HelenM

aza!!!

Long time no see!

How are you???

Anyway, I think that all cliques and subgroups have a tendency to fall prey to what you mentioned, in the above quote...

Don't you?

love
Helen

NOGO

I think that the word was supposed to be unscathed. It means unijured or unarmed.

aza wood

When did you ask me these questions.? How did I miss them?

The bible has very many errors, but (NO) I would not say, it is full of lies.

(NO) I do not believe that "Jesus"is the son of "God".

aza wood

I can see where "Jesus" predicted of the destruction of the temple, which happened 40 years after his death, but where did he foretell that the world would end on a certain day, or any time that should have already taken place. He did not! Morgan is not correct and has given no good evidence to prove anything about "Jesus", except that he must believe that there was a "Jesus".

aza wood

Not touched, with a sword.(word)

aza wood

Yes. Hi Hellen.

aza wood

Oo. I spell funny!

-DM-

Aza:

It should have occurred to you that the only kind of "false prophet" that I am concerned with in my <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/FalseProphet.html" target="_blank">Jesus Was a False Prophet</a> article is the biblical false prophet, therefore it is the biblical standard which I apply to Jesus. And inasmuch as my article concludes with words which state that either Jesus was a false prophet [which is understood to be according to the Bible] or else "the Bible itself is NOT trustworthy, and we cannot believe with any certainty, anything else which the Bible purports to tell us about Jesus!"

It would seem, therefore, that you spent a good deal of time and effort essentially agreeing with me, thus making your critique moot in the process.

--Don--

-DM-

If that is what you are saying, then you are simply wrong. The fact that a book is flawed in parts does not mean that it cannot be used to prove something. One obvious example of something which a flawed book can be used to prove is that the book is flawed. Further, the biblical standard for a false prophet can be used to provide evidence that Jesus himself would be a false prophet according to that standard.

Even by what little remains of the historical Jesus in the Bible, it is quite obvious to me that he was not "perfect" as has been claimed. It is no consequence to me, however, what you personally believe. What matters to me most of all is what I believe, and based on what the Bible says about Jesus, I say that he was--according to the Bible--a hypocrite and that he would have been deemed a false prophet deserving of death.

There is one major problem, however, with your theory that the Bible is flawed to the point that it cannot be used to prove anything, and that is that everything that we allegedly know about Jesus comes from that book. For you to say that Jesus remains "unscaved [sic]" is self-contradictory. Either the Bible is flawed to the point that you cannot know anything with certainty about Jesus and you cannot therefore say that he remains unscathed, or else you can know something about Jesus based on the Bible, in which case, by biblical standards, he can be judged a false prophet.

--Don--

-DM-

Why? Because it is the Bible from which we get the criteria by which to judge a false prophet, it is the Bible by which we get the concept of the Judeo-Christian "God", it is from the Bible that we get what we allegedly know about Jesus.

That is ANOTHER issue entirely.

--Don--