Changes

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::::''Who said'' Jesus is God? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 11:58, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

::::::The Bible does.  [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 12:39, 7 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Further proof of the need to read.  I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god.  Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process.  Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.

:::Further proof of the need to read.  I'm talking about assuming Jesus to be just a man, not a god.  Try to consider that possibility...it will not harm your faith and you might even learn something in the process.  Also, why not try (if you haven't, already) reading the bible without relying on exegesis or the opinions of others, there again you might learn something.

:::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)

::::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? ==