"God is bigger than Allah"

[Evil Knevil]

Originally posted by Spiffor
You a Muslim, Evil ?

No, why?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
No, why?

You wrote "Muhammed (pbh)". This "pbh" looks like a Muslim sign. It's like if you had written G-d, I would have wondered if you were a Jew.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Spiffor: He was actually saying Muhammed (peanut butter hero) .

[Spiffor]

[Evil Knevil]

Blasphemy!

Spiffor: Yeah, it's just Peace Be upon Him. It's something I (in)frequently do to be respectful.

You go to Gaza and not be respectful to Mohammed!(pbh)

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Boshko


Then why would any Arab Christian tell you that he worships "Allah?"

Because Arab Christians adopted the language of Muslims that conquered their lands

[Ben Kenobi]

Christians believe Saul/Paul when he says he had a vision, etc. You all believe the words of men.

Do Christians worship Christ as the Son of God or Paul? Nice dodge che. We believe in Christ's words because he proved himself to be the Son of God.

[problem_child]

You god-lot and your constant quarrelings.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
Because Arab Christians adopted the language of Muslims that conquered their lands

Nope. Because Arab Christians are Arabs who happen not to share the majority religion of their population. It's like the French Jews who say "Dieu" (or rather "D.ieu"). That's probably because the French conquered Jewish lands

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Do Christians worship Christ as the Son of God or Paul? Nice dodge che. We believe in Christ's words because he proved himself to be the Son of God.

Wrong, you believe what some men say Christ said and did. On top of that, you have the problem of later additions to the Gospels and the letters of Paul. The only thing you nkow about Jeshua ben Joseph is what has been said about him by others.

Heck, two of the Gospels are attributed to people who didn't even know the man, and none of the Gospels were written within a generation of Jeshua's death. So you are trusting the memories of men.

[Giancarlo]

As this is my first post in this thread, I will address the topic at hand. George Bush didn't even agree with this General who made these statements. Personally, I think he should keep his mouth shut and not speak anymore lies about the United States.

[chequita guevara]

FEX IS BACK!!!!!

[Giancarlo]

Somebody didn't see my welcome back thread.

[chequita guevara]

I was out for a couple days, getting married.

[Ben Kenobi]

Wrong, you believe what some men say Christ said and did. On top of that, you have the problem of later additions to the Gospels and the letters of Paul. The only thing you nkow about Jeshua ben Joseph is what has been said about him by others.

Heck, two of the Gospels are attributed to people who didn't even know the man, and none of the Gospels were written within a generation of Jeshua's death. So you are trusting the memories of men.

Good points. However, I will challenge the attribution of the Gospels.

Mark and Luke I presume you say never knew or met Christ? That does not rule out the fact that they can and do use eyewitness testimony.

Mark indeed, since he was the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately, but not in order, the things either said or done by the Lord as much as he remembered. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him, but afterwards, as I have said, [heard and followed] Peter, who fitted his discourses to the needs [of his hearers] but not as if making a narrative of the Lord's sayings'; consequently, Mark, writing down some things just as he remembered, erred in nothing; for he was careful of one thing - not to omit anything of the things he heard or to falsify anything in them.

This comes from Eusebius, http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_02_02_02_MK.html

We have very good evidence that Mark is based on an eyewitness to Christ, Peter.

The same can be said for Luke, who used a variety of eyewitness testimony to Christ to compile his Gospels, among whom likely included Mary who did see Christ.

Anyway if you want to continue discussing the historicity of the Gospels, we can go right ahead.

Even if we were to discount the evidence of Mark and Luke, you still have John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Now, as for the problem of relying upon men, you touch on a point very near and dear to my heart. How do you know there existed a Communist revolution in Russia in 1917? Were you an eyewitness of said event?

In short, we rely upon authority for almost all that we know. This includes Christ. We believe in Christ not only because he is God, but also because of the Gospels, and how they are written.

Now, if we were to compare the Gospels by the same standards of any other work of the time, we see that all of the other historical books and documents far fall short in both the number and the completeness of the manuscripts.

In short, if we are to believe anything of history, it is in the Gospels.

Finally, we must consider the consequences of Jesus not rising from the dead. How then do we account for the empty tomb, presupposed not by the Christians, but by the Jews?

Please, give me a plausible counter explanation that fits all the details for Christ's resurrection.