Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blade Runner" data-source="post: 1480824" data-attributes="member: 17573">One has to have logically coherent arguments to make a point. Here you have a type of tautology. The very definition of history is that something defined happened in the past, and that we look and explain it. No matter which way you look at it, there would be an eventual canon that existed. As such, anybody can come after the fact and claim that canon X was &quot;forgery&quot; or true, or whatever. The question is, by what authority or reasoning do they claim such a thing? If the Gospel of Peter or Judas are true (hint hint: they aren't) on what basis are they reliable or legitimate, as opposed to other gospels? Of course, we only get 1 liners from guys like you that neither tell us why you claim what you claim nor by what authority. As a result, the honest person will grade you a failure, since you failed not even once, but twice.When a muslim can explain to me why Muhammad is the best example for us humans, I will convert to islam and call it true. The problem is that Jesus Christ is the antithesis in every way to that man, so it's pretty hard to explain why he is a good example at all, when Christ himself is the perfect example of love, beauty, truth, power, and authority - without sin. Unlike Muhammad, who shows in his example that worldly things are the entire basis for his character. Seekers of the truth will not find enlightenment in such mundane, profane things that all humans see even currently throughout the world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blade Runner, post: 1480824, member: 17573"] One has to have logically coherent arguments to make a point. Here you have a type of tautology. The very definition of history is that something defined happened in the past, and that we look and explain it. No matter which way you look at it, there would be an eventual canon that existed. As such, anybody can come after the fact and claim that canon X was "forgery" or true, or whatever. The question is, by what authority or reasoning do they claim such a thing? If the Gospel of Peter or Judas are true (hint hint: they aren't) on what basis are they reliable or legitimate, as opposed to other gospels? Of course, we only get 1 liners from guys like you that neither tell us why you claim what you claim nor by what authority. As a result, the honest person will grade you a failure, since you failed not even once, but twice. When a muslim can explain to me why Muhammad is the best example for us humans, I will convert to islam and call it true. The problem is that Jesus Christ is the antithesis in every way to that man, so it's pretty hard to explain why he is a good example at all, when Christ himself is the perfect example of love, beauty, truth, power, and authority - without sin. Unlike Muhammad, who shows in his example that worldly things are the entire basis for his character. Seekers of the truth will not find enlightenment in such mundane, profane things that all humans see even currently throughout the world. [/QUOTE]

Verification