Jesus

Sorry I am horrible with punctuation! 1) Maybe you just didn't look at what I was talking about or you just don't read all of what I say. "2) Everything in both of our religions can be viewed as far fetched! We are talking about religion a thing built of faith and different views of the same words!" 1ST of all, this debate is not, comparative religion. It is whether or not there is evidence that Jesus is the son of god. (My religion, contrary to popular belief is not based on faith. We can discuss that some other time.) 2nd of all, faith is not evidence. Faith is by definition "belief that is not based on proof." This is one you using my words out of context again and two has " If you would have read what I said or looked back to what I was talking about I was referring to where I showed you another way a bible verse could be viewed. Your rebuttal said nothing more than that it was " Okay, but a little far fetched", I was doing nothing more than pointing out you have no possible right or support to say any statement is far fetched. "3)...." Sorry I didn't read all of Matthew 1. But Ill show how we are both using it wrong and prove that the bible can't be nitpicked by saying this. Would you agree the definition of Generation is a group of people that lived at the same time and were relatively similar age? If you would agree then our views are wrong in the bibles context. Maybe just because they didn't have better words in English to use. We count 14 ancestors to the time of David. Not 14 generations because brothers are in the same generation. Only 6 generations. Who ever wrote Matthew wasn't going to screw up counting so their word that wasn't generation had to have another meaning. Maybe it was ancestors. I can't read it's original writing. Also like I said in Luke it said SO THEY THOUGHT, that's what the people thought meaning it wasn't correct. That is probably not a direct translation so they had to infer somehow it wasn't correct in the original context. "5)...." You do read Hebrew then? I understand what you are saying now more. The reason I misunderstood is because you referred to Deut. 14:1 which doesn't say Jews were sons of God anywhere. It said you are the Children(people or any other translation) of the Lord our God. But, if direct translation reads sons it doesn't make much of a difference. I can see were your view that it could be used not so literally with Jesus. I am using the Catholic bible accepted by the Catholic church to be used for study. Most of the English bibles are protestant bibles to be exact King James. Can't use those they have been edited. (don't be stupid and try arguing that they haven't it is history, that is why it is called KING JAMES). Not saying the Catholic bibles hasn't been it just has been the least (when I say edited I mean changed from its original words) I am not saying I don't believe you or that you are a liar or incorrect or anything I just need a source or like type it and show it or something because this is the context ( I DO NOT KNOW HEBREW EVERYONE) א בָּנִים אַתֶּם, לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם: לֹא תִתְגֹּדְדוּ, וְלֹא-תָשִׂימוּ קָרְחָה בֵּין עֵינֵיכֶם--לָמֵת. and no translator I used said sons. Also I tore it apart (which I don't think you can do) because it said "a boy" not son. I also can't find "bunim" anywhere or find a translator that recognizes it. Problem arises again since there is any number of translation to English and most are technically right, just there is many ways the sentence is structured. If you directly translate it over. 1 you can't because some words just don't exist in English and 2 it makes no sense. because the way it is constructed "6)..." I don't understand were you got "God is human". You are either putting words in my mouth or using things out of context. Press ctrl-F I never said "God is Human" (until now) I said Jesus is Human but he is also God. That is the whole point of him God in the flesh. I don't understand why that matters because if we didn't need God in the flesh then Jesus wouldn't be here and we wouldn't be having this conversation. Your argument makes no sense. That was literally the whole point of Jesus, to be God in human form. I don't get were you are going with this. Are you trying to say Jesus wasn't human at all? Because if he wasn't then he was pointless. God literally made Jesus and became part of him. HOLD ON QUICK QUESTION.....Do you believe you have a spirit. If you do I have a better explanation. (God-) God is well God infinite being. (Jesus-) a human born of 1 human and GOD. Has the body of a human and the spirit (Holy spirit) the Spirit of God that is in Jesus. So Jesus is God with a form. Without Jesus God has no form. Just a being that is. Not female, or male. Not a human or a cow. With Jesus God took form. There we go I don't know if that ends that or not but what ever. "7)...." Haven't quite figured out why you keep bringing up Son of man because we know Jesus is human and that is basically what Son of Man means but anyway. All of those but did use Son of Man in a better way but still I don't understand why calling him Son of Man matters. (a) We already accept he is human (b)That is how everyone referred to him, not saying he liked it. (c)Why does it matter if it says he is son of man we know Jesus is the son of a human (Mary) that isn't hidden (d)It is his spirit that makes him God. Man with God's spirit (soul, whatever you want to call it) I do agree they call him son of man though. I just don't understand its relevance I am skipping 3 for now. ""4) You are arguing he is nothing more than a prophet" I said no such thing." Sorry you didn't say that I should have said you are saying he is just a man. Not literally the son of god ""(a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell" What does that have to do with whether he is son of god?" Why would he knowingly send himself to hell. ""(a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell" "1st of all he didn't."- Didn't what realize God is real? realize he would go to hell? That seems kind of obvious that he would realize those 2nd of all even if he did see the passage from Deuteronomy 13 which I quoted before." - Ill refer back to here later. "6) Then you are against both of our religions and Muslims because then you are refuting the three largest and longest lasting religions' God." Factually false. Judaism (and other religions) was around much longer. And Moslem's, as well as many Christians, do not believe Christ is god. Some believe he was a prophet. Truth does not follow #'s. Most of the world thought that planet earth is flat. Sorry I worded that wrong. I meant to say the 2 largest religions believe in the same God. Judaism can be viewed as the parent of Islam and Catholicism so that makes their God one of the longest lasting of the gods and in History on of the most believed in (Hinduism might be it out) Now lets assume God wanted to give us a huge test and bring Jesus back to life. If Jesus was trying to test us why wouldn't he call himself a NEW god he says that he is part of the existent God. This all trickles down to one problem though. How do we know Jesus wasn't one big test (other than faith) Awhile back I had this problem (made me stronger actually) Here is how I look at it. First the trilogy. God is one being with 3 persons- God the Father(God), God the Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit(the essence of God) The only thing I can say in 313 words is...God never fought back. If it were true God wouldn't have let it continue. he wouldn't have been resurrected something only God can do and if it was a test then my faith is wrong. But I am very blessed so God must care and he probably does for you to and that is all that really matter I need to right more but I can't right anym