Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 206: Line 206:     
:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::::'The Bible' (a whole library of different books, most of which don't even mention Jesus at all) is not evidence, any more than 'the police department's computer' is evidence that Joe Bloggs burgled your house. Cite the precise evidence that Jesus is God, or stop making such absurd claims as that he was the Creator (which even most traditional Christians don't believe) - ideas which, as a faithful Jew, he cannot possibly have supported himself. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 05:51, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
::::::I can't see the analogy between the Bible and the police computer, but why can't the police computer contain the evidence of a burglary?
 +
::::::Are you unaware of the verses in the Bible that say that Jesus was the Creator?  I can quote them if you want, but I suspect that you already know them and reject them for some reason.
 +
::::::Why couldn't Jesus have supported that idea?
 +
::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
    
:::Petrus' comment shows but one example of Philip's illogic.  Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?"  This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response.  Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers.  For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period.  Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs.  See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 
:::Petrus' comment shows but one example of Philip's illogic.  Another example would be this sentence, "But why not also hypothesise that Jesus didn't exist, or that the Bible was written by Shakespeare or something?"  This is an absurd extrapolation that has no basis in what I said, and as such is an illogical response.  Also Philip, while I'm sure you're unaware of this, you should know that for nearly two millenia there have been raging debates within the Chistian community regarding to what extent and where Jesus can use his "supernaural" powers.  For example -- for the crucifxion to be a valid sacrifice leading to salvation, Jesus must be all man during that period.  Also, early Christianity were beset with a variety of "heresies" (litteraly "schools of thought) that, had they been adopted, would have profoundly changed your current beliefs.  See ''Donatism, Manichaeism, Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism'' and ''Docetism''. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 07:18, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
 +
::::It is a rather large extrapolation, to make a point, but it's only an extrapolation, not an example of bad logic.  Even if you are correct about Jesus needing to be all man (and I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), how does that affect what I said?  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:49, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
    
== Protected debate page? ==
 
== Protected debate page? ==
nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254

edits

Navigation menu