If all religions are true it means they're all false 100% sure absolutely and this wokeness has to end.

Remember the Bible has stood the test of time. There was plenty of time to refute the eyewitness accounts of Jesus but it never was refuted..

Wrong... AGAIN!

I am not woke but I disagree a lot with MAGA movement. Trump is a rapist pig etc. Big problems, he's a sellout to Israel.

Tell me how a sellout to Israel would tell them they need to stop bombing Gaza? And show me where Trump is a convicted felon of rape. Don't make the accusation when it has not been demonstrated in any criminal trial. Civil is not criminal, or did you forget that? Rape is only a felony in all 50 states, which means it is always a criminal charge. A federal jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation, but not liable for rape under New York's narrow penal code definition at the time which required proof of forcible penile penetration. Get it right, okay?

Until Trump goes to jail he is an innocent man according to faux law.

The Supreme Court rules Trump was not immune from the Epstein files. That’s just the beginning of his immunity nullification.

I don't agree with anyone against Goodness. and it took me a while back and forth to realise that lies in the Bible and Lord Jesus/Yeshua. I am with Jesus sola scriptura. Anything against that it is against what I believe overall.

btw you disagree with many but pretend you agree with them, that's worse.

don't give a shit what your Epstein rotted system has concluded is true or not about Trump. You just literally said to me that rape isn't rape if the penis doesn't enter her, meaning you actually admit he sexually assaulted women at the very least. Now read the Epstein files and you will realise he didn't stop at adults.

SatanLucy wrote:

You disagree a lot with everyone. There literally never was a person or religion or ideology you didn't disagree with.

Not so, he was Super Catholicman for a whole week, he had a cape and everything, remember?

There are over a billion Catholics in the world.

Debby wrote:

The Gospels are named after the authors who wrote them. Mark, Luke, Matthew and John. They were Jesus’s disciples at that time.

Not true, they were named after the disciples, but the disciples were not the authors.

The Gospels aren't straight-forward historical records nor are they eyewitness accounts; and they were put into their current form slowly, over a period of about three hundred years. They contain details of events that had no one else present to record them and from a historical basis, they do not concur on all details, making them historically suspect.

This is not to say that the Gospels are not documents that present an image of Christian truth, it is just to recognize the Bible for what it is, a book that recorded the religious experience of a much earlier and very special age in mankind's development. I understand that the men who wrote the Bible were not biographers, they were writing "Sacred History" from the passionate perspective of their own religious experience. When I read the Bible, I read about a devout people in whom the most profound truth was emerging, and I believe they understood that it was a truth that resonates from within, not one that is imposed from outside.

We must simply consider that someone as disturbingly radical as Christ, as powerful in actions, presence, and legacy as he was, could only be expected to incite widely varying interpretations of his life.

Christianity is not a static movement, it's a timeless, living faith that speaks to individuals in whatever time, place, or context they are in. It is the truth that "is within" that the Bible speaks of and to. If we listen to that "voice within" we will know how to interpret it and we will be able to distinguish between what is permanent truth and what is cultural bias. The proper way to read it is with the heart rather than the intellect, and to do so we must change our focus from actively pondering the external events to passively opening to the internal, transcendent knowledge within.

Hmmmm, I'm guessing that Mary got impregnated by a Priest when she was 14 and then told her son that God was the father.

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is a famous cry of deep pain found in the Bible. Jesus speaks these exact words while dying on the cross, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.

Sidewalker: [to your #76]

You said: "Not true, they were named after the disciples, but the disciples were not the authors. The Gospels aren't straight-forward historical records nor are they eyewitness accounts; and they were put into their current form slowly, over a period of about three hundred years."

Not a confirmed fact, either, but conjecture.

The best that can be said for the Gospels [and the balance of the N.T.] is that it represents not even the best attempt at translation of documents that, at best, are copies of who knows how many generations from originals, said to have been written in Koine Greek, but at present, non-extant documents written by who-knows, but named for 4 men who were disciples of Jesus, but that little else can be scholastically determined now, and that this translation effort began coincident with, or shortly thereafter, the collected Nicean Council at the behest of Emperor Constantine, who may or may not have been, himself, a Christian convert, but who desired at least religious peace in his Empire, on about 325 CE. That timing is related by scholar/Saint Jerome, one of the original translators of that era. I trust he was knowledgeable of at least the date.

Whether or not they were "straight-forward historical records... [and/or] eyewitness accounts" they contain verifiable good advice on our proper, peaceful, cooperative engagement with one another, allowing our mutual amelioration. Nothing bad about that, even if a fae-tale. [I sincerely believe it is not that]

Hmmmm, I'm guessing that Mary got impregnated by a Priest when she was 14 and then told her son that God was the father.

At least you acknowledge Mary was impregnated, but by Whom and by what biological act, we are not appropriately advised. Some things are best left private for proper decorum if nothing else.

It was absolutely not a virgin birth [known scientifically as parthenogenesis; i.e., a female creature [or plant] producing offspring without the benefit of male impregnation, and which a variety of animals and plants habitually exhibit. However, parthenogenesis is not possible for any mammal, including humans. Further, no example of parthenogenesis of any plant or animal has ever been observed that is male; offspring are female only. That says Mary could not give birth without conception by a male contributor, and a virgin birth, ignoring the former restriction, could have given birth to Julie, but not Jesus.

So, Mary's story to Jesus would not have been as you propose.

The reason Jesus is the son of God is because god is his father and Mary the mother.

Hmmmm......Well it's the usual conundrum whereby one cannot disprove something that cannot be proved.

Nonetheless as I regularly point out to you, there are no actual eyewitness accounts of anything that the Jesus character might have done...Only later folk tales.

Thing is you buy into these stories, sold to you by the slick theo-political business empire known as RC Inc, and then just repeat the mantra.

So Debs the onus is on you to provide actual proof of the original event...Do that and the debate is settled...But you cannot, because events of 2000 years ago cannot be revisited...So until you have actual proof, I do not have anything to disprove.

Okay, so I too have a mantra...Though a mantra that does actually prove a point...Which is that you cannot substantiate the basis of your theistic obsession.

Hmmmm, I'm guessing that Mary got impregnated by a Priest when she was 14

And you are correct.

Considering that the ancient Jews had two "weddings", a betrothal (engagement) and then a wedding proper 10 or 12 months later

and then told her son that God was the father.

And the poor girl at first was amazed frightened and confused because she had never been with a man . But it appears that she was somehow convinced by the priest that she would bare such a wonderful child from god that she went bounding off to tell her sister all about it.

*Unfortunately for her this child raping priest/ angel/messenger hadn't told her the whole gospel truth. He left out the part about her son (from "god") would suffer a vile vicious torturous death and that she would witness it.

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is a famous cry of deep pain found in the Bible. Jesus speaks these exact words while dying on the cross, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34.

See *

And strangely but not surprisingly, the evangelists can't even make up their minds on what day he was crucified, who actually carried the cross to Golgotha and what words were actually spoken by Mary's son while suffering and supposedly dying on the cross while his mum watched from the foot of the cross, OR was it watching him suffer while peering over a wall into a private garden "from afar"? And we re told that the bible isn't ambiguous or vague.

Trump is a rapist pig 

Ok. Who did he rape.? When did he rape her? Was he ever charged with rape? Did he have a trial? Did he plead guilty or not guilty? When was his trial?

I do have more questions but if you wouldn't mind answering just those few it would be helpful and I will be grateful. I'd like to look into this (your accusation) for myself.

The reason Jesus is the son of God is because......

........it was a title given to many others in the bible, kings in particular.

The prophets promised a coming messiah. Jesus had all the markings of a messiah. Jesus even said he had come to fulfil the laws. His resurrection proved his case.

Debby wrote:

The prophets promised a coming messiah. Jesus had all the markings of a messiah.

I sure wish you didn't put it that way, Jesus did not have "all the marking" of the Jewish Messiah. "

Jesus even said he had come to fulfil the laws. His resurrection proved his case.

Jews do not accept Jesus as the prophesized Messiah because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies of Judaism and He did not possess the personal qualifications of Judaism’s Messiah.

1. Jesus did not build the Third Temple (Ezekiel 37:26-28)
2. He did not bring all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6),
3. He did not fulfill the central theme of Judaic Messianic prophecy, which was to bring about an age of perfection with universal peace and worldwide acceptance of the God of Judaism. (Isaiah 2:1-4; Zephaniah 3:9; Hosea 2:20-22; Amos 9:13-15; Isaiah 32:15-18, 60:15-18; Micah 4:1-4; Zechariah 8:23, 14:9; Jeremiah 31:33-34).
4. In fact, the fundamentalist Christian contention about the Messiah regarding divisiveness and exclusivity is diametrically opposed to the Judaic prophecy that the Messiah would unite mankind to live in perfect harmony as one.
5. The Christian belief in the divinity of Christ and the virgin birth and is not at all consistent with Judaic prophecy of the Messiah.
6. The Messiah of Judaic prophecy was to be completely human, born of two human parents, and descended on his father’s side from King David (Genesis 49:10, Isaiah 11:1, Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24).
7. Jesus contradicted the Torah and claimed that many of its commandments were no longer applicable. The Torah states all mitzvot remains binding forever, that the Messiah will lead all of the people to full Torah observance, and it states that anyone attempting to change the Torah is a false prophet.
8. There is absolutely no concept of a “second coming” of the Messiah in Judaic Scripture and the Jewish Messiah is to rule Israel during the age of perfection, Jesus did not do so. (Isaiah 11:1-9; Jeremiah 23:5-6, 30:7-10, 33:14-16; Ezekiel 34:11-31, 37:21-28; Hosea 3:4-5)

Christianity and Judaism are two separate religions, Christianity holds that Jesus is the Messiah, Judaism does not.

Jesus did not complete his mission because the Jews got him crucified in just 3 years into his mission. They can’t have it both ways deny Jesus the time to accomplish his mission and also blame him for not completing it.

yeah paid over 80 millions on one of the most slamdunk cases and is all over the epstein files implicating him way more with even underage.

prove to me, you have a superior source of morality outside the Bible that has an example of working in history to create a good society.

so basic social skills is to be a backstabbing chameleon who will betray everyone?