[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

I am not a god hater at all. Not even an Atheist, I just dont believe in your god. Im here for fun. It is entertaining to hear what you have to say

"Atheist" is not a proper noun; it should not be capitalized except in a title or at the beginning of a sentence. "God", on the other hand, is, when used to reference God.

. . . and this site isn't here for your amusement. It's here for us to praise Jesus together, and share with those who wish to learn of Him.

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

Oh, yes we are robots, my friend. The human mind is just a very advanced computer. It uses electrical impulses to generate ideas and movement. We are just carbon based while the ones we create are based off of differing metals. Why dont your read the argument first, and dispute it point-counterpoint style rather than use blanket statements like it's stupid.
Second, I discovered this idea long before I read Hume. He wrote it first, so of course it is only fair he get the credit, but I came to the same conclusion he did before I read his work. I made it up, I just was not the first.

Please show me the scripture that says we're robots. And I did read your blasphemous link. What, did you think I'd immediately give up my faith based on that? C'mon, I'm not that stupid.

Also, thinking of something after somebody else wrote it isn't making it up. You sound kinda smart sometimes, but then you say some stuff that is totally stupid. Why is that? I bet it has to do with hating Jesus.

[Levi Jones]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

Okay, time for a quick introduction. First of all, I am 19, male, and currently residing in Atlanta. I was born in rural Kentucky and graduated high school in Knoxville, Tennessee. I was raised southern baptist and am now attending a methodist university. I have read the bible more times than I am able to count and was saved when I was around 12-13.

So far so good.

I attended my church three times a week, more when there were special occasions, and was nearly done with earning the Timothy award from AWANA (for those who dont know, the award is for children who have memorized the bible in its entirety, broken into sections) until they changed the system and i was forced to restart.

My son has won many great awards from AWANA's. It's a top notch organization. Much better than those fag coddling boy scouts.

And that should be all of the things that you will be pleased about. I lost any and all faith in the christian doctrine around my 14th birthday and have yet to be swayed from that opinion. Generally, I am better versed in the Bible than the ministers who attempted to convert me and have yet to lose a debate on the topic.

Such a shame. You're just rebelling against God. You'll be back into the fold soon enough I would wager.

I am a bleeding-heart liberal, as i like to believe Christ was (who is an inarguable historic figure).

That dabbling in the mental disease of liberalism is precisely where we lose so many people. They think Jesus was all hugs, sharing and being touchy feely, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's usually when they are your age is when that sort of thing happens. Once they get older and have read Atlas Shrugged, they get right with the GOP and the GOD.

Matthew 26:6-10 Now when Jesus was in Bethany, in the house of Simon the leper, There came unto him a woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment, and poured it on his head, as he sat at meat.
But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?
For this ointment might have been sold for much, and given to the poor.
When Jesus understood it, he said unto them, Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good work upon me.
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

Blah, blah, blah. I hate Jesus and want to spit in His face all the time so much!

Yeah, we get that, Nancy.

On one hand you believe in a historical Jesus who was a radical hippie. On the other, you don't follow anything of what He said. We get it.

[JustinSane]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

You claimed indisputable sources. All of those sources are disputed (except among Christian "scholars"), due to the very fact that none of them are eyewitness accounts. Add the fact that no originals remain of any of these, only much later copies of copies of copies...

Pliny and Tacitus don't even mention Jesus himself, only "Christians".

As for Josephus? Well, "Scholars have differing opinions on the total or partial authenticity of the reference in Book 18, Chapter 3, 3 of the Antiquities to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate, a passage usually called the Testimonium Flavianum.[10][1] The general scholarly view is that while the Testimonium Flavianum is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus with a reference to the execution of Jesus by Pilate which was then subject to Christian interpolation..." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus)

Do you expect Christians to be unbiased? I don't.



I thought you weren't going to use the Bible?



I wouldn't trust a Gnostic text on how to tie my shoelaces. I probably wouldn't even understand a Gnostic text on how to tie my shoelaces.



No one is claiming divinity for Cleopatra or Aristotle. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you've shown none.



Then why does every reference I've checked say it's a TITLE?



Please learn the difference between etymology and entomology before you use that big word again.

The point i was making was that he was a person. This is not under dispute. I have never even heard rumor of a respected historian disputing he walked the earth. There are countless references to him, more than almost any other historic figure of the time. I am not trying to prove his divinity (that is most certainly under dispute). Nothing in history is able to be proven empirically, except for broad things like battles and cities (which could be argued against by conspiracy theorists). However, it is reasonable to believe that someone did live if they are directly referenced by hundreds of other sources. No one disputes this.
Second, a title is a part of a name. I did not say it was his cognomen, it doesn't pass from father to son, but it is a part of what he was called and therefore part of his name.
Finally, dont get so butt hurt over a homonym. Spelling is by far my weakest point, and if spell check will give me an answer, I'm going with it. This isnt a peer reviewed report. Its a forum post. I know what the word means, have used it for years now, I just cant spell to save my life.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

I am not a god hater at all. Not even an Atheist, I just dont believe in your god. Im here for fun.

What are you, a damned joo? Did satan send you?

[JustinSane]

Originally Posted by Pastor Ezekiel

What are you, a damned joo? Did satan send you?

*Jew

and no, the technical name for it is Deist. "Notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[44] and Thomas Paine." (wikipedia) Along with Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

The point i was making was that He was a person. This is not under dispute. I have never even heard rumor of a respected historian disputing He walked the earth. There are countless references to Him, more than almost any other historic figure of the time. I am not trying to prove His divinity (that is most certainly under dispute). Nothing in history is able to be proven empirically, except for broad things like battles and cities (which could be argued against by conspiracy theorists). However, it is reasonable to believe that someone did live if They are directly referenced by hundreds of other sources. No one disputes this.
Second, a title is a part of a name. I did not say it was His cognomen, it doesn't pass from father to son, but it is a part of what He was called and therefore part of His name.
Finally, dont get so butt hurt over a homonym. Spelling is by far my weakest point, and if spell check will give me an answer, I'm going with it. This isnt a peer reviewed report. Its a forum post. I know what the word means, have used it for years now, I just cant spell to save my life.

First, please show some respect for our Lord here while you're here on our forum.

Second, entomology is the study of bugs. Jesus is not a bug friend. And etymology and entomology don't sound the same either. Just admit your stupid mistake and move on.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

*Jew

and no, the technical name for it is Deist. "Notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[44] and Thomas Paine." (wikipedia) Along with Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson

More lies. The founding fathers of America (God's favorite country) were all Christians. This is common knowledge.

By the way, this is a Christian forum. Unaved NOT welcome.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

The point i was making was that he was a person. This is not under dispute. I have never even heard rumor of a respected historian disputing he walked the earth. There are countless references to him, more than almost any other historic figure of the time...

The point I was trying to make is that there are NO contemporary references to Him. None. Every record (even the earliest Gospels) are from at least 30 years after (which at that time was close to two generations, ie. someone's grandchildren heard something and wrote it down).

But I'm not going to convince you, and that's ok. We all have to make up our own minds about what evidence to accept. What I don't understand is your insistence on proof, which is anathema to faith. The True Christians™ here believe the Bible is God's truth, and that's good enough for them. You, on the other hand, are convinced that there is evidence that Jesus was real, yet you reject His teachings out of hand. How does that work?

...However, it is reasonable to believe that someone did live if they are directly referenced by hundreds of other sources. No one disputes this...

You're right. Hercules was real.

...Finally, dont get so butt hurt over a homonym...

It's not a homonym. There's no "n" in etymology.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

The point i was making was that he was a person. This is not under dispute. I have never even heard rumor of a respected historian disputing he walked the earth. There are countless references to him, more than almost any other historic figure of the time. I am not trying to prove his divinity (that is most certainly under dispute). Nothing in history is able to be proven empirically, except for broad things like battles and cities (which could be argued against by conspiracy theorists). However, it is reasonable to believe that someone did live if they are directly referenced by hundreds of other sources. No one disputes this.

Except Jesus is not referenced by any contemporary sources. Paul's letters are closest in time to Jesus' life (the Gospels are 60+ years after His death), but Paul never met Jesus in bodily form, just in a vision.

Hence the extensive, ongoing debate among atheists about whether Jesus was a real person, or made up (like Muhammad), or an amalgamation of multiple prophets living about the same time. A debate of which you apparently are entirely ignorant.

Second, a title is a part of a name. I did not say it was his cognomen, it doesn't pass from father to son, but it is a part of what he was called and therefore part of his name.

Actually, you did. You said it was like "Smith" in "Joe Smith". It's not.

I assume you are familiar with the UK's Prince Charles, right?

Would you consider "Prince" part of his name?

His name is Charles Philip Arthur George. "Prince" is his title.

Do you think that "President" is part of Obama's name? No. It is his title.

Originally Posted by JustinSane

*Jew

and no, the technical name for it is Deist. "Notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen,[44] and Thomas Paine." (wikipedia) Along with Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson

Oh, so you're an agnostic. You think some kind of godlike thing maybe exists but you have no idea what it is or what it wants.

What kind of idiocy is that?

[JustinSane]

Originally Posted by Capt. A. Portway

Please show me the scripture that says we're robots. And I did read your blasphemous link. What, did you think I'd immediately give up my faith based on that? C'mon, I'm not that stupid.

Also, thinking of something after somebody else wrote it isn't making it up. You sound kinda smart sometimes, but then you say some stuff that is totally stupid. Why is that? I bet it has to do with hating Jesus.

Please, read what i say, not what you want me to say. I am not using scripture in this argument because it is not needed. Logic and reasoning will suffice. Second, I never asked you to abandon your faith. I just asked that you specifically counter things I said rather than tossing out blanket statements. If there is a point in the link or what i said that you disagree with, say what it is and why, then I defend my opinion. Thats how these work. Finally, i dont understand why we are even talking about this tangent, but ok. Anyone can discover anything that they did not previously know. Just because someone else discovered it first doesnt mean it wasnt discovered, it was just redundant and the first person gets the credit.

And as to the semantic BS, Jesus is considered a valid historical figure, just like Muhammad, Julius Caesar, and Washington. Yes, there is a lack of contemporary literature for him, but that is true of nearly any ancient figure. Records are scarce at this point in history. Shakespeare is also argued to not exist, but in a historic sense, he is cited. And as to this title crap, epithets are names. William the Conqueror, Eric the Red, Richard the Lionhearted, these are portions of their names. That is why they are capitalized. These are not random titles of office like president or senator. They are specifically tied to these men and are parts of their names.

And great Heracles quip. You got me there. I was a little to broad there

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

Please, read what i say, not what you want me to say. I am not using scripture ............I was a little to broad there

Friend, we hear you. We hear you calling out, pleading for help. You claim to know the Bible yet you do not not want to speak His Words. You speak in all encompassing terms. Why don't you tell us specifically what God did that upset you. Was it a priest? They are notorious.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

And as to the semantic BS, Jesus is considered a valid historical figure, just like Muhammad, Julius Caesar, and Washington. Yes, there is a lack of contemporary literature for him, but that is true of nearly any ancient figure. Records are scarce at this point in history. Shakespeare is also argued to not exist, but in a historic sense, he is cited.

Did I not just give you a reference for a book which questions whether Muhammad existed at all?

Continuing to insist you are correct, without ever considering evidence which is contrary to your position, is called atheist fundamentalism.

And as to this title crap, epithets are names. William the Conqueror, Eric the Red, Richard the Lionhearted, these are portions of their names. That is why they are capitalized. These are not random titles of office like president or senator. They are specifically tied to these men and are parts of their names.

No, an epithet is NOT part of a name. It's an epithet. And "Christ", as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, is neither an epithet nor a name, it is a TITLE.

Stop trying to hard to prove how smart you are, and learn something instead. You're quite possibly the most ignorant know-it-all to join this forum all day.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

Please, read what i say, not what you want me to say. I am not using scripture in this argument because it is not needed. Logic and reasoning will suffice. Second, I never asked you to abandon your faith. I just asked that you specifically counter things I said rather than tossing out blanket statements. If there is a point in the link or what i said that you disagree with, say what it is and why, then I defend my opinion. Thats how these work. Finally, i dont understand why we are even talking about this tangent, but ok. Anyone can discover anything that they did not previously know. Just because someone else discovered it first doesnt mean it wasnt discovered, it was just redundant and the first person gets the credit.

And as to the semantic BS, Jesus is considered a valid historical figure, just like Muhammad, Julius Caesar, and Washington. Yes, there is a lack of contemporary literature for him, but that is true of nearly any ancient figure. Records are scarce at this point in history. Shakespeare is also argued to not exist, but in a historic sense, he is cited. And as to this title crap, epithets are names. William the Conqueror, Eric the Red, Richard the Lionhearted, these are portions of their names. That is why they are capitalized. These are not random titles of office like president or senator. They are specifically tied to these men and are parts of their names.

And great Heracles quip. You got me there. I was a little to broad there

First of all, this is NOT a debate forum. We're right and you're wrong, according to Jesus and the Holy Word of God. Please read THIS thread before making an even bigger fool of yourself.

Secondly, while the internets might seem to be "free" to you, this particular corner of the internets is a privately owned Christian forum. The rights you have on this forum are listed HERE. Please contact a Pastor immediately if you feel that any of your rights have been violated.

Finally, your unsaved opinions or tantrums are not even slightly of interest to us. We follow the Holy Word of God TO THE LETTER, and make no apologies for that. One of the most important commandments in the Bible tells us to avoid unsaved scum such as yourself. You wandered in here uninvited, and unwelcome .

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

Please, read what i say, not what you want me to say. I am not using scripture in this argument because it is not needed. Logic and reasoning will suffice. Second, I never asked you to abandon your faith. I just asked that you specifically counter things I said rather than tossing out blanket statements. If there is a point in the link or what i said that you disagree with, say what it is and why, then I defend my opinion. Thats how these work. Finally, i dont understand why we are even talking about this tangent, but ok. Anyone can discover anything that they did not previously know. Just because someone else discovered it first doesnt mean it wasnt discovered, it was just redundant and the first person gets the credit.

And as to the semantic BS, Jesus is considered a valid historical figure, just like Muhammad, Julius Caesar, and Washington. Yes, there is a lack of contemporary literature for him, but that is true of nearly any ancient figure. Records are scarce at this point in history. Shakespeare is also argued to not exist, but in a historic sense, he is cited. And as to this title crap, epithets are names. William the Conqueror, Eric the Red, Richard the Lionhearted, these are portions of their names. That is why they are capitalized. These are not random titles of office like president or senator. They are specifically tied to these men and are parts of their names.

And great Heracles quip. You got me there. I was a little to broad there

Justin the Idiot,
I don't like your tone. This is NOT a debate forum, it is a place for like minded Christians to praise Him. By the way, see the capital 'H' there? You might want to copy that, it seems your computer is out of them.

God gave us free will so that we could chose to love Him and follow His word. You choose not to, therefore you're damned to Hell. You refute your own retarded argument right there. You claim to believe in a higher power, yet you, against your own interests, reject God. Nice house of cards, it was tough to knock over. You're an idiot.

[Didymus Much]

Originally Posted by Didymus Much

...It's not a homonym. There's no "n" in etymology.

It's not a homophone, either. There's no "n" or "n" sound in etymology.

You should learn to accept a polite correction gracefully.

[JustinSane]

Originally Posted by Rev. M. Rodimer

Did I not just give you a reference for a book which questions whether Muhammad existed at all?

Continuing to insist you are correct, without ever considering evidence which is contrary to your position, is called atheist fundamentalism.


No, an epithet is NOT part of a name. It's an epithet. And "Christ", as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, is neither an epithet nor a name, it is a TITLE.

Stop trying to hard to prove how smart you are, and learn something instead. You're quite possibly the most ignorant know-it-all to join this forum all day.

Sorry, I missed the hyperlink. I'll look into sometime.

Epithet Noun:
a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing (Webster's dictionary)
I will accept your apology now

It is an epithet. I know where it comes from. As i am constantly reminded, it is Greek for savior. I know. It is an epithet however because it is a phrase that constantly follows his first name. I gave you other examples from history: the great, the conqueror, the red, just because this one is not translated back into English, does not make it different

[Capt. Aaron Portway]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

Sorry, I missed the hyperlink. I'll look into sometime.

Epithet Noun:
a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing (Webster's dictionary)
I will accept your apology now

It is an epithet. I know where it comes from. As i am constantly reminded, it is Greek for savior. I know. It is an epithet however because it is a phrase that constantly follows his first name. I gave you other examples from history: the great, the conqueror, the red, just because this one is not translated back into English, does not make it different

Justin the Idiot,

So King is an epithet? What about General, Major, or Captain? My God, you just won't give up, will you. Again, you're wrong, admit it. Christ Jesus = Jesus Christ. Translate Christ back to English and you get Savior Jesus = Jesus the Savior. Not all words that go with names are epithets. Now shut up about it.

[Rev. M. Rodimer]

Originally Posted by JustinSane

Epithet Noun:
a : a characterizing word or phrase accompanying or occurring in place of the name of a person or thing (Webster's dictionary)
I will accept your apology now

It is an epithet. I know where it comes from. As i am constantly reminded, it is Greek for savior. I know. It is an epithet however because it is a phrase that constantly follows his first name. I gave you other examples from history: the great, the conqueror, the red, just because this one is not translated back into English, does not make it different

Can you even read what YOU just posted?

"in place of the name of a person or thing".

Therefore, not a name.

Are you really this dense, boy?

[Misunderstood]

Hey I'm here for basically the same reason you are. I do believe in God but not because it says so in the Bible. A religion teacher of mine told me that there are to many beautiful and kind things in the world and none of this can be explained completely with science, so I decided there must be a God. However, my version of God is not the same as everyone else on this site