If you could ask Jesus one question?
09 January 2017, 07:23 PM
#31
Pointless asking, the Lord is all knowing and therefore already knows exactly what you are going to ask and will already have prepared a cryptic answer just to confound you.....the smug git!
09 January 2017, 07:48 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09 January 2017, 07:59 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 January 2017, 12:40 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would ask him to stop people on this site posting anything about religion.
Yet another boring diatribe from the self satisfied, smug, entrenched position,small-minded fundamentalists who revel in being holier-than-though.
Whatever you think about JC,I bet he had a more sophisticated sense of humour than any of them.
Yet another boring diatribe from the self satisfied, smug, entrenched position,small-minded fundamentalists who revel in being holier-than-though.
Whatever you think about JC,I bet he had a more sophisticated sense of humour than any of them.
10 January 2017, 01:34 PM
#39
I would ask him to stop people on this site posting anything about religion.
Yet another boring diatribe from the self satisfied, smug, entrenched position,small-minded fundamentalists who revel in being holier-than-though.
Whatever you think about JC,I bet he had a more sophisticated sense of humour than any of them.
Yet another boring diatribe from the self satisfied, smug, entrenched position,small-minded fundamentalists who revel in being holier-than-though.
Whatever you think about JC,I bet he had a more sophisticated sense of humour than any of them.
10 January 2017, 04:07 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: If you're not braking or accelerating you're wasting time.
Posts: 2,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 January 2017, 12:20 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 January 2017, 07:23 AM
#48
And would you still have told Billy Holiday the same joke back in the day when they were crucifying ******* and leaving them hanging as strange fruit? Or have the same giggle when IS crucify kids in Syria? The Jesus "joke" insults about half the world's population so what about a bit of respect to your fellow creatures.
David
David
Kinda sums up the mental state of believers this doesn't it.. take a joke and become offended for the sake of it.
JTaylor are you offended?
11 January 2017, 07:32 AM
#49
11 January 2017, 08:11 AM
#50
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home
Posts: 14,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Luke 23:34 reminds me of how Jesus reacted to His torturers and killers and mockers. I'm to emulate Him.
11 January 2017, 08:42 AM
#53
Scooby Regular
after all that's been written about the Christian wars all those yrs ago. If Jesus did actually exist, surely their would of been something written down to prove it.
11 January 2017, 08:43 AM
#54
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11 January 2017, 09:00 AM
#55
Scooby Regular
I don’t want to get to pedantic (he says before being pedantic)
But the concept of “proof” in these types of discussions is often misunderstood
So you can’t “prove” he did or didn’t exist in the same way you can’t prove evolution does or doesn’t exist or even the earth is older than 5000 years old
What you can say is “based a consilience of multiple lines of evidence “so and so” is more than likely true"
And on that definition I think the evidence suggest an historical person called Jesus did exist and so did at least some events as portrayed in the bible – The King Herod census etc
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
But the concept of “proof” in these types of discussions is often misunderstood
So you can’t “prove” he did or didn’t exist in the same way you can’t prove evolution does or doesn’t exist or even the earth is older than 5000 years old
What you can say is “based a consilience of multiple lines of evidence “so and so” is more than likely true"
And on that definition I think the evidence suggest an historical person called Jesus did exist and so did at least some events as portrayed in the bible – The King Herod census etc
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
Last edited by hodgy0_2; 11 January 2017 at 09:04 AM.
11 January 2017, 09:06 AM
#56
Scooby Regular
I can see your point in that sense. If he did exist he was probably just a prophet or someone that people looked up to. But I can't believe that he had healing powers or the power to heal by just touching someone.
11 January 2017, 09:41 AM
#57
I don’t want to get to pedantic (he says before being pedantic)
But the concept of “proof” in these types of discussions is often misunderstood
So you can’t “prove” he did or didn’t exist in the same way you can’t prove evolution does or doesn’t exist or even the earth is older than 5000 years old
What you can say is “based a consilience of multiple lines of evidence “so and so” is more than likely true"
And on that definition I think the evidence suggest an historical person called Jesus did exist and so did at least some events as portrayed in the bible – The King Herod census etc
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
But the concept of “proof” in these types of discussions is often misunderstood
So you can’t “prove” he did or didn’t exist in the same way you can’t prove evolution does or doesn’t exist or even the earth is older than 5000 years old
What you can say is “based a consilience of multiple lines of evidence “so and so” is more than likely true"
And on that definition I think the evidence suggest an historical person called Jesus did exist and so did at least some events as portrayed in the bible – The King Herod census etc
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
You're confusing science with oral traditions and texts that have been many times rewritten and re-interpreted. A good question might be: If they existed why didn't Jesus, or for that matter Buddha and Mohammed, write down a single word themselves? Perhaps they couldn't read or write, instead relying on the debatable memories of acolytes, with their personal biases and interpretations. Not good preparation if God had a hand in their words.
11 January 2017, 10:13 AM
#58
Scooby Regular
You're confusing science with oral traditions and texts that have been many times rewritten and re-interpreted. A good question might be: If they existed why didn't Jesus, or for that matter Buddha and Mohammed, write down a single word themselves? Perhaps they couldn't read or write, instead relying on the debatable memories of acolytes, with their personal biases and interpretations. Not good preparation if God had a hand in their words.
my reply was about the concept of proof - using science was just an example
there seems to be documentary evidence for an historical figure called jesus
proof - NO
evidence - YES
11 January 2017, 12:17 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Berks
Posts: 4,224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t want to get to pedantic (he says before being pedantic)
But the concept of “proof” in these types of discussions is often misunderstood
So you can’t “prove” he did or didn’t exist in the same way you can’t prove evolution does or doesn’t exist or even the earth is older than 5000 years old
What you can say is “based a consilience of multiple lines of evidence “so and so” is more than likely true"
And on that definition I think the evidence suggest an historical person called Jesus did exist and so did at least some events as portrayed in the bible – The King Herod census etc
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
But the concept of “proof” in these types of discussions is often misunderstood
So you can’t “prove” he did or didn’t exist in the same way you can’t prove evolution does or doesn’t exist or even the earth is older than 5000 years old
What you can say is “based a consilience of multiple lines of evidence “so and so” is more than likely true"
And on that definition I think the evidence suggest an historical person called Jesus did exist and so did at least some events as portrayed in the bible – The King Herod census etc
and if you take an opposing view - you have to demonstrate why the evidence is flawed and also (in the realms of science) put forward an opposing position that explains ALL the evidence
As much as that image is good for a chuckle, he's wrong.