God exists, and I Can Prove It.

Author: YouFound_Lxam

Posts

Total: 531
#241
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Yassine
Axioms are circular.  They are self serving premises for any kind of evidence.  Reason is an axiom.  How do we know? Because we can reason our way to it.  Experience is an axiom. How do we know? Because our experience tells us so. 

These are the basic tenants of understanding truth. The bible is another - or revelation. How do we know revelation is truth - revelation has revealed it. 

Your argument above against revelation was based in reason. Reason is your axiom. Good for you. But it is not mine.  


#242
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,436
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Stephen
 Why is it you are so desperate to get rid of me?

Sound like more victimhood to me. 
wow - that old chest nut again.  you really are so predictable.  



What are you scared about?    

On the contrary. I believe it just maybe you that are worried that some here just might start taking on board what I am actually saying about your scriptures and find out for themselves if or not that my take on the New Testamant story of Jesus  is more plausible than the myth that you have been regurgitating and adding to for over the last two thousand years. 
You don't even have to read what I have to say concerning these unreliable and ambiguous half told stories that makeup the four contradictory gospels.  . It should be of no interest to you whatsoever. After all, you are the one that knows better than any - "drug addled kiddy fiddling#33" -  atheist, aren't you?
Is the bible a religious book, Tradesecret? Or just another history book to you?
Are you a drug addled kiddy fiddler?  Certainly you are a stalker.  

what makes a book religious? The bible contains history but it is not a history book. It contains wisdom but it is not wisdom textbook.   I don't particularly care what lies you make up about the bible - thankfully most people are able to reason for themselves and determine whether or not what you blabber on about is plausible or not.  The fact is the conclusions I draw from the bible - others do as well. The conclusions you draw - are yours alone. And even that is being generous to you, since you didn't conclude them yourself - you just read a book and borrowed them.   

Have you ever had an original thought?  I doubt it.  

As for reading your words, I concede I can't be bothered most of the time. Every now and then I check through a few posts. But given what you write most of the time is old - and refuted already.   There is nothing new under the sun - someone said.  (I anticipate your next line will be something like - "Tradesecret - I have to tell you again - since you don't know the bible even though you say you have memorised it from a young age" it's in the bible." and then you will probably refer to me to Ecclesiastes.  But you know what - since I said - "someone said", you will make the assumption I don't know where it comes from. And then you will assume that I should have known it came from the bible - but I didn't because somehow I am a liar.  )  

Predictable is what you are.

 




#243
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@Tradesecret
Axioms are circular.
- No they are not. A circular belief is such that its justification rests on itself. The belief in axioms do not rest on the belief in axioms. We know our innate axiomatic knowledge must be justified elsewhere other than axiomatic knowledge, namely it rests on the mind, & ultimately God.


They are self serving premises for any kind of evidence.  Reason is an axiom.  How do we know? Because we can reason our way to it. Experience is an axiom. How do we know? Because our experience tells us so. 
- I don't think the word means what you think it means...


These are the basic tenants of understanding truth. The bible is another - or revelation. How do we know revelation is truth - revelation has revealed it. 
- The way to know Axioms is to attempt denying them, which is impossible. You will not be able to perceive a contradiction, say a square circle, no matter how much you try. You will not be able to perceive black when you see white no matter how much you try. This isn't the case for the Bible. 


Your argument above against revelation was based in reason. Reason is your axiom. Good for you. But it is not mine.  
- You're still using Reason to perceive Revelation. In fact you're talking to me here about Revelation with your Reason, claiming that Revelation is talking to you, again to your Reason.


Topic's author
#244
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Yassine
- I thought this was about proving God is Jesus. So, how do you prove that the god of the Bible is God, the Creator of the Universe?
Well, ok. Lets assume that there was no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that there is also no evidence of anything supernatural that happened in the bible.

Look at it like this. There is all of this evidence, that Jesus' walked the earth, was a real man, etc. 

Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false historically. In fact a lot of it has been proven true historically. 

So we know that there was a man named Jesus, who walked the Earth, and died. Then shortly after, a sudden new religion pops up, confronting the Jewish Church, and ends up bringing millions of people to Jesus. 

Lets assume that is all the evidence we have.

We already know that the universe had to of had a creator. I have just proved that the universe must of been created by some sort of higher being. 
So let's use the process of elimination for some other religions.

Christianity: A lot of evidence proving that it was telling the truth historically. Hasn't been ever truly contradicted. 

Islam: Actually backs up Christianity more. Muhammad actually believe it or not backed up the claims of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, from the Bible.
All it claims was that an angel came down and said something to Muhammad. Nothing more. 

Buddhism: Actually Buddhists don't believe in a deity or god. Therefore, we have already proven that there has to be a higher being, we can eliminate this one.

Hinduism: This a religion/way of life, that the origin, is culture. No evidence of their Gods to be true.

And these are just the religion's that are the most popular. 

Conclusion: There is more factual evidence of the Bible's truth, than any other religion, and proof of a higher being has also been proven. 
Therefore, God/Yahweh, must be the one true God.

 You can't prove that claim... it doesn't matter either way. The issue is elsewhere.
It did occur. Use my resources as evidence.

- At most you can say it was truth to them. People die for what they believe to be true all the time, doesn't necessarily mean what they believe in is actually True. Otherwise we would have to believe all beliefs defended by people who died for them. Do you believe in Islam given that, similarily, many of the beloved Prophet (pbuh) companions were tortured & killed & enslaved & maimed & starved...etc for believing in it?
Difference is, Islamic people were hunted down and killed for their beliefs.
Christians (especially the disciples) went out of there way to preach, even though they knew death was coming.

- At least I know a whole lot more about your faith than you do. Thnetopsychism is an ancient Christian doctrine which is also mainstream today. Contrary to what you think, the immortality of the soul originates not in the Bible but in Greek Philosophy. 
Well that could be true. There are a lot of different denominations of Christians, who all are right, but don't agree on little minute details. Personally, I don't agree that the different denominations should be split up, given that we all believe the same basic things. 

And no you don't know more about my faith than I do. You have countlessly misinterpreted the scripture, and don't understand basic Christian thinking, in a way that I do. 


 This is a self-contradiction. You're saying God is God & not God at the same time. It's nonsense.
This is one of the Christian beliefs that doesn't have factual evidence backing it up (except for in the Bible), but it basically goes like this:

There is God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Ghost (The Holy Spirit).
They are all at the same time, one being, and three different beings. 

God the Father, sent his son, Jesus (God the Son) down to earth to save us. 

For example, Jesus is just as much as God, and God the Father is, but also is different from him. 

God is a being who we will never really fully comprehend. That is why it is so fascinating to study him in the Bible.








#245
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

That is why the Pharisees got him killed, using Judas (one of Jesus disciples) to hand him over to Constantine.

Constantine!?  So Pontius Pilate was named Constantine. Or was Caiaphas also named Constantine?  I see. 
Maybe Constantine was named Caiaphas Pilate?


He was not sinning, he was listening to what God told him to do, not what man told him to do.

Well, is all we ever hear Jesus say are the words " for it is written"  but he never gets around to telling us where it is actually written.



JESUS SAID!
“I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”Matthew 15:24

(John 1:11–12).
Yes. And?  Many of the Jews rejected him. The people of Jerusalem didn't even know who he was. The Samaritans rejected him altogether because he only has his eyes on the prize...Jerusalem.

There is nothing there in John 1:11–12 that states that there were Christians in Jesus' time or that he preached to the "Goy ". 


The Jewish people rejected Jesus as the one who will free the Jews. I am not taking about Jewish traditions, I am talking about the Christian faith.

And that is your mistake when talking about Jesus the JEW!

I won't be going into early Christianity with you because you know not you Constantine from your Pilate. Or your scriptures.



#246
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you a drug addled kiddy fiddler?

Not at all, but according to you:

Tradesecret wrote: "Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead.  Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian......Most of them don't think very much....."

 Very hypocritical things to say about those people considering your own self  confessed "sexual deviancy" and "sexual experimentation" and sexual perversions and experience. Shouldn't you be helping and advising them instead of ridiculing them? they are "lost sheep" after all.

And then immediately go into how great you are and above everyone else  AGAIN;

 Tradesecret wrote: "I took several years to learn the ancient languages so that I could read it myself.  I learned all about the ancient cultures so that I could understand as best I could how they lived back in those times so that I could best understand what the authors are saying.  I trained with people from all different religions and non-religions in order to make sure that I could best understand these cultures and languages."


You just keep those tall tales and ripping yarns  about yourself, coming, Reverend. The place wouldn't be the same without them.


  I don't particularly care what lies you make up about the bible -

What lies would they be?


 But given what you write most of the time is old - and refuted already. 

Just not by you.

  Your  are the proven bible dunce that is incapable of even conjuring an original thought. I will though give you acclaim and accreditation for the very colourful imagined past that you have invented for yourself, Reverend, that doesn't know he's a Reverend.


what makes a book religious?

I asked you is the bible a religious book? 


#247
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
People still followed Jesus's teachings, before it, but the church itself, and Christianity, followed after his death.
exactly -- so before his death, Christianity wasn't a thing. His status of sin was measured by his actual religion, Judaism, making the religion he founded false.

In the Judaist religion, it might have been a sin, but just because something is proclaimed as a sin, doesn't mean it really is one. 
Except that God, in his text of the bible, says it is a sin.

Jesus followed what God said was right, because he was God. What man called sin meant nothing to him, because he was the judge of sin.
God said sin was right? No, Jesus might have invented things to justify his actions, but what he did was against what God said and, as you concede, was in Jesus' own actual birth-religion, a sin.

yes....and? Man makes many laws that don't abide by the Bibles teachings. Therefore, law made by man isn't always the correct thing to do.
But if the bible says to abide by them (and your "yes...and" concedes this point) then following those laws IS the right thing to do and therefore Jesus was wrong.

You need to understand, those sinful activities, only took place in the eyes of a different religion. Not Christian faith. 
You admitted that there was no Christian faith until Jesus died, so those were sinful activities according to the relevant religion at the time.

He didn't. The Demons asked to be thrown among the pigs. The demons could have left, and the pigs would have stayed. 
Not Jesus's fault, the Demons fault.
If the demons could have left on their own, then Jesus' decision to move them out was purely his decision and its impact on the pigs and their loss is on him. Sin.

Again, I am not accusing you of doing said thing. I am saying if you are going to use that argument, then you are contradicting yourself. 
So, if not for that reason, then why?
If you are trying to prove that the earth is shaped like a burrito then you are failing. Otherwise, why say what you say?

Maybe next time read a bit further. 
I have and nothing you quoted contradicts what I quoted. While there was a problem with the actions of the Pharisees, what they taught (which was Judaism) was to be followed. That makes the laws, even in Jesus' eyes, binding and so Jesus was, by his own instruction, sinful.


#248
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Well, ok. Lets assume that there was no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus, and that there is also no evidence of anything supernatural that happened in the bible.
- Let's assume the beloved Jesus (pbuh) was resurrected & everything about the Bible is supernatural. How do you go from there to  the beloved Jesus (pbuh) is God? 


Look at it like this. There is all of this evidence, that Jesus' walked the earth, was a real man, etc. 
Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven false historically. In fact a lot of it has been proven true historically. 
- You're contradicting yourself. You  just started with the assumption that there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus (pbuh) & all things supernatural in the Bible. Also, a lot of things in the Bible are historically or factually false. In fact, there are often inconsistencies in the different versions of the same stories in the Bible, including everything about the supposed resurrection: when he was crucified, how he was crucified, how the empty tomb was found, who found it, how many days after, the day of the event...etc. – For the sake argument, let's assume you're right. We'll see where this goes.


So we know that there was a man named Jesus, who walked the Earth, and died. Then shortly after, a sudden new religion pops up, confronting the Jewish Church, and ends up bringing millions of people to Jesus. 
Lets assume that is all the evidence we have.
- Alright.

We already know that the universe had to of had a creator. I have just proved that the universe must of been created by some sort of higher being. 
So let's use the process of elimination for some other religions.
- Process of elimination is valid only by exhaustion, when you exhaust all possible options, then disprove all but one. The sum of all religious claims to God are not exhaustive. If all religions but one are wrong, it does not necessarily entail that the one is right. This is a false dilemma fallacy.


Christianity: A lot of evidence proving that it was telling the truth historically. Hasn't been ever truly contradicted. 
- Being accurate in some instances doesn't necessarily entail being accurate in all instance. That's a false generalization. & it is contradicted by all other claims & worldviews. If you mean it hasn't been truly proven false. You have to specify exactly what you're referring to. Some Christian doctrines, like the Trinity for instance, are strictly False. A being can not be necessary & contingent at the same time, & a thing can not be 3 & 1 at the same time. 


Islam: Actually backs up Christianity more. Muhammad actually believe it or not backed up the claims of Adam, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, from the Bible.
All it claims was that an angel came down and said something to Muhammad. Nothing more. 
- This is not true. It can not be that Islam backs Christianity when these are making mutually exclusive doctrinal claims. You are misassuming the fact that the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) confirmed the prophethood of Biblical prophets -that they have received revelation, as a confirmation of claims made by or beliefs adopted by Christians (or Jews) about these beloved prophets & their revelation. In effect, the Bible -supposedly- says God is Triune, the Quran says God is One. 


Buddhism: Actually Buddhists don't believe in a deity or god. Therefore, we have already proven that there has to be a higher being, we can eliminate this one.
- This isn't true either. All Buddhist schools believe in God, as a higher being or ultimate reality, although they differ whether this ultimate reality is purely transcendent or also immanent. The former position is often confused for disbelief in God, rather than disbelief in a personal god. 


Hinduism: This a religion/way of life, that the origin, is culture. No evidence of their Gods to be true.
- Brahman. If you want to do a process of elimination, you must at least correctly represent those you're eliminating. Knocking down straw men means the opponent is still standing. 


And these are just the religion's that are the most popular. 
- A process of elimination must at least include all views & claims relating to God, including other non-mainstream religions, ideologies, philosophies.


Conclusion: There is more factual evidence of the Bible's truth, than any other religion, and proof of a higher being has also been proven. 
- Where is the factual evidence? & what justifies this is more factual than any other religion?


Therefore, God/Yahweh, must be the one true God.
- The Jews believe that, you don't. Where does the Trinity fit into this?


Difference is, Islamic people were hunted down and killed for their beliefs. Christians (especially the disciples) went out of there way to preach, even though they knew death was coming.
- Distinction without difference. The act of preaching is not the reason why you associate the true belief of the disciples, rather it's their resolve in face of adversity.  


Well that could be true. There are a lot of different denominations of Christians, who all are right, but don't agree on little minute details. Personally, I don't agree that the different denominations should be split up, given that we all believe the same basic things. 
- & you are adding to that split by disagreeing about the split. People disagree, it's what they do.


And no you don't know more about my faith than I do. You have countlessly misinterpreted the scripture, and don't understand basic Christian thinking, in a way that I do. 
- I definitely have more information about your faith, but I am sure you are more connected with it as you're experiencing it in a way I am not, since I don't adhere to it. 


This is one of the Christian beliefs that doesn't have factual evidence backing it up (except for in the Bible), but it basically goes like this:
- There is no mention of the Trinity in the Bible. It's a conjecture inferred by some Christian denominations, especially the later ones.


There is God the Father (God), God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Ghost (The Holy Spirit).
They are all at the same time, one being, and three different beings. 
- This is like believing in a married bachelor. It's not possible.


God the Father, sent his son, Jesus (God the Son) down to earth to save us. 
- That makes the beloved Jesus (pbuh) a messenger of God, by definition.


For example, Jesus is just as much as God, and God the Father is, but also is different from him. 
- So they are identical but different? That's nonsense. A thing can not be itself & also other than itself.


God is a being who we will never really fully comprehend. That is why it is so fascinating to study him in the Bible.
- God is beyond comprehension, by definition, for God is the necessary being, thus not contingent on our understanding of him. We are not talking about the true nature & self of God here, for that's beyond us, we are talking about our own beliefs in God. In that sense, your beliefs in God so far have prove totally nonsensical.







Topic's author
#249
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Stephen
Well, is all we ever hear Jesus say are the words " for it is written"  but he never gets around to telling us where it is actually written.
.....in the bible.

Yes. And?  Many of the Jews rejected him. The people of Jerusalem didn't even know who he was. The Samaritans rejected him altogether because he only has his eyes on the prize...Jerusalem.

There is nothing there in John 1:11–12 that states that there were Christians in Jesus' time or that he preached to the "Goy ". 
Christianity, was not named as a religion before, Jesus came to earth, but it still was a religion/belief. Although it was not called Christianity, it was still a thing.

Let me explain.

Before Jesus came down to earth, Jerusalem was one of the only countries in the world to have stayed loyal to his scripture. So he sent his son down to Earth originally to free the Jews. But when Jesus came down, and the Pharisees rejected him, as well as most of the Jewish community, God decided to instead give his gift of sacrifice to all men. The reason the Pharisees rejected him, was because they were very corrupt, and the didn't want Jesus convincing the people to stop giving them money for their sins.

And that is your mistake when talking about Jesus the JEW!

I won't be going into early Christianity with you because you know not you Constantine from your Pilate. Or your scriptures.
Well no. Jesus was not a Jew. He was God. Therefore, Jesus wasn't in part of any religion, because he was God. Jesus was born of Middle Eastern descent.

And well if you don't want to get into it, I understand. Hopefully you get to read the Bible more. 





Topic's author
#250
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@rosends
exactly -- so before his death, Christianity wasn't a thing. His status of sin was measured by his actual religion, Judaism, making the religion he founded false.
I already explained this to Stephen. 

Except that God, in his text of the bible, says it is a sin.
Uhhhh.....no.

God said sin was right? No, Jesus might have invented things to justify his actions, but what he did was against what God said and, as you concede, was in Jesus' own actual birth-religion, a sin.
He, was God.

If the demons could have left on their own, then Jesus' decision to move them out was purely his decision and its impact on the pigs and their loss is on him. Sin.
So, throwing out, sinful spirits (demons) is a sin.
You should probably do more research buddy.

#251
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, throwing out, sinful spirits (demons) is a sin.
You should probably do more research buddy.

You should read more carefully. Causing loss to the owners is the sin. If the demons could have left on their own then the choice to sin was all Jesus.
Topic's author
#252
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@Yassine
- Let's assume the beloved Jesus (pbuh) was resurrected & everything about the Bible is supernatural. How do you go from there to  the beloved Jesus (pbuh) is God?
.......because he was resurrected......and the Holy Scriptures say it all happened. So if we assume that he did, because he did, then the Bible would be proven true, therefore everything in the Bible would have to be true.

- Process of elimination is valid only by exhaustion, when you exhaust all possible options, then disprove all but one. The sum of all religious claims to God are not exhaustive. If all religions but one are wrong, it does not necessarily entail that the one is right. This is a false dilemma fallacy.
Well how else would we prove it. This is the most valid way. If there was some other deity, that created the universe, then it probably would of shown itself by now.

- Being accurate in some instances doesn't necessarily entail being accurate in all instance. That's a false generalization. & it is contradicted by all other claims & worldviews. If you mean it hasn't been truly proven false. You have to specify exactly what you're referring to. Some Christian doctrines, like the Trinity for instance, are strictly False. A being can not be necessary & contingent at the same time, & a thing can not be 3 & 1 at the same time. 
Yes it does. To say you can't prove something, then means you have to disprove it. No one has disproved the Bible, therefore it is safe to assume the opposite.

Yes a thing can be 3 & 1 at the same time.
Evidence:
The Bible, which has proven to be true.

- This is not true. It can not be that Islam backs Christianity when these are making mutually exclusive doctrinal claims. You are misassuming the fact that the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) confirmed the prophethood of Biblical prophets -that they have received revelation, as a confirmation of claims made by or beliefs adopted by Christians (or Jews) about these beloved prophets & their revelation. In effect, the Bible -supposedly- says God is Triune, the Quran says God is One. 
No, the bible says God is one.
There is only one God.
But within God is the Trinity.

- This is not true. It can not be that Islam backs Christianity when these are making mutually exclusive doctrinal claims. You are misassuming the fact that the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) confirmed the prophethood of Biblical prophets -that they have received revelation, as a confirmation of claims made by or beliefs adopted by Christians (or Jews) about these beloved prophets & their revelation. In effect, the Bible -supposedly- says God is Triune, the Quran says God is One. 
Because of the overwhelming amount of proof the Bible offers, and the very little, to none other religions offer.

 I definitely have more information about your faith, but I am sure you are more connected with it as you're experiencing it in a way I am not, since I don't adhere to it. 
No you don't.

- There is no mention of the Trinity in the Bible. It's a conjecture inferred by some Christian denominations, especially the later ones.
"Although there are various hints at God’s Trinitarian existence in the Old Testament, we do not get a full-orbed revelation of the Trinity until the New Testament. John 1:1–18, for example, is a clear teaching on the deity of Christ, the Word who in the beginning was God and was with God. There are also texts wherein the three persons are so closely associated so as to imply that all three are fully divine (for example, 2 Cor. 13:14). Clearly, the Bible assumes and teaches that God is triune.
Coram Deo
The Trinity is a doctrine that we cannot fully understand, although there is much we can say. But we need not fully understand it in order to affirm it. It is taught in God’s Word, and we are responsible to believe what God’s Word teaches even when complete comprehension escapes us."

- That makes the beloved Jesus (pbuh) a messenger of God, by definition.
No Jesus is God. And he was fully man. Yes you are right in a way. He came down to spread the message. Therefore by definition he was a messenger. But he still was God.


Topic's author
#253
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
You should read more carefully. Causing loss to the owners is the sin. If the demons could have left on their own then the choice to sin was all Jesus.
It is not a sin, because Jesus cast the demons into the pigs. The demons was the acting force that drove the pigs down hill to their deaths. Jesus simply did what the demons pled him to do. 

You obviously can't grasp this concept. 
#254
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Jesus cast the demons into the pigs
So Jesus did the act which led to the loss of the pigs. Thanks for confirming it.
Topic's author
#255
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
So Jesus did the act which led to the loss of the pigs. Thanks for confirming it.
Well I tried to explain it to you, but you are just so defiant in hearing truth.
#256
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

.
YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool of this Religion Forum,

THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION TOLD BY JESUS IN THE "FIRST PERSON":  ”But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

When Jesus specifically stated the above statement, why did He "wussy out" and didn't bring forth His enemies Himself to slay before Him, as it is Jesus' position to do so in the first place in the following passage: JESUS SAID: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”(Romans 12:19)

YouFound_Lxam, address this contradicting situation shown above for us.  

YOU MAY BEGIN:

.



#257
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes. And?  Many of the Jews rejected him. The people of Jerusalem didn't even know who he was. The Samaritans rejected him altogether because he only has his eyes on the prize...Jerusalem.

There is nothing there in John 1:11–12 that states that there were Christians in Jesus' time or that he preached to the "Goy ". 
Christianity, was not named as a religion before, Jesus came to earth,

I know. It came centuries after Jesus lived and not while he was here. Hence no Christians OR CHRISTIANITY in Jesus' time. In fact , the words Christian  or Christianity are extremely rare words in the NT only three times if I remember correctly. And neither words are mentioned at all in the 4 gospels.



Let me explain.

Before Jesus came down to earth, Jerusalem was one of the only countries in the world to have stayed loyal to his scripture.

So Jerusalem was a country, was it?



So he sent his son down to Earth originally to free the Jews.

ONLY to free the Jews.


But when Jesus came down, and the Pharisees rejected him, as well as most of the Jewish community, God decided to instead give his gift of sacrifice to all men.
And Jesus knew all about this change of plan did, he?


The reason the Pharisees rejected him, was because they were very corrupt, and the didn't want Jesus convincing the people to stop giving them money for their sins..

Jesus wasn't accepted for many reasons and by almost everyone except the Zealots and the Galileans.. And even many of them rejected him towards the end.  And maybe they were right to do so, he didn't fulfil a single prophesy of the expected messiah. And he didn't get a sniff of the throne of David as was promised to his mother the   most "blessed among women" Mary.


And that is your mistake when talking about Jesus the JEW!

I won't be going into early Christianity with you because you know not you Constantine from your Pilate. Or your scriptures.
Well no. Jesus was not a Jew.

Stop it FFS!!!



He was God.

 You haven't even proven there is a god yet.


Therefore, Jesus wasn't in part of any religion, because he was God.
But a whole religion was created in his name. As I said three time now,  Jesus would have been appalled that a religion was created in his name.


Jesus was born of Middle Eastern descent.

 Yes to Jews,  in the land of the Jews. You will be looking a long time to find a single scholar to agree that Jesus was not a Jew. But please, knock yourself out.


Hopefully you get to read the Bible more.
And you should start reading it.

#258
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

.
YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool of this Religion Forum,

THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION TOLD BY JESUS: ”But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

YOUR RESPONSE TO OUR BRUTAL SERIAL KILLER JESUS IN BEING GOD TO THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION ABOVE: "Jesus in fact did say that. But he didn't claim that. He was telling a story, therefore saying those words, but not claiming those words. He was in fact a narrator in the parable. Saying that Jesus said that, would be like saying a narrator, who narrates," I killed a man" actually killed a man".

Good boy, you remedied your Bible ignorance in now saying that Jesus DID say the statement in question above, where before you said He didn't! DUH! LOL!

JESUS SAID IN THE "FIRST PERSON:" "Bring hither, and slay them before me!"  He couldn't help but to CLAIM in what He said, because He said it! GET IT?  Furthermore, parable or not, Jesus said to bring His enemies that do not want Him to reign over Him, and slay them before "ME," key word, "ME," which is Jesus! Therefore, your insidious notion of Jesus "not claiming those words of action to Him " falls flat upon its ass, understood Bible fool? 


Now, is Jesus still without sin when He ordered that His enemies should be MURDERED in front of Him and letting others do it  for Him? NO HE IS NOT, because it was sinful of Jesus to state this passage in the first place, where He is an accomplice and/or an accessory to MURDER which is sinful, and where Jesus contradicts is own inspired words in this passage towards others to do His dirty work in killing said enemies: “You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Your honor, my client Steve Smith said to his friends to bring his enemy Joe Blow in front of him, and murder him on the spot, would Steve Smith still be considered an accomplice and/or an accessory to murder?"

JUDGE: YES!

OUTCOME: Jesus SINNED in making said statement and therefore not without sin, went against Exodus 20:13, and shows our serial killer Jesus as not ever loving and forgiving like the Bible erroneously states, period!


NEXT BIBLE FOOL REWRITER LIKE "YOU FOUND_LXAM" TO UNGODLY CHANGE THE LITERAL WORDS BY JESUS, WILL BE ...?

.


#259
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool of this Religion Forum,

THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION TOLD BY JESUS IN THE "FIRST PERSON":  ”But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

When Jesus specifically stated the above statement, why did He "wussy out" and didn't bring forth His enemies Himself to slay before Him, as it is Jesus' position to do so in the first place in the following passage: JESUS SAID: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”(Romans 12:19)

YouFound_Lxam, address this contradicting situation shown above for us.  

YOU MAY BEGIN:

A very good question, Brother D. I am quite looking forward to a rational and reasoned answer.

#260
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,615
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you a drug addled kiddy fiddler?

Not at all, but according to you:

Tradesecret wrote: "Most atheists I know are impractical and airhead.  Many end up in prison, for theft and sex related crimes, mostly kiddie crime. Many commit suicide and or are on drugs and alcohol. Not too many get married, or if they do - are on to their 4 or 4th marriage. Many are gay or lesbian......Most of them don't think very much....."

 Very hypocritical things to say about those people considering your own self  confessed "sexual deviancy" and "sexual experimentation" and sexual perversions and experience. Shouldn't you be helping and advising them instead of ridiculing them? they are "lost sheep" after all.

And then immediately go into how great you are and above everyone else  AGAIN;

 Tradesecret wrote: "I took several years to learn the ancient languages so that I could read it myself.  I learned all about the ancient cultures so that I could understand as best I could how they lived back in those times so that I could best understand what the authors are saying.  I trained with people from all different religions and non-religions in order to make sure that I could best understand these cultures and languages."


You just keep those tall tales and ripping yarns  about yourself, coming, Reverend. The place wouldn't be the same without them.


  I don't particularly care what lies you make up about the bible -

What lies would they be?


 But given what you write most of the time is old - and refuted already. 

Just not by you.

  Your  are the proven bible dunce that is incapable of even conjuring an original thought. I will though give you acclaim and accreditation for the very colourful imagined past that you have invented for yourself, Reverend, that doesn't know he's a Reverend.


what makes a book religious?

I asked you is the bible a religious book? 



#261
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@YouFound_Lxam


YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool within this religion forum,


AGAIN, you have not addressed the third portion of my post #36 as shown below that I have reminded you now for 3 times!  https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/359759 

Again, did you go to Miss Dr. Tradesecret's school of "How to run away from disturbing biblical axioms, and then to "try" and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath?"   What did she charge you? How long were her classes?  Did you have to pay in cash for her services? You obviously got a good grade!


YOUR EMBARRASSING COMEDY OF ERRORS CONTINUES WITH THIS QUOTE:  "With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." that for God, it was 7 days, but for the human interpretation of it, science explains what it looked like for us. God created all of it, but we witnessed it in a different way than he did.” 

REVISED:

1.  First thing Bible fool, creation was 6 DAYS, because Jesus as our serial killer God RESTED upon the 7th day, where you have the audacity to now say a day is a thousand years with the Creation Story, therefore God rested for a 1000 years on the 7th day????  Understood Bible inept fool? LOL!

2.  Secondly, which contradicting Creation narrative are you referring to, Genesis 1 or 2?  

3. Thirdly, even if you use your out of context "Day Age Theory," that only takes 7000 years off of the total time of the earth and universe existing between Adam and the present time, which is now facetiously 13,000 years, as I have shown you in the chronological order from Adam to Jesus, and Jesus to the present day, which goes directly against the dinosaurs existing 66 million years ago, GET IT? 

4. Then if you haven't removed one foot to insert the other in your comical presentation, you state that "we" actually witnessed the Creation narrative as you have shown in your quote above! Huh? LOL!  EXPLAIN:

.


Topic's author
#262
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
.
YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool of this Religion Forum,

THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION TOLD BY JESUS: ”But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

YOUR RESPONSE TO OUR BRUTAL SERIAL KILLER JESUS IN BEING GOD TO THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION ABOVE: "Jesus in fact did say that. But he didn't claim that. He was telling a story, therefore saying those words, but not claiming those words. He was in fact a narrator in the parable. Saying that Jesus said that, would be like saying a narrator, who narrates," I killed a man" actually killed a man".

Good boy, you remedied your Bible ignorance in now saying that Jesus DID say the statement in question above, where before you said He didn't! DUH! LOL!

JESUS SAID IN THE "FIRST PERSON:" "Bring hither, and slay them before me!"  He couldn't help but to CLAIM in what He said, because He said it! GET IT?  Furthermore, parable or not, Jesus said to bring His enemies that do not want Him to reign over Him, and slay them before "ME," key word, "ME," which is Jesus! Therefore, your insidious notion of Jesus "not claiming those words of action to Him " falls flat upon its ass, understood Bible fool? 
So you are claiming that the narrator of the story, is the one commiting the sin?
Again Jesus said this, but he said it as the narrator.

DEFENSE ATTORNEY: "Your honor, my client Steve Smith said to his friends to bring his enemy Joe Blow in front of him, and murder him on the spot, would Steve Smith still be considered an accomplice and/or an accessory to murder?"

JUDGE: YES!

OUTCOME: Jesus SINNED in making said statement and therefore not without sin, went against Exodus 20:13, and shows our serial killer Jesus as not ever loving and forgiving like the Bible erroneously states, period!
And as always, your comments are more amusing to me, than hurtful. I actually find them really funny. It puts a smile on my face.

THE STATEMENT IN QUESTION TOLD BY JESUS IN THE "FIRST PERSON":  ”But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.” (Luke 19:27)

When Jesus specifically stated the above statement, why did He "wussy out" and didn't bring forth His enemies Himself to slay before Him, as it is Jesus' position to do so in the first place in the following passage: JESUS SAID: "Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”(Romans 12:19)

YouFound_Lxam, address this contradicting situation shown above for us.  

YOU MAY BEGIN:
Well I actually have already answered this, by saying the Jesus was the narrator in that parable, and he said that as the narrator.

So, how long are you going to be running away from my post #23 where the Bible states with specificity that the earth as it is now, and the universe, is approximately 6000 years old?  Are you that SCARED and NERVOUS to address it in front of the membership?  Do you need help from another Bible fool equal to you? Explain your RUNAWAY status!  BEGIN:
No it doesn't state this. That is why I haven't answered this question.

1.  First thing Bible fool, creation was 6 DAYS, because Jesus as our serial killer God RESTED upon the 7th day, where you have the audacity to now say a day is a thousand years with the Creation Story, therefore God rested for a 1000 years on the 7th day????  Understood Bible inept fool? LOL!
Yes the creation story was interpreted as 6 days, but the whole creation story took place in 7 including the day God rested.

2.  Secondly, which contradicting Creation narrative are you referring to, Genesis 1 or 2?  
Both....because it's the same creation story....

3. Thirdly, even if you use your out of context "Day Age Theory," that only takes 7000 years off of the total time of the earth and universe existing between Adam and the present time, which is now facetiously 13,000 years, as I have shown you in the chronological order from Adam to Jesus, and Jesus to the present day, which goes directly against the dinosaurs existing 66 million years ago, GET IT? 
I have already answered this question multiple times, to multiple people. "get it?"

4. Then if you haven't removed one foot to insert the other in your comical presentation, you state that "we" actually witnessed the Creation narrative as you have shown in your quote above! Huh? LOL!  EXPLAIN:
No, we didn't. Where did you get that presumption.


#263
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@rosends
I have enjoyed the exchange between you and YouFound_Lxam. It has been very interesting. 
#264
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam


.
YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool upon this religion forum,


YOUR DUMBFOUNDED QUOTE AGAIN IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP!: "So you are claiming that the narrator of the story, is the one commiting the sin?
Again Jesus said this, but he said it as the narrator."

HELLO?!  What part of this biblical axiom don't you understand?: "Jesus said to bring His enemies that do not want Him to reign over Him, and slay them before "ME," key word, "ME," which is Jesus!  GET IT BIBLE FOOL?  Therefore, your insidious notion of Jesus now being a "narrator," where before you tried in vain to say he was just the "commentator" of said verse. Nonetheless, your Bible ignorance  falls flat upon its ass because Jesus is referring to Himself within said Luke 19:26-28 passage as God when He returns as shown in the book of Revelation where Jesus will bloody murder and burn His creation that don't want him to reign over them! HELLO!

 Learn the Bible before you remove one foot to insert the other all the time!  Like it was said before, your reading comprehension goes severely wanting!

PLEASE do this Religion Forum a favor, and yourself as well, take heed of the following link where to save yourself from any further embarrassment within this Religion Forum, take the READING COMPREHENSION" class offered post haste, understood? We thank you in advance.

.




Topic's author
#265
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
Well you have the right to believe that is what he said. 
But all in all, you are just repeating yourself, and you are not taking my arguments literally, because you know your wrong.

People use the word ME while narrating a lot. It's called narrating dialogue in a story.

Maybe you should talk to God more, or read the bible more before you claim certain things, that are undeniably true. 

Everyone else has moved on from this verse, why don't you?
#266
Yassine
Yassine's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 1,085
3
2
6
Yassine's avatar
Yassine
3
2
6
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
.......because he was resurrected......and the Holy Scriptures say it all happened. So if we assume that he did, because he did, then the Bible would be proven true, therefore everything in the Bible would have to be true.
- First of all, the truth of some doesn't necessarily imply the truth of all. False generalization. Second of all, even if we assume everything in the Bible is true, that still doesn't entail Jesus (pbuh) is God. It is metaphysically impossible for Jesus (pbuh) to be God to begin with, the same way a square circle is impossible. A necessary being can not also be a contingent being. What you're saying is God is not-God. This is absurd.


Well how else would we prove it. This is the most valid way. If there was some other deity, that created the universe, then it probably would of shown itself by now.
- Probably, not certainly, indeed. If you can't find a valid way to prove it, that doesn't mean you can resort to fallacious ways. Just admit you can't prove it & move on. Also, there are ways to conclusively prove revelational claims, but these must first be true, else won't be provable. You can not prove a falsehood to be true.


Yes it does. To say you can't prove something, then means you have to disprove it. No one has disproved the Bible, therefore it is safe to assume the opposite.
- I just disproved the Trinity. There is no world in which the Trinity is true, the same way there is no world in which a square circle is true. 


Yes a thing can be 3 & 1 at the same time.
Evidence:
The Bible, which has proven to be true.
- Honestly, you can't be serious! You can not be this blind in faith. It's impossible for your mind to even believe that 3 & 1 are identical. Conceiving of words like "married bachelor" does not mean the concept of a married bachelor itself is conceivable or believable. Similarly, you're confusing your ability to conceive of the words "3 in 1" with the belief in the identity of the concept of 3 to the concept of 1. 


No, the bible says God is one.
There is only one God.
But within God is the Trinity.
- Case in point.


Because of the overwhelming amount of proof the Bible offers, and the very little, to none other religions offer.
- Don't be too sure. Maybe other religions do offer better proof, you don't know that. 


No you don't.
- I don't have to share with you everything I know to make my point. The knowledgeable is content with sharing what's necessary. 


"Although there are various hints at God’s Trinitarian existence in the Old Testament, we do not get a full-orbed revelation of the Trinity until the New Testament. John 1:1–18, for example, is a clear teaching on the deity of Christ, the Word who in the beginning was God and was with God. There are also texts wherein the three persons are so closely associated so as to imply that all three are fully divine (for example, 2 Cor. 13:14). Clearly, the Bible assumes and teaches that God is triune.
- Buddy, Christians themselves differ on the truth of the Trinity. The earlier Christians, in fact, had no such belief. Duality was also a belief that predates the Trinity. I don't have to tell you that the Trinity only became mainstream following the Counsel of Nicaea.  


Coram Deo
The Trinity is a doctrine that we cannot fully understand, although there is much we can say. But we need not fully understand it in order to affirm it. It is taught in God’s Word, and we are responsible to believe what God’s Word teaches even when complete comprehension escapes us."
- How can hold a belief you can't even conceive?! This is like believing in the doctrine of "*&#^$)Q&^%Q"?


No Jesus is God. And he was fully man. Yes you are right in a way. He came down to spread the message. Therefore by definition he was a messenger. But he still was God.
- Level with me here. Jesus (pbuh) is man right? So he is contingent on time & space right? Therefore, he is a contingent being. Therefore, not a necessary being. Therefore, not God. Right?
#267
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam

.
YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool upon this religion forum,

Addressing your complete lack of reading comprehension again in your totally embarrassing post #265,

YOUR FEEBLE QUOTE TO RUN FROM YOUR LACK OF READING COMPREHENSION:    "But all in all, you are just repeating yourself, and you are not taking my arguments literally, because you know your wrong."

No Bible fool, I have to repeat myself because you change what you said before ad infinitum in "trying" to correct yourself subsequent to me making you the continued Bible fool!  If you actually knew the Bible, of which you DO NOT, then you would have to agree that the said passage in Luke 19:26-28 is referring to Jesus' 2nd coming, but since you are Bible inept, you have to make yourself a fool in front of the membership upon this topic! LOL!

AGAIN, take this Reading Comprehension class listed in the link below so we don't have to watch you squirm around with your posts that you don't understand the foundation of in the first place!  https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm



.

#268
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Yassine
Yep, quite correct.

J was the son of Mary and a smooth-talking Semite not named Joe.

Clearly J took after his real dad.

He's still smooth-talking people into doing silly things, some two thousand years after his death.

Apparently, it was smooth-talking that got him into trouble and brought about his early demise.

Well, that's how I interpret things.
#269
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@YouFound_Lxam


.
YouFound_Lxam, the number 2 Bible fool upon this religion forum,


MY PREVIOUS POST TO YOU: "Then if you haven't removed one foot to insert the other in your comical presentation, you state that "we" actually witnessed the Creation narrative as you have shown in your quote above! Huh? LOL!  EXPLAIN:

YOUR PITIFUL READING COMPREHENSION QUOTE TO MY QUOTE ABOVE GOES WANTING AGAIN!: “No, we didn't. Where did you get that presumption.”


YOUR FEEBLE QUOTE RELATIVE TO THE CREATION STORY TO PROVE MY POINT:  “ .........  but for the human interpretation of it, science explains what it looked like for us. God created all of it, but we witnessed it in a different way than he did.”   https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/359631

Key phrase of your quote relative to the Creation Story shown above:  “but we witnessed" it in a different way than he did.” 

WITNESSED DEFINITION:  to see an event take place. "a bartender who witnessed the murder,” to be present at an event from personal observation.

Therefore, using the definition of “Witnessed,” that you used, then when you said  “We Witnessed” the Creation Story, you were comically and blatantly WRONG because we were not there at the time our serial killer Jesus, as God, did His 6 day creation!  Get it Bible fool? ROFLOL!


PLEASE AND SERIOUSLY, quit making yourself the Bible fool, therefore, take the READING COMPREHENSION class that I gave you before where the link is herewith: https://www.universalclass.com/i/course/reading-comprehension-101.htm
.
#270
BrotherD.Thomas
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,145
3
3
7
BrotherD.Thomas's avatar
BrotherD.Thomas
3
3
7
-->
@Stephen
@YouFound_Lxam




Stephen,

Again, is there a sign out front of DEBATEART where it says that if you are really Bible dumbfounded like YouFound_Lxam shows himself to be in his embarrassing thread, then you are more than welcome to visit the Religion Forum?

Are the moderators playing a trick upon us in letting these Bible fools come into this esteemed Religion Forum? LOL!
.