Should Billy Graham's legacy be rescued?

Feb 13, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Q-Notes

President Barack Obama with Rev. Billy Graham at his house in Montreat, N.C., April 25, 2010.

Comments
761 - 780 of 1,638 Comments Last updated May 29, 2013
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#776
Mar 27, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
What you think is irrelevant as you have been factually destroyed several times already. Sorry there is zero historical proof for Nazareth until the second century. Even Jospehus makes no mention of it in his writings or maps nor did any Jewish records at the time.
This goes back to fat sweaty Romans misunderstanding what street preachers were saying. The term is most likely a reference to a group of Jewish outsiders known as truth tellers or Nazoreans. The fat sweaty Romans misunderstood and thought they were talking about the city of Nazareth. BTW Judas was a Jew in the myth not a roman. Just another of your errors.
You busted yourself on the Pharisees! The NT clearly shows again an again how the Pharisees were a powerful group that Jesus was fighting again and again.
And you just admitted they were a sect from the second century.
:)
<quoted text> i generally don't call people stupid, but....

barry wrote
"The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect from the 2d century BC!"
did you not see those two little letters BC!!!! that is commonly referred to as before Christ. not the second century after Christ as you claimed.

your claim; "And you just admitted they were a sect from the second century."
:) try again.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#777
Mar 27, 2013
 
No version if the text prior to 1100 AD contains the story.

Fact.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>even when you try to present something academically reasonable, you get the years way off.
Augustine quotes the passage. others; Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pacian and Didymus the Blind to name a few.

it is either refered to or found in the;
Didascalia Apostolorum, D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), Papias of Hierapolis, the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

the Papias of Hierapolis is second century.

while the handfull of the oldest manuscripts don't have it there are more than 900 manuscripts that support it.

there is no academic support for your claim of it not appearing in the bible until the year 1100AD.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#778
Mar 27, 2013
 
Pharisees took no power whatsoever until after the destruction of the second temple in 70CE.

No matter how much you stomp you feet and wail.

The bible is wrong.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

Nottingham, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#779
Mar 28, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you are clueless, why am i even having a conversation with you?
the law of moses "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women" [your words], the law of moses is found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. duhhhh!
“the law of moses "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women" [your words], the law of moses is found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. duhhhh!”
When one quotes or describes the stories in it, you copy/write it down and give the book chapter and verse. Look back at what you did in post 765 “First of all, they didn't need Jesus's approval to stone her so he didn't stop anything. in fact he told them to go ahead if they could. but they couldn't. second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24)” you gave your description of the story and gave an old testament source. So I thought that you thought the stoning occurred in the Old Testament because of this. Clearly I was wrong that is what you think but I can’t apologise seeing it was your use of sources that got this round my neck.
“so if Jesus set "criteria that was not present in the old laws" [your claim] just what were those new criteria?”
Jesus said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” in the old laws it didn’t matter if you sinned or not you could still kill her, Jesus demanded that only the sinless can punish her that’s the new criteria.
“you quote a passage and claim that the adulterous man was there but the quote only contains a reference to the woman”
Read it again it says ,“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery” now read what I said “Where was the man? There he is, it say’s they found them doing it with each other! They know where he was,”. I didn’t say it described the man, I said that they know where his was, and that this answers you question “where was the man involved? no man, no case.” By showing that the story says they found him. NOT by describing him.
“you did not nor do you understand why Jesus wrote on the ground. you make an assumption that does not even fit the story.
if he was changing the law don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote?”
If he embarrassed the Pharisees by writing in the dirt don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote? Yes because it would be the words he wrote that hurt their case so badly.
“if he was changing the law don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote?” No! Because I haven’t said he changed the law like, I haven’t said that whatever he wrote changed the law but I have commented on what he said and thus imply that I claim he changed the law verbally.
“i have changed nothing to the story. nor have you shown what i have changed”
Yes you have changed the story and yes I have shown where. You seemed to implied that they didn’t know who the man was when you asked where he was, I have explained how they did know who and where he was as they saw those illegal lovers meting up,“this woman was caught in the act of adultery” getting caught in the act of adultery means someone sees you having sex! You say that when Jesus was writing in the dirt it was the final embarrassment, I say you can’t know that, as if it was the final embarrassment the story would say what he wrote, which it doesn’t.
It is you who has shown your ignorance of the story and now you have shown your ignorance of what I said and what I am claiming here in the 21st century, although there is one thing I have no reasonable explanation for and that's you… how the f*** do you f*** up this much? Maybe God makes you do it I don’t know!
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#780
Mar 28, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
No version if the text prior to 1100 AD contains the story.
Fact.
<quoted text>
you know, i wish i could verify your claim. could you put up a link that would support it?

i posted several manuscripts and writers that do contain it centuries prior to 1100ad and you claim that what you say is a fact?

barry wrote:
<quoted text>even when you try to present something academically reasonable, you get the years way off.
Augustine quotes the passage. others; Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pacian and Didymus the Blind to name a few.

it is either refered to or found in the;
Didascalia Apostolorum, D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), Papias of Hierapolis, the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

the Papias of Hierapolis is second century.

while the handfull of the oldest manuscripts don't have it there are more than 900 manuscripts that support it.

there is no academic support for your claim of it not appearing in the bible until the year 1100AD.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#781
Mar 28, 2013
 
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
“the law of moses "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women" [your words], the law of moses is found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. duhhhh!”
When one quotes or describes the stories in it, you copy/write it down and give the book chapter and verse. Look back at what you did in post 765 “First of all, they didn't need Jesus's approval to stone her so he didn't stop anything. in fact he told them to go ahead if they could. but they couldn't. second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24)” you gave your description of the story and gave an old testament source. So I thought that you thought the stoning occurred in the Old Testament because of this. Clearly I was wrong that is what you think but I can’t apologise seeing it was your use of sources that got this round my neck.
“so if Jesus set "criteria that was not present in the old laws" [your claim] just what were those new criteria?”
Jesus said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” in the old laws it didn’t matter if you sinned or not you could still kill her, Jesus demanded that only the sinless can punish her that’s the new criteria.
“you quote a passage and claim that the adulterous man was there but the quote only contains a reference to the woman”
Read it again it says ,“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery” now read what I said “Where was the man? There he is, it say’s they found them doing it with each other! They know where he was,”. I didn’t say it described the man, I said that they know where his was, and that this answers you question “where was the man involved? no man, no case.” By showing that the story says they found him. NOT by describing him.
“you did not nor do you understand why Jesus wrote on the ground. you make an assumption that does not even fit the story.
if he was changing the law don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote?”
If he embarrassed the Pharisees by writing in the dirt don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote? Yes because it would be the words he wrote that hurt their case so badly.
“if he was changing the law don't you think that we would have an explanation of what he wrote?” No! Because I haven’t said he changed the law like, I haven’t said that whatever he wrote changed the law but I have commented on what he said and thus imply that I claim he changed the law verbally.
“i have changed nothing to the story. nor have you shown what i have changed”
Yes you have changed the story and yes I have shown where. You seemed to implied that they didn’t know who the man was when you asked where he was, I have explained how they did know who and where he was as they saw those illegal lovers meting up,“this woman was caught in the act of adultery” getting caught in the act of adultery means someone sees you having sex! You say that when Jesus was writing in the dirt it was the final embarrassment, I say you can’t know that, as if it was the final embarrassment the story would say what he wrote, which it doesn’t.
It is you who has shown your ignorance of the story and now you have shown your ignorance of what I said and what I am claiming here in the 21st century, although there is one thing I have no reasonable explanation for and that's you… how the f*** do you f*** up this much? Maybe God makes you do it I don’t know!
nice try ben, obviously you have a comprehension problem. i can't help you.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#782
Mar 28, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Pharisees took no power whatsoever until after the destruction of the second temple in 70CE.
No matter how much you stomp you feet and wail.
The bible is wrong.
so we can accept your eye witness report as to the facts?
post a site that makes that claim. i posted several reputable sources including a jewish site that say otherwise.
of course the Pharisees are extra powerful after the destruction of the temple. they initiated the use of synagogues while in the captivity and that was all that was left after the temple was destroyed.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#783
Mar 28, 2013
 
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
“the law of moses "In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women" [your words], the law of moses is found in Deuteronomy and Leviticus. duhhhh!”
When one quotes or describes the stories in it, you copy/write it down and give the book chapter and verse. Look back at what you did in post 765 “First of all, they didn't need Jesus's approval to stone her so he didn't stop anything. in fact he told them to go ahead if they could. but they couldn't. second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24)” you gave your description of the story and gave an old testament source. So I thought that you thought the stoning occurred in the Old Testament because of this. Clearly I was wrong that is what you think but I can’t apologise seeing it was your use of sources that got this round my neck.
“so if Jesus set "criteria that was not present in the old laws" [your claim] just what were those new criteria?”
Jesus said “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” in the old laws it didn’t matter if you sinned or not you could still kill her, Jesus demanded that only the sinless can punish her that’s the new criteria.
“you quote a passage and claim that the adulterous man was there but the quote only contains a reference to the woman”
Read it again it says ,“Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery” now read what I said “Where was the man? There he is, it say’s they found them doing it with each other! They know where he was,”. I didn’t say it described the man, I said that they know where his was, and that this answers you question “where was the man involved? no man, no case.” By showing that the story says they found him. NOT by describing him.
...
It is you who has shown your ignorance of the story and now you have shown your ignorance of what I said and what I am claiming here in the 21st century, although there is one thing I have no reasonable explanation for and that's you… how the f*** do you f*** up this much? Maybe God makes you do it I don’t know!
not only was the law of moses not followed, the law of the day was not followed.

The infrequency of the death penalty was attributable to the meticulous application of stringent rules regarding the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence. A court of at least 23 judges would have to be satisfied, to a legal certainty, that the capital offense had been committed before the court could impose a death sentence. Since the testimony of two eye-witnesses was required, and the witnesses were subjected to searching and detailed interrogation by the court, there was rarely an instance when the evidence met the prescribed legal standard. See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Judges, Sanhedrin, chapter XII4.

http://www.jlaw.com/Briefs/capital2.html

Jesus had no legal authority to pass judgement. the problem was neither did the accusers.

you said this;
"When one quotes or describes the stories in it, you copy/write it down and give the book chapter and verse."

however i had said this;
second of all, they did not follow the law in their attempt to trick Jesus.(Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22-24)”
seems to me i did reference the source of the OT law.
you are the one who is confused.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#784
Mar 28, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so we can accept your eye witness report as to the facts?
post a site that makes that claim. i posted several reputable sources including a jewish site that say otherwise.
of course the Pharisees are extra powerful after the destruction of the temple. they initiated the use of synagogues while in the captivity and that was all that was left after the temple was destroyed.
read "Isaac Asimov's secular look at the bible"
great book with great research.

one of the best collections of secular historical records matched up against the bible's account. very even handed and clearly shows where the bible's accoutns are accurate and when they are not.

not a 'bible bashing' book in any sense, although for some, anything that disagrees even a little with the bible would be considered that. are you one of those people, Barry?

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#785
Mar 28, 2013
 
Waiting for you to provide a non apologetic link and source for your claim.

Bottom line as before, we show you proof link after link and you ignore it and change the subject. Just like with your independent baptists commit no crimes nonsense.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you know, i wish i could verify your claim. could you put up a link that would support it?

i posted several manuscripts and writers that do contain it centuries prior to 1100ad and you claim that what you say is a fact?

barry wrote:
<quoted text>even when you try to present something academically reasonable, you get the years way off.
Augustine quotes the passage. others; Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pacian and Didymus the Blind to name a few.

it is either refered to or found in the;
Didascalia Apostolorum, D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), Papias of Hierapolis, the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

the Papias of Hierapolis is second century.

while the handfull of the oldest manuscripts don't have it there are more than 900 manuscripts that support it.

there is no academic support for your claim of it not appearing in the bible until the year 1100AD.

Since: Mar 11

Lexington, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#786
Mar 28, 2013
 
Apologetic websites cut no ice because they presuppose.

Check out Robert Price's video on the case against the case for Christ. He lays out fact after fact step after step and cites secular sources. Now he isn't a Christian apologetic but rather a secular historian so I doubt you will.
barry wrote:
<quoted text>so we can accept your eye witness report as to the facts?
post a site that makes that claim. i posted several reputable sources including a jewish site that say otherwise.
of course the Pharisees are extra powerful after the destruction of the temple. they initiated the use of synagogues while in the captivity and that was all that was left after the temple was destroyed.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#787
Mar 28, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>read "Isaac Asimov's secular look at the bible"
great book with great research.
one of the best collections of secular historical records matched up against the bible's account. very even handed and clearly shows where the bible's accoutns are accurate and when they are not.
not a 'bible bashing' book in any sense, although for some, anything that disagrees even a little with the bible would be considered that. are you one of those people, Barry?
asimov was a very prolific writer. interestingly asimov made his name and is famous for his science fiction. apparently he was also a real scientist seated at a major university. what is also interesting is that he didn't really believe in God nor did he believe that the miracles of the Bible ever happened. he wrote the book you bring up from that perspective.
this link is an answer to that book.
http://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/Skepti...

this response clearly shows when asimov was accurate and when he clearly missed the point.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#788
Mar 28, 2013
 
barry wrote:
<quoted text>asimov was a very prolific writer. interestingly asimov made his name and is famous for his science fiction. apparently he was also a real scientist seated at a major university. what is also interesting is that he didn't really believe in God nor did he believe that the miracles of the Bible ever happened. he wrote the book you bring up from that perspective.
this link is an answer to that book.
http://www.biblequery.org/OtherBeliefs/Skepti...
this response clearly shows when asimov was accurate and when he clearly missed the point.
well of course, there is no verifiable evidence of any miracle ever happening. this what all ratinal people know. no magic ever...not one instance. not even bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat...
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#789
Mar 28, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Waiting for you to provide a non apologetic link and source for your claim.
Bottom line as before, we show you proof link after link and you ignore it and change the subject. Just like with your independent baptists commit no crimes nonsense.
<quoted text>
barry wrote:
<quoted text>you know, i wish i could verify your claim. could you put up a link that would support it?

i posted several manuscripts and writers that do contain it centuries prior to 1100ad and you claim that what you say is a fact?

barry wrote:
<quoted text>even when you try to present something academically reasonable, you get the years way off.
Augustine quotes the passage. others; Ambrose, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Pacian and Didymus the Blind to name a few.

it is either refered to or found in the;
Didascalia Apostolorum, D (Bezae Cantabrigiensis), Papias of Hierapolis, the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate, and the Apostolic Constitutions.

the Papias of Hierapolis is second century.

while the handfull of the oldest manuscripts don't have it there are more than 900 manuscripts that support it.

there is no academic support for your claim of it not appearing in the bible until the year 1100AD.

Have you even posted A link?
truth is still truth no matter who posts it.
if what i have posted is not truth then prove it. post a qualified link that would discredit my claims.
woody even helps me out a little on this one. asimov even refers to papias.
barry

Rainsville, AL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#790
Mar 28, 2013
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
Apologetic websites cut no ice because they presuppose.
Check out Robert Price's video on the case against the case for Christ. He lays out fact after fact step after step and cites secular sources. Now he isn't a Christian apologetic but rather a secular historian so I doubt you will.
<quoted text>
Pharisee, member of a Jewish religious party that flourished in Palestine during the latter part of the Second Temple period (515 bc–ad 70).
The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabaean revolt, around 165–160 bc; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans.
To the Pharisees, worship consisted not in bloody sacrifices—the practice of the Temple priests—but in prayer and in the study of God’s law. Hence the Pharisees fostered the synagogue as an institution of religious worship, outside and separate from the Temple. The synagogue may thus be considered a Pharasaic institution since the Pharisees developed it, raised it to high eminence, and gave it a central place in Jewish religious life.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/455 ...

The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect from the 2d century BC to the 2d century AD. The seeds of Pharisaism were planted during the Babylonian Captivity (587 - 536 BC), and a clearly defined party emerged during the revolt of the Maccabees (167 - 165 BC) against the Seleucid rulers of Syria - Palestine. The origin of the name Pharisees is uncertain; one suggestion renders it as "those separated," ... The name first appeared during the reign of John Hyrcanus (135 - 105 BC), whom the Pharisees opposed because of his assumption of both the royal and high - priestly titles and because of the general secularism of the court.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/pharisee.htm

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12 ...

so now it is up to you to support your lol position that the pharisees "actually didn't exist until after the fall of the temple in 70AD!"

Apologetic web sites?
that would be the "Encyclopedia Britanica" i guess it was put out by the church of britan,
then of course the "Jewish Encyclopedia" now Christ was a Jew so i guess it qualifies as an "apologetic" site.

and mb-soft.com ;
"A central reason for the existence of the BELIEVE resource is to try to provide the best such information that we could accumulate. Many of our subject presentations include (separate) articles written by Protestant Christian scholars, Catholic scholars, Jewish scholars, Orthodox scholars, Muslim scholars, etc, to try to provide the broadest possible view of a subject, by including perspectives from many different (scholarly) directions. We have also included excerpts from important Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim and other religious texts, which often seem to show the same charity, kindness, patience and other characteristics which are familiar in nearly all religions."
"at NO time did Jesus ever refer to Himself as Son of God or as anything very different from terms used for Jewish Rabbis of the time, such as "my Lord.". The Post-Easter Church, AFTER He had Died, developed nearly all of the titles by which we now refer to Jesus. But modern Christians and modern Churches all believe that they were applied to Jesus while He was Alive on Earth. That was not the case. Jesus clearly realized that He had an unique and intimate relationship with the Lord, but He never implied that He felt it was as Son or as any other Divine Being! It IS possible that He made such comments AS AN ASSUMPTION, based on the fact that each time that He requested a Miracle, it occurred! The reality that He Was the One True God of the Universe meant that such Miracles would occur because He wished them!"

mb-soft.com sounds like a site that you would use. hardly a Christian apologetic site.

so once again we can see that you carelessly and very lazily trow out an accusation that isn't anywhere near true.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Nothing creates... Nothing

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#791
Mar 28, 2013
 
You atheists are so messed up. Billy Graham helped us all, he helped the world!!! And just because his a Christian you guys want to end all he has done and forget about it.

Such Discriminating. I understand that if this world was ruled by atheism, it would not survive a day.

Atheists are just plain rude!! I know if I was a atheist even I would disagree with this.
Thinking

Leeds, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#792
Mar 28, 2013
 
You understand poorly.
Carchar king wrote:
I understand that if this world was ruled by atheism, it would not survive a day.

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Nothing creates... Nothing

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#793
Mar 28, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
You understand poorly.
<quoted text>
I understand what this thread means, we rescue, but after the first couple of comments I saw.
Amused

North Brookfield, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#794
Mar 28, 2013
 
Carchar king wrote:
You atheists are so messed up. Billy Graham helped us all, he helped the world!!! And just because his a Christian you guys want to end all he has done and forget about it.
Such Discriminating. I understand that if this world was ruled by atheism, it would not survive a day.
Atheists are just plain rude!! I know if I was a atheist even I would disagree with this.
So, what's he done to help us all? Is there a Billy Graham-funded hospital? How about a school? An orphanage? A food pantry? Is there a single Billy Graham funded or supported institution of any kind that provides actual physical assistance to anyone anywhere in the world? Promoting atavistic superstition is not 'help', it is digging the hole deeper.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#795
Mar 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barry wrote:
<quoted text>now we are getting some where. now we can see what you depend on. that would be someone else's opinion of the way things are.
#1 your first example starts of with a misunderstanding.
"Christ is equal with God" Christ is more than equal with God, he is God come/manifested in the Flesh. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God [implies separate from however] the Word was God [yet still the same]. And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."
John 10:30 says that he and the Father are one. not equal but the same.
God is a trinity; the Father, the Son and the Spirit.
the visible Physical presence of God is always identified with the Son. the will of God is always identified with the Father. and the omnipresent working of God is identified with the Spirit. one is not more important than the other and i would say God is not God with out all three.
this explanation from your John 14 chapter vs 9-10
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."
Vs16-18 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you."
so Christ comes to us as the Spirit of God.
now to the verse where Jesus says that the Father is "greater" than he. Jesus was God manifested/come in the flesh. in his Physical body he limited himself to the physical restrictions of this world.
but with that his physical desires of hunger, exhaustion, pain etc were always secondary and subject to the will of God which is always represented in the person of the Father.
so what does the word "greater" mean? simply more ore larger. the will of God was larger than just Christ's presence here on this earth.
when you understand the attributes of God there is no contradiction.
None of what you just said makes a lick of sense.

You cannot have a round-and-square peg-- it's either round, or it's square.

A logical impossibility cannot exist.

Therefore?

Your god cannot exist.

Good!

You are beginning to see!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••