Noone is going to hire him, but that doesn't mean that the person is helpless. If the person wants he can get assistance through various social programs, so he can get an address. Most homless are homeless because they can't hold a job and don't have the desire to get help.
h8jlhbtw's forum posts
No ONE? Created the universe? The universe was created from the big bang. There is no GOD people!!! You people need to watch the Science channel more often.ElectrolightSHProve that there is no God.
[QUOTE="h8jlhbtw"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"][QUOTE="zigmir"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"][QUOTE="zigmir"]superironic, there are many more "afterlifes" than just heaven or hell...
qwerty, suppose jesus, somehow, was akin to the greatest magicians of our time. He was able to fool hundreds of people with his "miracles." And told them he was the son of the jewish god... the rest is obvious.
qwerty2305
Dying on a cross with witnesses all around, then rising from the dead isnt a Magic Trick mate :D
The romans would still have taken him as a threat and killed him, and the one who rose from the dead could've been an imposter.
An imposter with holes in his wrist to prove that is was the real Jesus who got crusified? Did you also know that Jesus's body was missing from the tomb they put him in? Therefore it could not be an imposter. Im sorry mate, people were not stupid back then and could easily tell if it was an imposter. Your theory is kinda lame and can easily be debunked
Which theory is more lame? A man dies and rises from the dead? Or a person pretends to imitate another person? In the history of history, lots of people have imitated others. In the history of the world there has never been a person that has come back from the dead, except this man named Jesus.I think you seriously are just an idiot. There was no imposter, there was no reason for an imposter to pretend he was Jesus. I have easy ways to debunk your theory.
1. When Jesus came back to life, he had holes in his wrists to prove it was the real him.
2. His body suddenly went missing from his tomb.
3. There is no way people would of fallen for an imposter back then. People were smarter than we give them credit for.
4. Why did a random imposter appear out of nowhere, what was his motive?
5. There is no documents or historical evidence which state when Jesus rose from the dead it was an imposter.
6. How is it that some random person who looks EXACTLY like Jesus comes along out of nowhere?
This is one of the worst theory's I have ever heard. A random imposter for no reason what so ever just comes along and pretends to be Jesus, AND he just happens to look exactly like Jesus, AND he has holes in his wrist? Seriously, one of the worst attempts to prove Jesus wasnt the Son of God I have seen yet. You really are thick.........
Actually, I wasn't trying to prove anything and I didn't come up with the theory, someone else did. I was just asking which is more likely? A man imitates another man or a man rises from the dead?[QUOTE="h8jlhbtw"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"]The logic of this argument is super flawed.Is Jesus God? The Only Alternatives
Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this "spiritual" dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus and His inspired followers didn't mince words when they declared Him to be God (John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16, John 12:40-41 [quoting Isaiah 6:1-10]). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a "good man" is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a "good man," as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth.In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/is-jesus-god-c.htm
Read the underlined part in particular. Here we go, give this a read. Once again it says there are lots of manuscripts and historical evidence of him rising from the dead. Also gives a good reason why Jesus wasnt lying about what he said.
qwerty2305
Not nearly as flawed as zigmirs impossible theory of the Jesus who rose from the dead being an imposter.
I didnt post this to prove Jesus was the son of God really. This is why I posted it:
In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.
Historical, archaeoligcal and manuscript evidence shows Jesus was not a liar or lunatic. You wanted your evidence of manuscripts and I gave you it.
First, Jesus could have been a liar and the whole world could have still believed him. Believing in Jesus would then kind of be like believing in Santa when you're younger. Second, Jesus could have been a lunatic and the world would still believe him. Believing in Jesus would then kind of be like believing in Hitler believing in a lunatic.[QUOTE="zigmir"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"][QUOTE="zigmir"]superironic, there are many more "afterlifes" than just heaven or hell...
qwerty, suppose jesus, somehow, was akin to the greatest magicians of our time. He was able to fool hundreds of people with his "miracles." And told them he was the son of the jewish god... the rest is obvious.
qwerty2305
Dying on a cross with witnesses all around, then rising from the dead isnt a Magic Trick mate :D
The romans would still have taken him as a threat and killed him, and the one who rose from the dead could've been an imposter.
An imposter with holes in his wrist to prove that is was the real Jesus who got crusified? Did you also know that Jesus's body was missing from the tomb they put him in? Therefore it could not be an imposter. Im sorry mate, people were not stupid back then and could easily tell if it was an imposter. Your theory is kinda lame and can easily be debunked
Which theory is more lame? A man dies and rises from the dead? Or a person pretends to imitate another person? In the history of history, lots of people have imitated others. In the history of the world there has never been a person that has come back from the dead, except this man named Jesus.The logic of this argument is super flawed.Is Jesus God? The Only Alternatives
Is Jesus God? Many people have dealt with this "spiritual" dispute by intellectually accepting Jesus as a great man, great teacher, or great prophet. However, Jesus and His inspired followers didn't mince words when they declared Him to be God (John 10:30-38, Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 14:61-64, John 14:6, Hebrews 1:8, Colossians 1:16, John 12:40-41 [quoting Isaiah 6:1-10]). Therefore, any type of intellectual compromise calling Jesus a "good man" is logically inconsistent. Why? Because there are really only three legitimate alternatives for the identity of Jesus Christ. He is either a liar, a lunatic or our Lord and God. Since Jesus claimed to be God, His claims are either true or false. If false, He must have been a liar, deliberately misleading the multitudes. Or, He was a lunatic, sincerely believing Himself to be God, when in reality He was just a man. However, if Jesus was a "good man," as most people now agree, how then could He be both good and crazy, or good and a liar? There is only one logically consistent alternative - He must have been telling the truth.In addition to the logical inconsistency, the remarkable historical, archaeological and manuscript evidence shows that Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic. Again, the only position left is that His claim is true. Jesus is Lord and God.http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/is-jesus-god-c.htm
Read the underlined part in particular. Here we go, give this a read. Once again it says there are lots of manuscripts and historical evidence of him rising from the dead. Also gives a good reason why Jesus wasnt lying about what he said.
qwerty2305
There is no doubt that Jesus existed. But to make the leap from Jesus existed to -----> Jesus is God, takes faith. There is no way to prove that Jesus is God. Anyone will tell you that.http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Evidence-Life-Jesus-Resurrection/dp/0840759193
Here is a book which is full of historical evidence everything that was said about Jesus is real. Also includes manuscripts and records of Jesus. There are so many historical documents which prove Jesus to be real. I have given you so many already.
Just face it, there is historical evidence Jesus existed and was the Son of God. You cant just deny all these thousands of manuscripts.
qwerty2305
This article only shows that the reliabiblity between different manuscripts is the same. It does not tell whether the bible is correct or incorrect. Just because a lot of people say the same thing, doesn't mean that it is true. A lot of people used to say that the world was flat, too.http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/Manuscript.html
Here is a website which says there are 24,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament.
qwerty2305
[QUOTE="h8jlhbtw"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"][QUOTE="h8jlhbtw"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"][QUOTE="h8jlhbtw"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"]Such as?[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"][QUOTE="qwerty2305"] This is why I believe in God, because there is historical proof everywhere that Jesus was the son of God. qwerty2305
Thousands of manuscripts and ancient records have been recovered that all say Jesus was the Son of God. Manuscripts from the time Jesus was around, say that he came back from the dead. Now, not just one or two manuscripts say this, thousands of them do. If it was just one manuscript saying that Jesus came back from the dead, then fine I myself would believe its fake. But the fact that thousands of manuscripts say Jesus was the Son of God, and was divine just makes me believe it was true. There is also other evidence to prove Jesus was real. Why would thousands of people spend days writing about a normal man? It dosnt make sense. Thats why he must have been special.
Just becouse he existed and writings said that he was god does not automatically mean he was god. Many people wrote about mohammad, so by your logic, Islam is the correct religion....No it does not mean Islam is correct. Writing about Jesus is much different than writing about a Religion. Because there is proof Jesus existed, not just from Manuscripts. Islam Religion was not written by eye-witness accounts. The story of Jesus was written by Eye-Witness accounts from thousands of people. There is also proof that Jesus did exist and he did die on the cross. People are just still skeptical about the whole Son of God thing.
But there is very strong evidence to prove Jesus did exist, and was crusified. There is no proof for the Islam Religion yet. Thats why the Jesus story is much more believable.
The gospels were not written by eye witness accounts. They were written decades later by four authors that had totally different motives for what they wrote. They were written by people that nver even saw Jesus.Im not talking about The Gospels. Im talking about other manuscripts which were eye witness accounts. Lots of manuscripts were written when Jesus was around, they all stated he was the Son of God. You are also acting like decades is a 100 year period. A decade is 10 years, the 4 Gospels were eye-witnesses, and of course were still alive 10 years later. Just by you making that stupid comment that the 4 Gospels never saw Jesus just shows how much you know. 4 Gospels did see Jesus, they were eye-witness when he rose from the dead. Also, all 4 authors had very similar story's, so dont give me this crap they had different motives.
I bring facts to the table, you bring nothing, which shows you have no brains in this subject because you have said so many incorrect things.
Please name these manuscripts then. If you said thousands, you can at least name 10. Also, most scholars--and people who study religion--belive that the gospels were written many decades after Jesus died. Some think that the reason that they had similar stories is the writers of the gospels plagarized each other.When Leonardo Da Vinci painted "The Last Supper", guess who was in that painting? Jesus, and the 4 Gospels.
But I thought you just said the stories of the 4 Gospels were not similar? Now you are saying they are? Are you crazy or just plain stupid, you cant just change your words around when I prove you wrong. Unless you are going to bring some hard solid facts to the table, dont even bother posting.
They had totally different movives for what they wrote (they were not similar) but they plagarized each other (so they were similar). I didn't come up with this. It is what most religous scholars believe. Just look up the "Gospel of Matthew two source hypothesis" PS I am still waiting for you to name some manuscripts.The Bible contains over 100 manuscripts in it. If you have ever been to Europe, there are museums which contain Manuscripts about Jesus.
Okay, but the meat of the bible is in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And these were written many years after Jesus died, by people that may not have ever personally known Jesus.
Log in to comment