|
An invitation to debate.
|
 RE: An invitation to debate.
December 19, 2016 at 7:47 pm
(This post was last modified: December 19, 2016 at 8:21 pm by Neo-Scholastic.)
Yeah, I'll take a pass on this one based initially on how poorly he formulated the debate question then later because I don't want to suffer the fool.
 (December 19, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Drich Wrote: The answer to the OP's question was both. Seemingly right after the resurrection the people who first saw Him did not recognise Him. However several days after those who did see Him (including Thomas who put his hands in his wounds) Did recognize Jesus. A taker?  RE: An invitation to debate.
December 20, 2016 at 12:31 am
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2016 at 1:07 am by 21stCenturyIconoclast.)
(December 19, 2016 at 8:50 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(December 19, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Drich Wrote: The answer to the OP's question was both. Seemingly right after the resurrection the people who first saw Him did not recognise Him. However several days after those who did see Him (including Thomas who put his hands in his wounds) Did recognize Jesus. Jehanne, When push comes to shove, the pseudo-christian realizes that they cannot defend their primitive faith and remain intelligent looking in the aftermath. Therefore, its easier for them to run subsequent to them spewing a few irrelative bible passages, tell you you're going to hell because you haven't swallowed the Kool Aide that they're drinking, and then go back to their serial killing Yahweh's words as they Cherry pick their bibles to their hearts content. Good luck in trying to find a notable pseudo-christian for your discussion! . (December 19, 2016 at 7:34 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: .He's a genuine original. None of us have ever come up with any of these arguments. I am amazed at his intellect. Steel Curtain, Wow, really? I was using the arguments in question when I was still in grade school! I look forward to enhancing my intellect by watching your obvious superior intellect as you engage with the pseudo-christians on many of their Yahweh inspired topics. I am sure I will learn a lot from you, therefore, I thank you in advance! . 
Lol...
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh (December 20, 2016 at 1:35 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Lol... Catholic Lady, I can see that you're easily amused, even by your own primitive faith when it is shown in a bad light like it should be. Listen, why don't you take Jehannes call to be in discussion with her topic listed Step up to the plate because don't forget that your serial killing Jesus is watching you run away from her topic, as you continue to visit this thread. (Hebrews 4:3) Tell you what, all primitive Catholics like yourself should be up to date on their spin doctoring apologetics, therefore, if your not, I can help you try, although most likely it will be in vain, to gloss over those damn biblical axioms that will be forthcoming relative to Jehannes topic at hand. Well, what do you think? Wanna give it a try? If anything, Catholic apologetics will provide some great comedy entertainment! .
I think i have found my new favorite person on AF
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh  RE: An invitation to debate.
December 20, 2016 at 3:17 am
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2016 at 3:27 am by Alex K.)
Catholic_Lady
Typical. Catholics with their squishy soft brains falling for the first charmer they come across...
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
Psalm 14, KJV revised edition
 (December 19, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Drich Wrote: The answer to the OP's question was both. Seemingly right after the resurrection the people who first saw Him did not recognise Him. However several days after those who did see Him (including Thomas who put his hands in his wounds) Did recognize Jesus. Their confusion was understandable, seeing as he first appeared wearing white face and clown make-up. ![[Image: extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg]](https://i.postimg.cc/zf86M5L7/extraordinarywoo-sig.jpg) (December 20, 2016 at 3:17 am)Alex K Wrote: Catholic_Lady Hahaha! Nice.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh  RE: An invitation to debate.
December 20, 2016 at 10:07 am
(This post was last modified: December 20, 2016 at 10:10 am by LadyForCamus.)
(December 19, 2016 at 8:50 pm)Jehanne Wrote:(December 19, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Drich Wrote: The answer to the OP's question was both. Seemingly right after the resurrection the people who first saw Him did not recognise Him. However several days after those who did see Him (including Thomas who put his hands in his wounds) Did recognize Jesus. Oh, wouldn't THAT be fun!  Whoa, I had no idea Neo-Scholastic was Wooters. Mind blow!
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
