[Lullaby Chainer]

So chainer, do you wish to give your own reply or babble of nothing? Now to analyze your nothing. Yes there are many more things we describe Him as, however these are three main ideas of what he was. I may have only three idea's of what a car is: A van, a truck, or an SUV, but that certainly does not limit myself to only those three choices, however, when I say car, those are the main three that come to mind. Next let us go to your first point doubting the existance of Jesus. Let me aquaint you with the premise in my original post that implies while we debate we debate in terms of Jesus existing. Otherwise this becomes a debate of His own existence and we would not want to have this thread go awry.

Ah, my apologize for pointing out my own opinion. Very sorry. Next time I will think to myself, "hmm.. I wonder if Idmaniac will approve"

Seriously, you needn't get so defensive. I was just pointing something out.

That is not a fallacy of logic, rather a restriction of such. (logic) And as I have pointed above even if it does, those are just three main arguements. Of course there are more.

Actually, it is a fallacy. And it deals with logic. Restrictions of "such" is a fallacy nonethless. ^^

Chainer, how is Jesus misquoted when he is quote thousands of times. And not just by a group of close friends, but by the many many people who have written in the New Testament.

Well, couldn't they be quoting one tainted source?

Second, this claim is no ordinary statement. In fact I think that you will find this point erronius if you look at the reason why Jesus died. Because He was charged with Blasphemy! Now that charge brought upon Him shows that he indeed claim to be the Lord. If He did die on the cross, then His crime was blasphemy, which meant He to claim to be God.

Ah, yes. I know very well what the sources say. Your point? I could come up with the grandest of claims, but that doesn't automatically make my claims true, now does it?

A point of the stories being made up. Women were looked down upon in those days. Why then, are women presented as those who find Jesus, showing women to have an important role in delivering the Good News to the desciples if the story was made up for people to believe?

How do you know everyone hated women? ^^ I think people abuse that argument way too far. You can't honestly defend such a thing by saying men wouldn't allow women to have a role in their story. They'd be just as likely take that part out in replace of a man whether the stories are true or not. Afterall, most of them wouldn't have known if what they're hearing is bullcrap or not, and most likely they thought it was true, so naturally if a woman has a role in the story, it wouldn't have mattered whether the story was true or not, so, your argument is pointless. ^^

If Jesus resurrected, why then did He not stay full time, or why did He never stay?

I don't don't understand what you're saying. Please elaborate.

This is a curious point. If the desciples are trying to get people to believe they would have done 1 of 2 things. A: made Him come back so the people would have a Savior to look up to, and then find an imposter to fit the role. or B: Never had him come back at all so that they could claim Him alive and in heaven. It makes no sense for Him to be here for 40 days and then leave. Just when He has come to free the people He leaves? There is no sense in that.

I don't see why that wouldn't make sense. Stories and real life don't always make sense anyway. Hardly a worthy defense though.

"Why would super ducky go to the grocery store if he already had 5 boxes of pudding? Obviously, that doesn't make sense so.."

There are indeed certain qualities to this story in the Bible that seem stupid to say if you are trying to make a credible story.

Aha... very true.

Note that there are over 100,000 versions of the Bible and just because you say that one version you have randomly picked out doesn't say it means you make the claim he never said it. There is a logical fallacy. Just because one says so, does not mean all affirm that point.

Your sentences don't make any sense. " say that one version you have randomly picked out doesn't say it means you make the claim he never said it."

WTF? I think I understand what you're saying.. something bout you can't generalize and that just cause one book might be full of crap, doesn't mean all of them are full of crap. Now correct me if i'm wrong in that assumption.

But, the thing is, I never said that or tried to nullify all the books with just one.

(oh, and I'm not offended nor do I think you hate me. just amused. ^^)