Christans show Jesus is God and not Satan

[Norman Humann]

ok now turn your mega powers of punctuation onto the pepsi add and tell me what is wrong with that

I already explained it on the previous page.

[FatAndFaithless]

As to the Pepsi. Read as "Packed with tasteless sugar."

[Drich]

Drich, it says "Packed with taste less sugar". Presumably it was meant to be "packed with taste, less sugar".
There is no comma and the word could've been divided in two between the lines, as in "packed with tasteless sugar".

Can't it say 'Packed with taste less/minus sugar?' on the box it clearly says it sweetened with some other non sugar plant syurp. (Can't read the actual plant name.)

---

ok now turn your mega powers of punctuation onto the pepsi add and tell me what is wrong with that

I already explained it on the previous page.

Nope... That is who I was speaking to.

---

Or rather Packed with taste "without" Sugar?

[Norman Humann]

Can't it say 'Packed with taste less/minus sugar?' on the box it clearly says it sweetened with some other non sugar plant syurp. (Can't read the actual plant name.)

Look, it doesn't matter. The point was, wihout proper punctuation there are many confusions that rise which could easily be avoided with just a comma and without any linguistical gymnastics.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Ha ha ha....I love this forum.

---

http://youtu.be/airT-m9LcoY

[Lek]

Sorry to insert myself into the conversation. But in answer to the original question for the thread - who Jesus is isn't determined by who we think he is. The bible, which is the only written revelation of who he is, says he is the messiah, the Son of God. I'll take the writers at their word, because I trust them. If you think he is someone or something else, that's your prerogative. If you think he is Satan or a demon or someone else, tell me why you believe the bible is wrong and you are right.

---

Ha ha ha....I love this forum.

---

http://youtu.be/airT-m9LcoY

So start being kind. Answer me kindly.

[Norman Humann]

Sorry to insert myself into the conversation. But in answer to the original question for the thread - who Jesus is isn't determined by who we think he is. The bible, which is the only written revelation of who he is, says he is the messiah, the Son of God. I'll take the writers at their word, because I trust them. If you think he is someone or something else, that's your prerogative. If you think he is Satan or a demon or someone else, tell me why you believe the bible is wrong and you are right.

Lek, come on. You're more intelligent than this. To say that Jesus is god because the bible says so is to commit circular reasoning. Surely you see the flaw in that way of thinking.

The point of this thread wasn't to indicate that Jesus was actually demon-possessed or anything like that, it was to emphasize that you can't know that and -- like you -- must resort to taking the authors' word for it. I believe you've discussed the topic of why the bible is unreliable in another thread.

Try to look at it this way: if you have to take the word of some anonymous writers about something that was not documented in any other source, how valid is your belief? Just why would you even consider taking it as true if you hadn't been taught to believe it at an early age?

[KevinM1]

All I know is that if I were Satan, I'd act like Jesus to convince everyone I actually wasn't Satan.

[robvalue]

How can you trust the writers Lek, when you don't even know who they are? They could be anyone alive at that time. Would you trust anyone, regardless of who they were or why they were writing it? I know you'll say God was with them, but why think that? Because the bible says so? Because people have told you so? It's a ridiculous claim they have made. And the bible cannot validate itself.

No one knows who they were, or exactly what their motives were. Although we do know they were so desperate to craft Jesus into "the messiah" that they had him fulfilling prophecies that weren't even prophecies. And doing stuff that doesn't make sense like riding two donkeys at once because they mistranslated the prophecy he was supposed to be doing. Clearly, they were making stuff up and not reporting it as it happened. And if they were eye witnesses, and there's no reason to think they were, they waited about 50 years or something after they met jesus to write any of it down. That is plain ridiculous.

Be honest: if you had never heard of christianity, had never seen the bible before and picked it up and read it, would you just believe it to be true? Or is it just because you've been conditioned to assume it is true?

I challenge you and any other christian to do that. Imagine you're seeing the bible for the first time, ever. Assume you know nothing about it. And just read it, all the way through, start to finish, with fresh eyes. Is this a magic book, or is it what you would expect from primitive people trying to understand the universe?

[Pizza]

I don't see how assuming the Bible historically reliable and assuming the supernatural is helpful. If Jesus was an agent of the devil he could do all the things he is said to have done and said. The devil could easily deceive the followers of Christ like Paul. I even have a supernatural explanation of why Yahweh would let this happen, to test the faith of the Jews.

---

This is like the supernatural version of Plantinga's EAAN(Evolutionary argument against naturalism). It's a Supernatural argument against Christian presuppositionalism.