Stephen

I would like to invite the Reverend here and help him restore some pastoral dignity. Can you deal with your pussycat?

You say that as if I have influence. I don't. The Brother is his own man just as the Reverend is his/her own whatever s/he is calling herself on any given day.

Besides, what or who can stop the Reverend joining any thread on the whole forum s/he chooses? 

What makes you believe he would want to join your thread anyway. From what I can gather, you are not his pinup boy and you both appear to have some old axe to grind.

I did correct the Reverend over his scriptures.

and gender dysphoria. But it was done very professionally.

-> @Shila

--> @Shila

So why does BrotherD.Thomas attack Reverend Tradesecret so viciously.

viciously.!?

The Brother is a pussycat. He never uses bad language or denigrates anyone, unless you consider that calling someone bible ignorant or a bible fool as being "attacked viciously". 😂 FFS!

Calling a Reverend a bible fool should be taken seriously.

Why?  He says it doesn't bother him. ..... but then he whines and whinges about being stalked and "attacked". The reverend doesn't know his arse from his elbow at the best of time.

That is attacking the core of his being and Christian mission.

I think you mean the core of his beliefs. Deary me, there there, never mind. It will all come off when it's dry.

I would like to invite the Reverend here and help him restore some pastoral dignity. Can you deal with your pussycat?

--> @Shila

So why does BrotherD.Thomas attack Reverend Tradesecret so viciously.

viciously.!?

The Brother is a pussycat. He never uses bad language or denigrates anyone, unless you consider that calling someone bible ignorant or a bible fool as being "attacked viciously". 😂 FFS!

Calling a Reverend a bible fool should be taken seriously.

That is attacking the core of his being and Christian mission.

You say what matters, is the truth but for a believer truth is revealed through faith.

So why does BrotherD.Thomas attack Reverend Tradesecret so viciously.

I cannot comment on Reverend Tradesecret.

But I am confident he will redeem himself and restore faith in the historical and Biblical Jesus.

Note: The case for Historical Jesus is moving  from historical facts to biblical facts.

Jesus H. Christ, and I thought Tradesecret was bible stupid, whereas you take the cake hands down!

Well I am going to take it that you have actually read Isiah in its entirety? But you have failed to realise that this so-called prophecy was intended to be fulfilled in king Ahaz's lifetime and has nothing at all to do with a child to be born 700 years into the future.

After all, what good would a child to be born 700 years into the future be to king Ahaz in his hour of need?

I have said it before that this is the author of Matthew's gospel once again reaching for his trusty OT in a desperate attempt to link Jesus to the OT prophesies as being the one to come and prophesised about, and it is something he does often in the New Testament.

The founders of Christianity appear to have accepted it as a prophecy that related to the coming of the messiah and it is that which matters.

This prophesy is also perceived to relate to Jesus supposed virgin birth, which is also fundamental to a belief in the messianic claim.

the messianic claim

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ

Will you define for us -radical - in this context.

Jesus was a revolutionary change agent; and in fact he was a radical in every sense of the word.

A lot of work in the creation of the New Testament involved the fulfilling of Old Testament messianic prophecies. This is one of them and I would think an important one.

 

Isaiah 7:14 “Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

 

This to me this suggests Jesus existed as a real person and was reasonably well known by the name Jesus, so they were not able to change it to Immanuel.

Someone as disturbingly radical as Christ

@ Public-Choice Great!  Now, for you to save face within this forum, you will now provide the said Greek and Hebrew words TO EACH OF MY 12 GIVEN PASSAGES AS SHOWN IN JESUS' WORDS IN DEFAMING WOMEN IN MY POST #33 TO PROVE THEM WRONG!  You may begin, we're waiting in a timely manner whereas the clock is ticking in your behalf! #60

Brother D. Thomas wrote: #33 

1.  "Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." (1 Timothy 2:11-14)

2.  “ But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ and the head of the woman in man. For the man is not of the women; but the woman of the man.” (1Corinthians 11: 3,8 ) 

3.  “I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” (Ecclesiastes 7:26)

4.  "The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church." (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)

5.  "Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered." (1 Peter 3:7)

6.  "It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife." (Proverbs 21:9)

7.  "It is better to live in a desert land than with a quarrelsome and fretful woman." (Proverbs 21:19)

8.  “ It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)

9.  "A quarrelsome wife is as annoying as constant dripping on a rainy day. Stopping her complaints is like trying to stop the wind or trying to hold something with greased hands." (Proverbs 27:15-16) 

10.  " Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire." (1 Timothy 2:9)

11.  "For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior." (Ephesians 5:23)

12.  "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:8-9).

but you did stalk me.

you copied and pasted hundreds of my posts in some database of your own so that you could quote me back whenever you were given the opportunity.

 So deny it all you like - that is my explanation for why I changed my profile.  

As for whatever Harikrish - aka Shila - alleged about me in another forum which no longer exists, I also provided explanation for my words. 

What you fail to understand or choose to ignore is that any alleged conduct I confessed to was in a time when I was an atheist.  It was not in my current condition. 

It was not in my current condition. 

In fact the very fact that such alleged conduct - experimental conduct - took place during an atheistic timeframe - only contrasts even more so where I am now. It demonstrates the Spirit of God working in my heart.  

In relation to God calling me. That is the point.  I did not choose God - he chose me. I would never have chosen God -

since I was totally depraved.

you and I and Stephen are all born depraved. 

Total does not mean so evil I was evil - but so totally depraved that I could not save myself.  

There was no deceit in what I said. 

Yes, I did say those mean and nasty things about you.

I have apologised and admitted my regret in doing so.

 I ought not to have said those things -

It is quite surprising you continue to bring it up - since the rest of the forum has already read and heard my comments previously.

It is not like I am hiding it.

so the only reason you wish to bring it up is because YOU can't deal with it.

 That dear Stephen is on your head.  

  and for the record. it wasn't just a matter of few weeks - it was quite a long time after you arrived

- given that you continue to not even grasp the mere wonderment of what happened. 

but I am not playing your games. 

I was being stalked by both Brother Thomas and Stephen.  

the repeated attacks - and defamatory abuse 

Tradesecret wrote:  I did not choose God. He chose me

the God of the Bible chose me to be his.

#31

 #45

  A calling is not from the bible - it is from GOD the Holy Spirit. 

I experimented sexually in a variety of ways......the spirit of god worked in your heart

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/332-so-you-just-chose-your-religion?page=2&post_number=50

@ Stephen:  Stupid man. Dumb as fuck. Just continue to repeat your ignorance. #161

Tradesecret

 @ Stephen:

Obviously you are an idiot.  #186

Tradesecret

@shila Great, so you found a webpage which addresses the problems you made and you copy/paste from it even though it disproves your claim.

@shila If you wish to keep this thread focused

why are you screenshooting my profile you weirdo wtf. 

-->@Shila

Great post!

So you could not build a case for Jesus.[ever actually existing]

Correct, and neither can you. 

I simply believe a man named Jesus existed. He believed himself to be- or was led to believe himself to be rightful heir to the throne of David as king of the Jews and Jerusalem. And that it was this belief that got him executed. He performed no miracles and failed miserably to fulfil the requirements of an expected messiah as many messiahs had before him and since.

But Shila did in this thread.

shila wrote: The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

Stephen wrote:  This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.

"In this way they can train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God." (Titus 2:4-5)

Your main struggle is with miracles.

 Wrong again you clown.  In many of those threads of mine I have clearly stated that I believe that a man called Jesus existed but that I can never prove my belief...... and neither can YOU! and my position hasn't changed or waivered since the day I joined here.

So you could not build a case for Jesus.

But Shila did in this thread.

You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

#33 CEASE AND DESIST NOW!!!

And I have disputed the evidence that you put forward that was supposed to support your case for the existence of a biblical and historical Jesus. So simply stop repeating your flimsy evidence and either challenge my disputations or admit they are valid and accept them for what they are, and we can all move on.

Simply repeating and presenting the same argument that I have already challenged won't get us anywhere.And I have disputed the evidence that you put forward that was supposed to support your case for the existence of a biblical and historical Jesus. So simply stop repeating your flimsy evidence and either challenge my disputations or admit they are valid and accept them for what they are, and we can all move on.

You have accepted the historical Jesus.

You even affirm Josephus researched the temple scrolls to search for the historical Jesus.

shila wrote: Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

Stephen wrote: Josephus was a high-ranking warrior priest;    of some royal decent, so I am sure he understood the "theology" of the day much better than either you or me. And if you have read all the works of Josephus, you will know that it was he that got his hands on the collection of the sacred temple scrolls after the fall of the city. #14

Have you actually read the works of Josephus? Because I have.#14

stephen wrote: And I am not religious in the slightest.

My thread was not started for only the religious. It was started to build a case for the HistoricalJesus.

You have contributed 198 threads. But not a single case for  the Historical Jesus. Well you have one now!!

You have contributed 198 threads.

--> @Shila @Stephen

And all this time I thought you weren't actually Catholic.

I was accused of being a bot. But all this time you thought I was actually Catholic. I guess the mods had to make a choice. They banned the bot.

Shila wrote: You accepted Jesus as a historical person. The case built by Shilah as achieved its objective.

#19

The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

The fewer members who dispute my case for the historical Jesus the more successful by case will be viewed.

. Did that website not have anything [else] for you to copy and paste in response?

-> @Shila

The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

 And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine - minus the miracles. But I cannot prove it on the bases of there is so little evidence. It's called being honest with myself.

You on the other hand have offered nothing more than extremely flimsy so-called "evidence".  

You were not asked to prove anything.

The evidence was a collection of accounts written by those who lived  during Jesus’s time and followed him.

There were also accounts by historians who reported these events.

All you had to do was accept the case for the Historical Jesus built by Shila in this thread which you did.

built by Shila in this thread

You said: “And I accept there was such a man that lived in 1st century Palestine.”

That is good enough for now. We can deal with other specifics later.

The objective of this thread was to build a case for the Historical Jesus and to get as many people to accept this simple historical  fact.

--> @Shila

1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.

None of which are eyewitness accounts. Although I have no actual reason to deny a man, believing himself to be rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem existed.

The Gospel authors recorded the accounts of eyewitnesses who followed Jesus everywhere in their Gospels and even referenced these eyewitnesses in their titles. Eg. Gospel of Matthew according to Matthew.

The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

 This will be the very much debated The Testimonium Flavianum, which other scholars believed was added by the Christian apologist Eusebius. Indeed, many modern scholars reject it altogether. And further, Josephus doesn't refer to him as a god.

 And as it is you that mentions historian Flavius Josephus, he relates to us a very interesting story that causes me to doubt the whole of the crucifixion story and its timing in particular. It may sound very familiar to many readers of the New Testament:

 And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered...'The Life' of Flavius Josephus.

 Two died where one recovered! An interesting coincidence when we read the account  of and Joseph of Arimathea from the gospels:

“And after this Joseph of Arimathea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus”. John 19:38-42.KJV

The similarities cannot be denied. Isn’t Josephus’ crucifixion story identical to what happened in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion where we are told that there was only one survivor of three and that survivor’s body was asked for by a man we know as a “secret” disciple of Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea?

Is it at all possible that historian Flavius Josephus and Joseph of Arimathea are one and the same person regardless of what we are supposed to know of these apparently two different people?? I suggest that you study and research the origins of the names of both historian Flavius Josephus' and Joseph of Arimathea, you may be surprised what you discover.

We are talking about the Historical Jesus. Historian Flavius Josephus wrote about Jesus and the events surrounding his life.

Remember Flavius Josephus was an Historian and not a theologian.

 Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

All cult leaders of the time recruited followers and an inner circle.

But I have always found this particular recruitment story  more than suspicious. Have you actually read the sequence of events. Well no you haven't because there is no sequence. We are simply asked to believe this in itself was a miracle of sorts. Tell me would you just drop everything leaving your home, employment or business, wife and children simply because a complete stranger, that you know nothing at all about, simply walked up to  you and said " follow me" without a by you leave? It makes no sense at all on the face of it does it? But we are asked to suspend simple common sense and believe this is exactly what happened.

Did Paul and Peter start the church in Rome?

We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.

Ah yes, Eusebius again, putting words into the mouth of someone that lived hundreds of years before himself.

We are talking about history which is a study of past events.

Did Jesus claim he was God?

No. In fact it appears while everyone around him was speculating who he might be, Jesus seems at pains to avoid the subject and repeatedly refers to himself as 

"the son of man" i.e very human. He didn't even say that he was the son of god, although,  IF he was the rightful heir to the throne of David then he would have also inherited the title -son of god- as other Hebrew kings did before him.

The thread was to first establish the fact Jesus was a historical person , that he existed and left am impression behind.

Today 2 billion Christians believe Jesus is God. All the  modern science and research has not diminished the Christian position.

[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.” 

This more than likely means that he and his god are in agreement. Jesus understood the scriptures by all accounts and hadn't come to change them, if the bible is to be believed.

If this is not the case then it is a baffling statement that Jesus made here. Because he also says many things that contradict his own statement. Such as here> 

“No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only. “ (Matthew 24:36) , clearly showing the two to be separate entities and clearly talking about what he knows and what only his god knows.

Jesus did not want his disciples to get ahead of themselves and for good reasons.

Did Jesus actually exist or is he a mythological figure.

1. What evidence do we have that Jesus was in fact a Historical person?

The four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, are the main sources for the biography of Jesus' life, the teachings and actions attributed to him.

The first non-Christian writer to talk about Jesus was the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born Yosef ben Matityahu),who lived around AD 47-100.

 Were the 12 disciples who followed Jesus historical as well?

We have the evidence from Josephus who tells us about the martyrdom of James, the brother of Jesus, who was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Josephus also relates the execution of the apostle James. We also have the evidence of the early church writers. The first important church historian, Eusebius, wrote in the early fourth century.

Did Jesus claim he was God?

[Jesus said:] “I and the Father are one.”

I think that the human race is currently going through a rapid phase of devolution.

@ Brother D. ThomasFor your information I was asked by Stephen to start my own thread on the Religion forum. I have been doing research on the historical Jesus and thought  it would be a great  start to build a case for the historical Jesus so Christians would cease doubting and atheist start believing.

No women in heaven.

A bit of an eternally gay orgy then.

Remember Tradesecret stepping into this hole in being a WOMAN and then trying in vain to dig herself out of hole that she created as she changed genders umpteenth times? LOL!

In my post #809 above, have you EVER seen such a Bible ignorant and stupid woman that Shila represents, other than Tradesecret? 

other than Tradesecret? 

Your quote of "nice" regarding the ungodly act of Shila creating a thread of the historical Jesus,

will not be NICE for her in going directly against Jesus' true words relative to the 2nd class woman as I have shown in my post #805!

  If Shila creates said thread, LET THE BLOODLETTING TOWARDS HER BEGIN IN THE NAME OF JESUS, PRAISE!

Bible fool Shila, when are you going to actually READ the JUDEO-Christian Bible and understand that your position here is to STFU and remain silent towards the man that outright own you and what you do? “But I suffer not a woman to teach, NOR TO USURP THE AUTHORITY OVER THE MAN, but to be in silence.” (Timothy 2:12) 

I am going to start my first thread which is a case for the historical Jesus.

It is none of your business who and when one member engages another or who and when members became agreeable. It appears to me that you simply post for for no other reason but the sake of posting, rendering your posts meaningless and irrelevant to the thread.

  And you need to learn to read what it is you choose to comment on. The agreement I have with Double_R in this case is that Sidewalker is dishonest.

So you unnecessarily dragged Reverend Tradesecret into your agreement that sidewalker is dishonest.

Read your post:

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.

Double_R drags several others before agreeing with you.

Double_R starts out with Sidewalker then jump to Ehyeh and end up with Stephen. But the person Double_R ends  up agreeing with that Tradesecret is dishonest is Stephen.

-> @Stephen

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.

I didn't think he was capable of surprising with how dishonest he is until his last reply. This is absolutely amazing

do you know who you are talking to.

You start out with Sidewalker then jump to Ehyeh and end up with Stephen. But the person you end up agreeing with that Tradesecret is dishonest is Stephen.

do you want to formally debate it?

She loves you yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.

Mrs Stephen that is.

Mull of Kintyre hey.

And Linda played the keyboards and made the veggie burgers.

And your mum got all slushy when she heard the bagpipes.

Oh, mist rolling in from the sea.

And then there was the one-legged woman.

--> @Deb-8-a-bull @Shila

Deb-8-a-bull wrote: Thats Unless one has actully meet the god. thing. 

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

New International Version

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, John 1:18

But as is usual where the scriptures are concerned, John 1:18 contradicts other biblical verses.

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

A very cruel lie, if you ask me.

Matthew 7:7 is basic curtesy.

Shila wrote: Matthew 7:7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.

The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof

WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradsecret  textbook of denial and deceit.  And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.

You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me.  It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.

Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.

Yes Double_R, this is right out of the Reverend tradesecret textbook of denial and deceit.   And you can expect this kind of deviousness from sidewalker in the future.

I gave the post links so you could see for yourself that his standard lie about context is just that, a lie.

This is the exchange you are being dishonest about:

If, as you claim, asserting God is not a truth statement, it's a subjectrive choice, then why do you throw a tantum and start screaming demands for burden of proof anytime someone asserts belief in God.

The latter is a factual claim and therefore one which, if you believe in basic principals of logic, shoulder a burden of proof

WTF?

That exchange didn’t happen. I just posted the full exchange and showed how the parts of it you conveniently left out were crucial to understanding what I was talking about.

You know damn well I can go find a half dozen more instances where you asserted that Faith in God shoulders a burden of proof just in conversations with me.  It's a primary axiom of your faith, and it's why you made up your pretend definition of atheist, you claim atheism isn't a belief so it doesn't have the BOP, only people who have faith in God carry the BOP, you are astoundingly dishonest.

Says the guy selectively editing our exchanges and then re-posting them even after being shown how blatantly dishonest they were.

No but seriously. 

He is fine.