 2 Timothy 4:3, and 1 Timothy 2:12. She obviously had ungodly Gender Reassignment Surgery, Satanic Bible Rewriter, she goes against Jesus in not helping the poor, teaches Christianity at Universities in a “blind leading the blind” scenario, and is a False Prophet, says that Jesus is rational when He commits abortions and makes His creation eat their children, and that Jesus is rational when He allows innocent babies to be smashed upon the rocks, will not debate me on the Trinity Doctrine or the Virgin Birth, has a myriad of EXCUSES not to answer your questions, and says that the Bible contradicts itself, she is a hypocrite, and wants to be called a "doctor" even though she says she isn't one, and she is "AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT!!!!!”



YOUR DIRECT QUOTE BIBLE FOOL!: "No disappearing here fake man. I just can't be bothered conversing with an ignorant bum."

You explicitly said that "you can't be bothered conversing with an ignorant bum," which is referring to the D-man, therefore, in chronological order when you did respond to my post #599, then you simply became a HYPOCRITE, understood dear?  Sure you do, but you still have use another lame excuse to get you out of yet another embarrassing situation, LOL! 

 Added 11.28.22 10:41PM     Your link in where you can't be bothered to converse with me

Added 11.29.22 02:48PM     Your link in where you did converse with me a day later where you couldn't be bothered to do so, but you did.


Miss Dr. Tradesecret, you are really "losing it" again, did you change your meds and this is making you incoherent?


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE "MISS DR. TRADESECRET" THAT DOESN'T KNOW WHICH END IS UP, WILL BE ...?

.





#608
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Brother - perhaps I did change my meds? And if so, so what? 

That doesn't make any of what you said - any more plausible.
#609
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
Go and find it for yourself. You are the one with the search engine. 
#610
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


Miss Dr. Tradesecret, 

!!!!!!!  YOUR OUTRIGHT DECEIVING AND LYING QUOTE IN YOUR POST #605  !!!!!!!!!: "I am not a sexual devient. I have said this numerous times. I have explained the other posts numerous times. But I have also indicated that it is irrelevant to this forum.  It is from a completely different site. A now defunct site.  A site which was the spam fest for our recently retired Shila or Harikrish."  

The explicit and ungodly link in you admitting that you are a sexual deviant with your family members is shown below:


YOUR DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE LINK ABOVE POSTED ON 6/12/2019 AT 7: 53-36 AM:  “Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess”

In said disgusting and ungodly quote above, you said that you admitted that you were a SEXUAL DEVIANT, period!


YOUR DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE LINK ABOVE POSTED ON 6/12/2019 AT 7: 53-36 AM: “They are quite nice. We meet lots of other persons who share our sexual deviancies - it is like going home. All of our brothers are there - and dads and uncles.”

In your despicable and ungodly quote above, not only do you say that you meet other people that share your SEXUAL DEVIANCIES, but you include your family members in these sickening sexual acts as well! BLASPHEME!

Listen up dear Miss Dr. Tradesecret, with your own quotes of said link as shown above, your admittance of being a SEXUAL DEVIANT is there for all to see, and you can deny this FACT until the end of time, but the sickening facts remain, period!


A.  Furthermore, you said that you’ve explained the “other” posts numerous times, then where are these said posts? Bring them forth to prove your assertion!
YOU MAY BEGIN:


B.  You also indicated that your SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH FAMILY MEMBERS is irrelevant to this forum, are you FU*KING KIDDING?!!!  What you miserably fail to understand is the FACT that this is a Religion Forum, therefore when you blatantly go against Jesus as God within the scriptures that say your debauchery sex acts with your family members is wrong, is the last straw, understood Bible fool?!


C.  Here are a few Jesus inspired passages where you slap Him in the face with your disgusting sex acts with family members!

1. This passage stands out, no pun intended, in where you had debauchery sex with YOUR OWN FAMILY MEMBERS where you were not to uncover them in your deviant sex acts with them:  “None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord. (Leviticus 18:6)

2. “Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18)

3. “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor,” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-4)
4. “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.” (Romans 1:26-2

5. “For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride in possessions—is not from the Father but is from the world.” (1 John 2:16)

6. “But sexual immorality and all impurity or covetousness must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints.” (Ephesians 5:3)

7. “But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” (Galatians 5:16)
8. “Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own,” (1 Corinthians 6:19)

9. “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

10. “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.” (Romans 12:1)
11. “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:13)



D.  Then to top off your ungodly and despicable DEVIANT SEX ACTS WITH YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS, you erroneously state in referring to the link in question: “It is from a completely different site. A now defunct site.” WTF!

What the hell does it matter on what web site it is upon, whether defunct or not, H-E-L-L-O?!  That is like proposing; “Your honor, the prosecutor is using facts from another email account that is now closed, therefore I request him not to use them to further show my client is guilty!”  Miss Dr. Tradesecret, and you are an alleged attorney? PRICELESS! ROFLOL!



NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMAN LIKE “MISS DR. TRADESECRET,” THAT IS AN ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH FAMILY MEMBERS, WHERE THE FACTS THAT SHOW THIS TO BE TRUE, SHE SAYS THEY ARE NOT TRUE, HUH? WILL BE …? LOL!


#611
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret


.
Miss Dr. Tradesecret,

Dear, because of my revealing post #610 above that shows you to be an admitted SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH FAMILY MEMBERS, I and others are here to help you to be in a more godly Christian way in not being an outright HYPOCRITE to Jesus’ words against sexual deviancy as I have shown you in my post #610, okay?  Look at it this way, the last thing you want is your approximate 300 members of your church, as a pastor, to know that you are a SEXUAL DEVIANT, wouldn’t you agree? Sure you do.

Therefore, in your behalf, the following links will hopefully help you in removing the blaspheme against Jesus as you being a HYPOCRITE in being an admitted SEXUAL DEVIANT! Therefore, subsequent to reading them shown below, where you put what they say into action to remove your sinful nature, can you give us updates so we can actually call you a Christian for a change?  Sure you can dear!

Behavioral Interventions for Sexual Deviancy

Introduction to Sexual Disorders

A practitioner's notes on treating sexual deviance

Sexual deviance in females: Assessment and treatment.

Treatment of Deviant Sexual Behavior

The treatment of sexual deviance within therapeutic settings

Dangerous Intimacy: When Sexual Behavior Can Be Deadly

Therapeutic Approach to the Treatment of Sex Addiction and Problematic Sexual Behavior


IS THERE ANY OTHER PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN WOMEN THAT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THEIR SEXUAL DEVIANCY LIKE “MISS DR. TRADESECRET” DOES, SO WE CAN HELP YOU TOO, WILL BE …?


#612
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YOUR DIRECT QUOTE FROM THE LINK ABOVE POSTED ON 6/12/2019 AT 7: 53-36 AM:

Tradsecret wrote:   “Yeah, Us Indians - and I can say I am Indian because I lived there for a while - have a serious problem with sex. We are deviants - but this is ok - because we are just modeling our goddess”

So s/he is an Indian, that is Australian, that is a New Zealander whose first language is Greek!!!?

#613
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.
Stephen,

YOUR EMBARRASSING QUOTE ABOUT OUR #1 BIBLE FOOL MISS DR. TRADESECRET: "So s/he is an Indian, that is Australian, that is a New Zealander whose first language is Greek!!!?"

Yes, that is the truth that Miss Dr. Tradesecret has brought forth as she stumbles around this forum making herself the continued Bible fool!  She is just like the equally dumbfounded of the Bible YouFound_Laxm, where both of them don't know which way is up!  Have you ever seen such a pair of pseudo-christians like these two, where it is like a contest between them to see which one is "BIBLE DUMBER!"  LOL!

Shhhhhhhh, Miss Dr. Tradesecret has posted subsequent to my posts #610 and #611 above in other threads, where said posts explicitly show her ungodly and despicable SEXUAL DEVIANCY WITH HER FAMILY MEMBERS, and how to address this FACT with psychological help. BUT, she has yet to respond to said posts, so shhhhhhhhhhh, she is running SCARED again!  Jesus and I can't wait for yet another EXCUSE from her to run away from these posts, of which will just be added to her ever growing EXCUSE LIST to run away from your posts!  LOL!

Miss Dr. Tradesecret is so embarrassingly predictable. :(

.


7 days later

#614
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret

.
Stephen,

As it can be readily seen, our #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, Miss Tradesecret, has been absent for the last week in "trying" to address Christian godly posts to her where she always falls short. Nonetheless, we can only hope that she is healthy and not in any serious situations of plight.

Let us only surmise that Miss Tradesecret is actually following through on the link that I gave her pertaining to helping her unchristianlike conduct of being an ADMITTED SEXUAL DEVIANT WITH FAMILY MEMBERS as shown in the link below:

We can await her return in hopefully telling us in how she is getting help with her ungodly despicable SEXUAL DEVIANCY, that directly goes against Jesus as God as explicitly shown in my post #610 within this thread, praise!

.


#615
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas

We can await her return.....

Ironic that of all the beautiful quotes  in the world s/he  chose this one for her profile then disappears..... back to harbour

Tradesecret wrote:
About me
“A ship in a harbor is safe, but it is not what ships are built for.” -John A. Shedd


#616
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret


.
Stephen,

Yeah, Miss Tradesecret's quote about a ship is so vapid, where like you said, there are better quotes she could have given, especially if she was honest about her Bible stupidity, where biblically relating to her they could have been one of the following:

"Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid." (Proverbs 12:1)

"Understand, O dullest of the people! Fools, when will you be wise?" (Psalm 94:8)

“For my people are foolish; they know me not; they are stupid children; they have no understanding. They are ‘wise’—in doing evil! But how to do good they know not.” (Jeremiah 4:22)


.



#617
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
You must be bored to be commenting about my quote. 

Do you miss me? 
#618
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
You continue to surprise me with how petty you are. 

618 days later

Topic's author
#619
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.

The Roman historian and senator Tacitus referred to Jesus, his execution by Pontius Pilate, and the existence of early Christians in Rome in his final work, Annals (written ca. AD 116), 

The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100. He referred to Christ in his history of Judaism “Jewish Antiquities” from AD 93. In the book, Jesus comes up twice – once in a curious passage about Jesus’s supposed brother Jamesand in another paragraph that has since been questioned in its authenticity.

2. Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

There  is plenty of evidence that the twelve disciples were real people.  In fact, no one who knows the evidence can seriously entertain the thought that these men were not real people.  We have evidence from both Christian and non-Christian sources that the apostles were real people (I am assuming that by the 12 disciples you mean the 12 apostles).  I was watching a video one time by Bart Ehrman, who is an atheist, but also one of the top scholars about things related to the Bible.  A fellow atheist who was not well informed tried to tell Ehrman that he did not believe that Paul existed. Ehrman rebuked the man for making atheism look foolish.  No serious person could claim that Paul did not exist. It would be like claiming that Cicero did not exist. This is crazy thinking.

We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century. He tells about all twelve of the apostles, plus Paul, relating where each ministered and how they died. Eusebius quotes his sources, such as second century historian Papias and Irenaeus and other Christian writers. The reliability of Eusebius varies somewhat, but he was a careful scholar and he quoted his sources. Some of the things he tells us about what happened to the twelve may be inaccurate, but what cannot be wrong is that there were twelve apostles.  There is no way someone like Eusebius could have gotten the number of apostles wrong. Irenaeus, writing in the second century, tells us that he learned under Polycarp who knew the apostle John personally.  Is it possible that Irenaeus got this wrong? I do not think so.  If we go back to such books as the Didache and the Letter of Clement to the Romans, both written around the turn of the first century, that there were twelve apostles was assumed. This had been the tradition of the Christian church from the beginning of its existence.  Is there any possible motivation for the church to make up the existence of twelve apostles?  I cannot think of any.

The Didache, a very early Christian catechism dates from the very late first century. When it was written, some who had known the apostles were still alive, although they would have been quite old.  The Didache is also known as “The Lord’s Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles.” The unknown writer of the Didache assumes that there were twelve apostles because it was common knowledge that there were twelve apostles.  The people who knew Jesus personally would have known how many apostles there were.  It is irrational to believe that there were not twelve apostles of Jesus because every account of Christianity is unanimous on this account, including even Josephus who was not a friend of Christianity.

Did Jesus claim he was God?

Many contemporary New Testament scholars do not believe that Jesus of Nazareth ever actually claimed to be God.
According to C.S.Lewis’s we have three choices.
1. Liar: Jesus knew he wasn’t God, but he said he was;
2. Lunatic: Jesus thought he was God, but he actually wasn’t;
3. Lord: Jesus was who he said he was—God come in the flesh.

Bart Ehrman. This is how he responds to C. S. Lewis’s argument:
Jesus probably never called himself God…. This means that he doesn’t have to be either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. He could be a first-century Palestinian Jew who had a message to proclaim other than his own divinity.

There are two occasions on which Jesus is almost stoned to death because of who he claims to be:
The Jews said to him, “…Are you greater than our father Abraham, who died?…Who do you claim to be?”…Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they took up stones to throw at him. (John 8:52, 53, 58-59)
[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?” The Jews answered him, “We stone you for no good work but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.” (John 10:30-33)