Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

ISAW made the claim there are few contradictions. I simply showed you some. If you want to go through one by one, that is good, but you may do it on your own time, as I have a life to live! But I am game to read some of your thoughts on them, unless they are so long and errorfull as the last one of whistlers. Here he is pasting form a website that is titled :ansering muslims! Isn't that a little bit narrow and one sided research? I only copied and pasted the Islam site because whistler didn't seem to want to take the time and effort to click on it, but still decided to cram on about the bible having few contradictions. If I put it in his face, then he may actually look at it. Most people don't mind questioning things, its just the answers that don't suit there prefabricated ideas about how things are in the world. As they've invented their own reality in their minds. And it just won't suit if its out of sync with the actual true world reality.

So right at the start for Whistler....I've never found anywhere in that bible where Jesus says he is god. John 10:11 simply means he is a leader and a teacher. He only says he is son of man, which we all are if you think about it. The raising of Lazarus is one of his supposed miracles. But look at it, Lazarus wasn't dead in one account, but he is dead in another! It just goes to show you how things can get as skewed as they are today as seen by whistlers last post. Why would he try and quote what god thinks? Did god tell him personally?

So, as I've already asked you, the Samaritan woman at the well called Jesus a prophet in John 4:19. How is that a contradiction? Do you think there is another verse in the Gospels somewhere that says "Jesus was not a prophet"? How is this a contradiction or a mistake?

philologos

It seems that seeskaskooch doesn't think that we have lives ourselves. We are expected to respond to the googled list of contradictions. There seems to be a bit of disparity in effort no?

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

The dualism of the nature of Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity wasn't even decided upon until the council of Chalcedon

I wish that just for once somebody would actually get it right when they refer to Church Councils. Christian writers and thelogians were explaining the Trinity centuries before Chalcedon. And the Council of Nicaea outlined Trinitarian beliefs over 125 years before Chalcedon.

The Council of Chalcedon dealt with the Nestorian 'heresy'.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

It seems that seeskakooch doesn't think that we have lives ourselves. We are expected to respond to the googled list of contradiction. There seems to be a bit of disparity in effort no?

Their is no disparity, he saw someone say their were no contradictions so he posted a list of contradictions. He doesn't care what anyone else says, he has decided that his examples are contradictions therefore any thing that shows them to be consistent must be wrong. He wont be back. Drive by poster, I'l wager.

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

So, as I've already asked you, the Samaritan woman at the well called Jesus a prophet in John 4:19. How is that a contradiction? Do you think there is another verse in the Gospels somewhere that says "Jesus was not a prophet"? How is this a contradiction or a mistake?

I think what the author of that website was trying to prove is that in their religion, that being Islam, Jesus is regarded as a prophet. And he added it under the category of contradictions, which is obviously categorized wrong on his part.

Having said that, isn't it Catholic Christian belief that Jesus was prophet/priest/king? Has anyone seen any of Jesus the Christs prophecies?

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

I think what the author of that website was trying to prove is that in their religion, that being Islam, Jesus is regarded as a prophet. And he added it under the category of contradictions, which is obviously categorized wrong on his part.

Having said that, isn't it Catholic Christian belief that Jesus was prophet/priest/king? Has anyone seen any of Jesus the Christs prophecies?

Right, so what you're saying is that you cut and pasted alleged contradictions and mistakes from an Islamic website but you're aware that some of them obviously aren't contradictions or mistakes.

Do you now see why we would rather you presented some views of your own rather than cutting and pasting stuff that you won't stand over?

Wh1stler

@ PDN - How did my name get into the following quote?

seeskaskooch wrote: »

ISAW made the claim there are few contradictions. I simply showed you some. If you want to go through one by one, that is good, but you may do it on your own time, as I have a life to live! But I am game to read some of your thoughts on them, unless they are so long and errorfull as the last one of ISAWs. Here he is pasting form a website that is titled :answering muslims! Isn't that a little bit narrow and one sided research? I only copied and pasted the Islam site because ISAW didn't seem to want to take the time and effort to click on it, but still decided to cram on about the bible having few contradictions. If I put it in his face, then he may actually look at it. Most people don't mind questioning things, its just the answers that don't suit there prefabricated ideas about how things are in the world. As they've invented their own reality in their minds. And it just won't suit if its out of sync with the actual true world reality.

So right at the start for Whistler....I've never found anywhere in that bible where Jesus says he is god. John 10:11 simply means he is a leader and a teacher. He only says he is son of man, which we all are if you think about it. The raising of Lazarus is one of his supposed miracles. But look at it, Lazarus wasn't dead in one account, but he is dead in another! It just goes to show you how things can get as skewed as they are today as seen by whistlers last post. Why would he try and quote what god thinks? Did god tell him personally? The dualism of the nature of Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity wasn't even decided upon until the council of Chalcedon long after Jesus was off the scene, so don't we have the blind leading the blind here? As for Hebrews and the Philippians, did Paul actually meet Jesus? Or did he undergo a form of psychosis? Would you trust the so called "truth" from a man clearly displaying symptoms of psychosis?

I think that if you are going to alter what a quote originally says then you should indicate such. Even a simple 'FYP' would do.

PDN

Wh1stler wrote: »

@ PDN - How did my name get into the following quote?

What on earth are you on about? I simply quoted what seeskaskooch posted.

He then subsequently edited his post and replaced your name with that of ISAW.

I think that if you are going to alter what a quote originally says then you should indicate such. Even a simple 'FYP' would do.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Wh1stler

PDN wrote: »

What on earth are you on about? I simply quoted what seeskaskooch posted.

He then subsequently edited his post and replaced your name with that of ISAW.



I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

I see. My mistake and my apologies.

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

Right, so what you're saying is that you cut and pasted alleged contradictions and mistakes from an Islamic website but you're aware that some of them obviously aren't contradictions or mistakes.

Do you now see why we would rather you presented some views of your own rather than cutting and pasting stuff that you won't stand over?

So you are aware of some contradictions now, correct?

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

So you are aware of some contradictions now, correct?

No, incorrect.

I am aware of a list from an Islamic website which you presented as contradictions and then, when I picked one out at random, you admitted it wasn't a contradiction at all.

So let's discuss things properly, rather than cutting and pasting irrelevancies.

Perhaps you could name something that you believe is a contradiction or mistake in the Gospels? Then we can discuss whether it is a contradiction or mistake or not.

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

I wish that just for once somebody would actually get it right when they refer to Church Councils. Christian writers and thelogians were explaining the Trinity centuries before Chalcedon. And the Council of Nicaea outlined Trinitarian beliefs over 125 years before Chalcedon.

The Council of Chalcedon dealt with the Nestorian 'heresy'.

So are you suggesting that Jesus was around at Nicaea to help guide them from a jewish one god to a catholic 3 god head? Or was he long off the scene? Wasn't there a whole lot of differing opinion about Jesus back then? 300 years is a long time to make errors, especially if you decide to follow someone displaying classic symptoms of psychosis. Didn't constantine pardon Arius after nicaea? Why would he do that if the trinitarian doctrine was already decided?

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

No, incorrect.

I am aware of a list from an Islamic website which you presented as contradictions and then, when I picked one out at random, you admitted it wasn't a contradiction at all.

So let's discuss things properly, rather than cutting and pasting irrelevancies.

Perhaps you could name something that you believe is a contradiction or mistake in the Gospels? Then we can discuss whether it is a contradiction or mistake or not.

I think I did, but it seems you chose not to see them nor answer them. Its ok, stay blind lol chose at random! Sure, just like I always get chose "at random" at airport searches based on skin color! Love it!

tommy2bad

seeskaskooch wrote: »

So are you suggesting that Jesus was around at Nicaea to help guide them from a jewish one god to a catholic 3 god head? Or was he long off the scene? Wasn't there a whole lot of differing opinion about Jesus back then? 300 years is a long time to make errors, especially if you decide to follow someone displaying classic symptoms of psychosis. Didn't constantine pardon Arius after nicaea? Why would he do that if the trinitarian doctrine was already decided?

Yes as the Holy spirit.
Some differing opinions.
Pardon is not an admission of error, It is not "we were wrong, sorry bout that, have a pardon for your trouble" It's more You are wrong but we forgive you"

philologos

As for the Son of Man. It's helpful to look to Daniel 7 to understand that a little more closely:

Daniel 7:13-14 wrote:

“I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
(Daniel 7:13-14 ESV)

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

So are you suggesting that Jesus was around at Nicaea to help guide them from a jewish one god to a catholic 3 god head?

No, and neither am I suggesting that the doctrine of the Trinity began at Nicaea. That would be unhistorical clap-trap.

But I do believe that the Holy Spirit was around in the centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and that He guided Christian thinkers to develop a doctrine that reflected and made sense of the statements Jesus and the other New testament writers made about His humanity and divinity.

Wasn't there a whole lot of differing opinion about Jesus back then?

There's always been a whole lot of differing opinion about lots of things. That's how human beings work.

Didn't constantine pardon Arius after nicaea? Why would he do that if the trinitarian doctrine was already decided?

Constantine was a politician - so looking for rationality in his actions might prove disappointing. However, I'm not sure what significance you find in such a pardon, given that it was contingent on Arius repenting of his views and conforming to a more orthodox position.

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

I think I did, but it seems you chose not to see them nor answer them. Its ok, stay blind lol chose at random! Sure, just like I always get chose "at random" at airport searches based on skin color! Love it!

So, you're not going to suggest a contradiction or mistake in the Gospels that you can stand over as your opinion and that we could discuss?

I'm getting a bad case of déjà vu.

Fanny Cradock

seeskaskooch wrote: »

ISAW made the claim there are few contradictions. I simply showed you some. If you want to go through one by one, that is good, but you may do it on your own time, as I have a life to live!

I actually didn't say we should go through them one by one. You provided a rather long list of alleged contradictions. What I suggested was that you could choose maybe 5 apparent contradictions and we could see if they can be addressed. This seems like a reasonable request. So why not pick a few of them at random and we can see if we can discuss this in a profitable manner. We promise not to subject you to airport searches or mention the colour of anyone's skin.

ISAW

seeskaskooch wrote: »

ISAW made the claim there are few contradictions. I simply showed you some.

no you didnt! Yu provided a cut and past list.

If you want to go through one by one, that is good, but you may do it on your own time, as I have a life to live!

well then dont make sweeeping claims you cant defend!
I went through the last 30 or so of them and provided counter argument.

But I am game to read some of your thoughts on them, unless they are so long and errorfull as the last one of ISAWs.

In you opinion! You cant accept answering Islam as a source so you dismiss it being used as one.
and it isnt the only source i used.

for academic honesty i am obliged to reveal the source i used.
We don't dismiss quotes from the Koran if they make a point just on the basis they are from the Koran so you shouldnt dismiss an argument because of the source.

Here he is pasting form a website that is titled :answering muslims! Isn't that a little bit narrow and one sided research?

It reveals one thing. You seem to be a Muslim. Is that true?

I only copied and pasted the Islam site because ISAW didn't seem to want to take the time and effort to click on it, but still decided to cram on about the bible having few contradictions.

I used the answering Muslims site because you provided an Islamic source and I wondered if you would counter your obvious Islamic source with a comment about the source i provided being devotd to answering Islamic questions about Christianity.
Touché.

If I put it in his face, then he may actually look at it. Most people don't mind questioning things, its just the answers that don't suit there prefabricated ideas about how things are in the world.

so you are not a Muslim then? Or are you?

As they've invented their own reality in their minds. And it just won't suit if its out of sync with the actual true world reality.

It isnt a question of epistemology or ontology . We have been over them and they are meta discussion.

So right at the start for ISAW....I've never found anywhere in that bible where Jesus says he is god. John 10:11 simply means he is a leader and a teacher. He only says he is son of man, which we all are if you think about it.

Well you havent read much of the New Testament then! He also says son of God not just son of man.
http://www.totheends.com/didjesus.html
Arguments of this kind are nothing new. The religion of Islam proposed it's own good Jesus, bad Christian approach more than 1,000 years ago: Mohammed accepted Jesus as a prophet and miracle worker, but not as God. You really seem to be coming from that perspective.

Paul, known originally as Saul, traveled the region arresting and imprisoning believers in Jesus (Acts 8:1-3). He began this rampage soon after hearing Stephen's claim to see Jesus standing at the right hand of God (Acts 7:55). In a Jewish context, this was a claim to Jesus' divine status—considered a blasphemy by the council gathered before Stephen—and which caused them to rush at Stephen in a murderous rage (Acts 7:56-58).

But if Jesus' claims to be God are so important, why are they missing from the first three gospels? In fact, they're not missing, but are cloaked in Jewish thought forms that non-Jews—including many scholars—often misunderstand.

Take Luke 5, for example, where Jesus healed the paralytic. Most of us overlook Jesus' statement to the man, "your sins are forgiven" (Luke 5:20). But the Jewish leaders had a strong reaction: They called his words blasphemy (Luke 5:21). Why? They implied a pardon not just for ordinary man-to-man offenses, but for offenses committed against God, a category of offense that, according to the rabbis, only God himself has the authority to forgive.

They had not misunderstood. Rather Jesus pressed the point, saying, "'But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,' he said to the paralytic, 'I say to you, get up, pick up your mat, and go home" (Luke 5:24). In a Jewish context, for the "Son of Man" to have the authority to forgive sins can only mean one thing: that the Son of Man is God!

On the surface, there's nothing particularly dramatic about Jesus' sermon (Luke 4:23-27). He simply observes that in the time of Elijah, many widows in Israel were not helped by the prophet, and that in the time of Elisha many lepers were not healed. Yet at the end of the message, the crowd was ready to kill him (Luke 4:28-29)!

What did he say that upset them so much? His listeners were intimately familiar with the story of these two prophets. Much of their ministry had taken place in the countryside around them. They knew that the lack of miracles at that time was because the nation had fallen into idolatry, led by King Ahab and his Phoenician wife, Jezebel. So they immediately understood Jesus' deeper meaning: that his own lack of miracles in Nazareth was because of their own hardness of heart toward God.

By saying this, Jesus was in effect judging the hearts of the people. And by judging them, from their point of view, he made himself equal to God.

The ultimate expression of this claim is in Matthew 25, where Jesus describes the coming judgment of Messiah, seated on his "throne of glory"—a phrase that to his disciples would indicate a throne of heavenly glory.*cf Psalm 89:36-37 Here the Son of Man judges in his own name and by his own authority, with the ability to condemn the wicked to hell (25:41). This is a power only God has. For Jesus to claim it is a claim to be God.

Though Jesus had been left behind on the shore, he now suddenly appears, walking on the water (Matt. 14:24,25). Mark adds the detail that "he intended to pass them by" (Mark 6:48). This is a subtle hint to Job 9, which says, speaking of God: "The one who alone stretches out the heavens and treads on the heights of the sea…. See—he passes by me, and I do not see; he goes by, and I do not discern him" (Job 9:8,11).

When they cry out in fear, Jesus turns to talk with them (Matt. 14:26,27). What did he say? Not "it is I" as usually translated; but as Matthew, Mark, and Luke all agree (in the original Greek) "I am." This is not a lapse in grammar: it's a deliberate hint to the personal name of God: "I am that I am" (Ex. 3:14).

If God is real, why wouldn't he come to visit? Not in the full revelation of his power, of course, which would destroy us (Ex. 33:20); but in the appearance of a man to lead us back to himself. The disciples saw him with their own eyes, and were convinced by what they saw and heard (1 John 1:1-3).

The raising of Lazarus is one of his supposed miracles. But look at it, Lazarus wasn't dead in one account, but he is dead in another! It just goes to show you how things can get as skewed as they are today as seen by ISAWs last post. Why would he try and quote what god thinks? Did god tell him personally? The dualism of the nature of Jesus and the doctrine of the trinity wasn't even decided upon until the council of Chalcedon long after Jesus was off the scene, so don't we have the blind leading the blind here?

eh no because you commit a genetic fallacy!
the world didnt start going round when galileo stated that it moved! Origin and cause are different.
Christ didnt just start being god when some council decided upon it. As they view it it was always true. and it didnt originate in Chaldon anyway! There is ample evidence of the doctrine predating this council.

As for Hebrews and the Philippians, did Paul actually meet Jesus? Or did he undergo a form of psychosis? Would you trust the so called "truth" from a man clearly displaying symptoms of psychosis?

No Paul did not actually meet Jesus . But her personally knew those that did. And apparently he did have visions. Muslims believe Mohammed talked to angels. do you expect this proves Mohammad was psychotic?

seeskaskooch

philologos wrote: »

It seems that seeskaskooch doesn't think that we have lives ourselves. We are expected to respond to the googled list of contradictions. There seems to be a bit of disparity in effort no?

I stand by my observation here! Philologos - 18871 posts
PDN - 12504 posts
FannyCraddock - 9423 posts
ISAW - 6768 posts
Ya, no lives!
Cheers!

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

So, you're not going to suggest a contradiction or mistake in the Gospels that you can stand over as your opinion and that we could discuss?

I'm getting a bad case of déjà vu.

Technically, the fact is that your last cherrypicked quote is a rather odd quote, as its contradicts the trinitarian view. If Jesus is god, then why is he also a prophet? Isn't god all knowing? I am amazed that you would overlook the list. Here ISAW is copying and pasting from websites too, but you have no problem there? Oh the horrors! I copying and pasted a web site!! Yikes, you may have just learned something that you never did before! Would you like to debate the contradiction here: Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not? Not much to debate there! And this demonstrates how some 'miracles' are just made up miracles.

seeskaskooch

PDN wrote: »

Constantine was a politician - so looking for rationality in his actions might prove disappointing. However, I'm not sure what significance you find in such a pardon, given that it was contingent on Arius repenting of his views and conforming to a more orthodox position.

Are you absolutely sure Arius did repent his views?

seeskaskooch

ISAW wrote: »

the world didnt start going round when galileo stated that it moved! Origin and cause are different.
Christ didnt just start being god when some council decided upon it. As they view it it was always true. and it didnt originate in Chaldon anyway! There is ample evidence of the doctrine predating this council.



No Paul did not actually meet Jesus . But her personally knew those that did. And apparently he did have visions. Muslims believe Mohammed talked to angels. do you expect this proves Mohammad was psychotic?

Sure, Jesus' very divinity was voted on at Nicaea. Therefore, he started becoming god from that council date on for the western church. There is absolutely no place where Jesus admits to, even after being accused of being the son of god. What about Mohammad seeing angels? Didn't Joan of Arc also hear voices in her head? Paul claims to have went up into heaven too! though he doesn't know: god knows... sure look up phychosis. They all displayed symptoms of it.

seeskaskooch

@ ISAW Take Luke 5, for example, where Jesus healed the paralytic. Most of us overlook Jesus' statement to the man, "your sins are forgiven" (Luke 5:20). But the Jewish leaders had a strong reaction: They called his words blasphemy (Luke 5:21). Why? They implied a pardon not just for ordinary man-to-man offenses, but for offenses committed against God, a category of offense that, according to the rabbis, only God himself has the authority to forgive.

Actually, that Luke account goes a long way into showing yet another contradiction. This fairytale town called Nazareth was supposedly built on a hill with a cliff large enough to through Jesus down headlong....but if you go to modern day Nazareth, you will not find a cliff large enough to hurl anyone down head-long. And what do you mean Jesus passed through the midst of them and just simply walked away from such an infuriated mob Luke 5:30??? hmmm i think something was made up...

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

Actually, that Luke account goes a long way into showing yet another contradiction. This fairytale town called Nazareth was supposedly built on a hill with a cliff large enough to through Jesus down headlong....but if you go to modern day Nazareth, you will not find a cliff large enough to hurl anyone down head-long. And what do you mean Jesus passed through the midst of them and just simply walked away from such an infuriated mob Luke 5:30??? hmmm i think something was made up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Precipice

PDN

seeskaskooch wrote: »

Technically, the fact is that your last cherrypicked quote is a rather odd quote, as its contradicts the trinitarian view. If Jesus is god, then why is he also a prophet? Isn't god all knowing?

Strictly speaking the verse cited in your cut and paste travesty doesn't say Jesus was a prophet - it simply says that a Samaritan woman addressed Him as a prophet. But even if she was correct, that would still bot be a contradiction.

Maybe you need to read up on what the Trinitarian view is? Historic Christianity teaches that Jesus was fully and properly man and, while on earth in the Incarnation, He voluntarily took on some of the limitations of humanity. The theological term for this is kenosis (Literally, emptying). So Jesus, during His Incarnation was not omnipresent - He could only be in one place at one time. Nor was He omniscient.

Therefore, for Jesus to function as a prophet would entail no contradiction with any other statement in the Gospels. So, once again I ask you, where is the contradiction?

The Samaritan woman addressed Jesus as a prophet. What other statement anywhere in the Gospels is contradicted by that? Is there a statement that says nobody ever viewed Jesus as a prophet? If so, then please point to it. If not, then please admit that you have failed to produce a contradiction.

Would you like to debate the contradiction here: Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not? Not much to debate there! And this demonstrates how some 'miracles' are just made up miracles.

Oh come on, surely you can do better than this kind of fluff?

The father came to Jesus and said that His daughter had been dying, and by now would even be dead, and Jesus went and healed her and raised her from the dead.

Where is the contradiction?

ISAW

you still have not answered my questions.
Are you a Muslim?
Are you a scholar?

seeskaskooch wrote: »

Technically, the fact is that your last cherrypicked quote is a rather odd quote, as its contradicts the trinitarian view. If Jesus is god, then why is he also a prophet?

Because he is also a man. son of god and son of Man.
Enda Kenny is Taoiseach but he also is a man and he is also a school teacher.

Isn't god all knowing? I am amazed that you would overlook the list.

they didnt over look it. it has been dealt with as far back as "Against heresies"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaeus#Irenaeus.27_theology_and_contrast_with_Gnosticism
and other anti Nicean fathers in the first and second century.

You have to understand christian views of the bible are not like Muslim views of the koran. Christians dont believe God dictated the Bible and then corrected all the bits that were written down in error so that everything was exactly as God said.

Here ISAW is copying and pasting from websites too, but you have no problem there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation
A prime purpose of a citation is intellectual honesty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_criticism

when I supply a source i comment on it and not just cut an paste. It is an illustration of a point. You just cut and pasted a list without showing the apparent "contradiction".
I went through the last thirty or so of them which can be interpreted as not contradicting.

Oh the horrors! I copying and pasted a web site!! Yikes, you may have just learned something that you never did before! Would you like to debate the contradiction here: Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not? Not much to debate there! And this demonstrates how some 'miracles' are just made up miracles.

See also Luke 8:41-42: 41 Then a man named Jairus, a synagogue leader, came and fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with him to come to his house 42 because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.

At first, Mark records that the young girl "lieth at the point of death" (Mark 5:23), but shortly thereafter, word was received from Jarius' servants, "Thy daughter is dead." (Mark 5:35). Matthew mentions nothing about the servants coming afterward. It is believed by some commentators that in rendering Jarius' statement, "My daughter is even now dead," Matthew may simply be summarizing the two reports into one. That is certainly possible, and not a foreign literary occurrence in the Scriptures.

Consider Matthew's account from a few different translations:
— "My daughter is even now dead" (KJV)
— "My daughter has by this died" (Darby)
— "My daughter has just died" (NKJV)
— "My daughter is just dead" (Weymouth)

http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20071007.htm
The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.

ISAW

seeskaskooch wrote: »

Sure, Jesus' very divinity was voted on at Nicaea. Therefore, he started becoming god from that council date on for the western church.

You seem to have ignored what you have just been shown
the world didnt start going round when Galileo stated that it moved! It had already been moving. if galileo was the foirst to say it moved that didnt mean it only began moving when he said so did it?
Likewise any church council is only affirming what is already held to be true.
And you have been shown here that the concept of duailty and Trinity was firmly established by anti Nicean Fathers centuries before the council of Nicea.
Origin isnt cause.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

There is absolutely no place where Jesus admits to, even after being accused of being the son of god.

again you have been shown christian scriptures where they took up stones to stone him because they believed he was making such a claim.
You have been shown scriptures where Jesus tells people in the synagog he is the fulfillment of Isiah's Messianic Prophesy.


"The truth is, before Abraham was, I AM." (John 8:58 NLT)


remember what the words 'I am' were in Hebrew. They were the name of God, which must not be spoken by any human being, the name which it was death to utter.
http://y-jesus.com/jesus_believe_god_2.php

Some may argue that this was an isolated instance. But Jesus also used "I AM" for himself on several other occasions. Let's look at some of these, trying to imagine our reactions upon hearing Jesus' radical claims:

“I am the light of the world” (John 8:12)
“I am the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:6)
“I am the only way to the Father” (John 14:6)
“I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25)
“I am the Good Shepherd” (John 10:11)
“I am the door” (John 10:9)
“I am the living bread” (John 6:51)
“I am the true vine” (John 15:1)
“I am the Alpha and Omega” Rev.1:7,8)

What about Mohammad seeing angels? Didn't Joan of Arc also hear voices in her head? Paul claims to have went up into heaven too! though he doesn't know: god knows... sure look up phychosis. They all displayed symptoms of it.

I raised the point because if you are a Muslim you cant then also claim Mohammad was psychotic.

ISAW

seeskaskooch wrote: »

@ ISAW Take Luke 5, for example, where Jesus healed the paralytic. Most of us overlook Jesus' statement to the man, "your sins are forgiven" (Luke 5:20). But the Jewish leaders had a strong reaction: They called his words blasphemy (Luke 5:21). Why? They implied a pardon not just for ordinary man-to-man offenses, but for offenses committed against God, a category of offense that, according to the rabbis, only God himself has the authority to forgive.

well you argue against yourself there!

Actually, that Luke account goes a long way into showing yet another contradiction. This fairytale town called Nazareth was supposedly built on a hill with a cliff large enough to through Jesus down headlong....but if you go to modern day Nazareth, you will not find a cliff large enough to hurl anyone down head-long. And what do you mean Jesus passed through the midst of them and just simply walked away from such an infuriated mob Luke 5:30??? hmmm i think something was made up...

so your argument now is that the scripture was invented? how then can you use it as evidence for your argument if you believe the source you use is unreliable?
As it happens the New Testament can be recovered almost in eitirety from excerpts in Pre Nicean writings by church fathers.

seeskaskooch

ISAW wrote: »

See also Luke 8:41-42: 41 Then a man named Jairus, a synagogue leader, came and fell at Jesus’ feet, pleading with him to come to his house 42 because his only daughter, a girl of about twelve, was dying.


http://www.lookinguntojesus.net/ata20071007.htm
The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.The Greek arti can mean "just now", "henceforth", "hereafter", "hitherto", "even now". The phrase contains the assumption of death having occurred, due to the passage of time, but is not a firm affirmation of the girl's death. It is no different than that which appears in Mark's account, where she is said to be "at the point of death".

One might comment of a traveling friend, ‘He is at the point of arrival' (ie. he's approaching or approached his destination). One might equally say, ‘By now, he's arrived,' or more forcefully, ‘even now he arrived', or ‘he just arrived.' All the statements share the same meaning.

Matthew and Mark provide different details, and word Jarius' statement differently, but the accounts are in agreement. There is no contradiction.

Jesus raises a dead girl...see the heading in the link: Check out Mark 5:39, and maybe even Luke 8:52, and instead of making excuses and/or ignoring it, just let it go accept the wording for what is simply shows... She either was dead, and a miracle occurred, or she was not dead and simply healed. Healing by laying on of hands still occurs to this day you know. One account she is brought back from the dead. The other she is simply only healed. If you are sick, it is possible to be healed. If you are dead, you can't really be healed...you may be brought back to life, but not healed. This would be like saying you were sick, and we brought you back to life. As you can see, this is impossible, as you weren't dead to begin with.