Jesus

I was purely saying that I am not going to change your belief system. If it hasn't been done yet it wont be done by a few arguments on Debate.org 1) If my statement was irrelevant then yours is too. 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! You can rule one idea as far fetched just because it is different then yours. I haven't been unfair to you. Everything view as equal relevance. 3)I didn't misunderstand generations. Generations can be a time and it changes.....So who says you didn't misunderstand it? I could be right, you could be. In context in the English version it doesn't specify. Who says in its original context it didn't say something completely different? generations plural of genï¿½erï¿½aï¿½tion (Noun) Noun: All of the people born and living at about the same time, regarded collectively: "one of his generation's finest songwriters". The average period, generally considered to be about thirty years, during which children grow up and have children of their own. 4)Don't use my words out of context. That is what dirty politicians and the news does. If you want to have a polite debate don't use my words out of context. I said "So I believe this one should be ruled out because we can't read it for what it is. He could have just happened upon them and then they followed to Galilee or it could be human error (it was written by humans ) or it could just be wrong." Meaning that neither of us know the true meaning so it is pointless to argue about. You can waste your breath (fingers?) but to me the argument is done because they all agree he is going to Galilee he just meets people at different times. It could be our misunderstand or a loss in translation 5)I didn't misunderstand you at all. You just are not listening (reading?). The Lord is God, Jesus is God, Calling God the Lord is the same as calling Jesus the Lord. The only reason people call Jesus Lord more is because it is a way to keep them separated. Your argument that it is a figure of speech makes no sense because it isn't a figure of speech it is a word used to represent God. Lord a. God. b. Christianity Jesus. a. A man of renowned power or authority. Deuteronomy 14:1 "You are the people of the Lord your God......" It is saying .....You are the people under your most powerful, authority God. Where does your idea that calling Jesus Lord is not literal come into play? They are calling God the Lord and then they call Jesus the Lord. If anything it is the exact opposite of what you are saying. 6)If you didn't notice you wrote ""Furthermore the bible itself indicates Jesus was son of man:" and I replied meaning Human. No where do I say he was not human. He was God BORN UNTO MAN! He is man he is God he is both! That is the whole point of him. 7) I asked where it was so I could point out where you use things out of context which you have repeatedly (even my own words) this entire debate. 8)"BTW it says son of man all over the NT with regard to Jesus here is one example: Matthew 16:13 . When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippe, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"" Way out of context. Also not right. Matthew 16:13( It says where Jesus went).....where he asked his disciples "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" " Some say John the Baptist" they answered " Others say Elijah....." (They then proceed to say other prophets. ) "What about you? Jesus asked " who do you say I am" Simon Peter answered " You are the messiah (savior) the living son of God (other contexts say the Son of the Living God but that makes no sense to me and it is nitpicking words that don't translate) " Good for you Simon the son of John" Jesus said For this truth did not come to you from any HUMAN BEING but was given to you directly from MY FATHER in heaven." So now that I pointed out to you how you use things out of context to mislead people I will begin my attempt at proving to the audience that in this Debate I can prove that my debate for Jesus to be God is more believable. 1) I don't NEED to use things out of context 2) I don't need to use the Bible. Jesus is a known fact he is impossible to prove that he never existed. 3) It is accepted he performed miracles in the act of God and is accepted that he did. 4) You are arguing he is nothing more than a prophet, but if that is true then. (a) He would realize that God is real and not fake being one with him because he would realize he would go toe hell (b) He wouldn't have came back from the dead because why would God support a false god? (c) Assuming that he isn't God and assuming God rejects him for saying he is then he is a true magician with true magic because God would have taken away his powers granted by him. (d) He would be equally powerful as God because God couldn't take away his powers. 5) Don't believe Jesus was part of God if you don't want to. But then you have to admit he was more powerful, or equally powerful to God. 6) Then you are against both of our religions and Muslims because then you are refuting the three largest and longest lasting religions' God.