Christianity and the 10 Commandments

[chi pan]

The conversation did not start with the burden of proof that he was perfect it started YOU saying its not possible because it contradicts the very definition. That's it. I answered the question and that's all I'm obligated to do.

More sophistry.


A philosphical question does not preclude the provision of physical proof,unless one happens to be a neo platonist. I reject the notion that truth can be revealed by reason alone,I demand evidence.

The statement there is god is a metaphysical question. Never the less,to accept the truth of the proposition I demand evidence. That a question may be unprovable or unfalsifiable is not my problem.

The claim that Jesus was perfect in his actions is in fact provable by observation. It is also falsifiable by observation of ONE imperfect act. I can think of one beauty off hand: His behaviour towards the money lenders was so wrong I've long though it was a later inclusion by some REALLY ignorant gentile. Be happy to explain it to you. Oh, I've also discussed this with a Rabbi at an on-line yeshiva.


Bored now,but my fault entirely. I should know better than to try to have a rational discussion with a presuppositional apologist. It's like playing chess with a pigeon;it knocks over the pieces,craps on the board and starts cooing in victory.

Look my goal from the beginning was not to prove that Jesus was perfect. It was simply to prove your statement wrong saying that it is impossible for Jesus to be man and perfect because it contradicts the definition; which succeeded in doing. If you would like to change the subject to whether there's any evidence of this I suggest you ask first or at least notify me. Changing the topic randomly is confusing. I also don't think it's fair for you to claim victory when you change the game in the middle. What you ask for me to do is impossible. In order to prove that Jesus was without sin I would have to be present with him to observe everything he did to ensure he did not secretly lie or steal or whatever. Not Only that but Jesus said if you think about sinning then you have already sinned. So I would have to be present with him his whole life and a mind reader to prove this which last time I checked is not possible. On the other hand, you address Jesus' behavior towards the money exchangers outside the temple as a case for his sin. I don't need to be informed about this I know very well the story. First, though you may think it to be wrong that's not the argument here. The argument is whether he sinned and so I raise the question what commandment did he break here? In addition, I can justify his action in doing this. He turned the tables yelling you turn my father's house into a den of thieves. Why does he think that? Well the exchange. Booths originally prove a great service by exchanging money for offering. Not bad right? But the problem was they raised their exchange rates so high it was like stealing. This is why he reacted this way.