Amazon.com Widgets
  • Jesus is Lord

    Jesus was the messiah in fulfilling OT prophecies. Born from the family of David and out of Bethlehem. Jesus was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. Betrayed and crucified. He will further verify the claim when he returns to set up the messianic kingdom. This makes Jesus the promised son of God and savior of the world. Yes, Jesus is Lord indeed.

  • Of couse he is

    God, it's a no brainier, but atheists and non Christians don't think so for some reason. It makes them sound really stupid when they say he never existed even though we have Roman documents saying that he did. . .Nevertheless, Jesus is Lord and will come back and reign upon the earth.

  • Jesus is not a god

    In John 14:28, Jesus says, "The Father is greater than I." For many, this statement seems obvious: Jesus is not God. But is this really what our Lord was saying?

    In Catholic theology, this text can be understood in two ways. First, being "greater" than another does not have to mean one is essentially different from the other, as when we say a man is essentially distinct from an animal. Greatness can refer to one person functioning in a greater way quantitatively, qualitatively, or even relationally in comparison to another without there being an essential distinction. For example, Matthew 11:11 tells us there has never "risen among [men] a greater than John the Baptist: yet he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." John is not something other than human because he is said to be greater than certain other people. All human beings share the same nature; therefore, they are absolutely equal in dignity.

    Similarly, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son pertaining to their relation within the inner life of God, but not with respect to their shared nature as being fully and equally God. The Father alone is the first principle of life in the Godhead; thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church can say, in paragraph 246: "Everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born . . ." (emphasis added). In this sense, the Father can be said to be greater than the Son relationally, while they are absolutely equal with regard to their essence as God.

    Another—and perhaps simpler—way one can legitimately interpret this text is to point out that John 14:28 seems to be emphasizing the humanity of Christ. Thus, because Jesus is fully man, it would be appropriate to say the Father would be greater than the Son. The entire verse reads: "You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I."

    Jesus was emphasizing here and in previous verses his impending death, resurrection, and departure from the apostles. This would apply to his humanity most particularly. Thus, the same Jesus who can say, "I and the Father are one" in John 10:30—as God—can say, "The Father is greater than I" in John 14:28—as man.

  • We don't even need to debate this topic.

    He was, is, and always will be. "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." (John 6:44) “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16)
    If you do not believe in Christ or God, I want you to know that God and I love you just the same. He is always ready to welcome you into his arms. If you would like to find out more about Christian answers to Scientific questions of our society, or you would like to learn more about Christ, I suggest this site: https://answersingenesis.org/. God Bless.

  • Jesus Christ never existed, man or god.

    Ovid created the character we know as Jesus Christ. Here is my YouTube video on that subject.

    Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=ZzY2bVsZK5s

    It seems I need more words so.....How you all doing?
    It sure in snowy here. Lots of snow and ice. It's been snowy.
    Perhaps, in six more words it will be less snowy.

  • Making the claim that 'Jesus is lord' is actually an incredibly absurd claim to make.

    All right, so lets go ahead and say that Jesus totally existed. All right? Cool. Now, here's all the things you'd have to prove for me for that statement to hold and credibility:

    Prove to me that god exists. Already, we've hit a brick wall and I'm sure some Christian somewhere thinks they've totally got a legit argument to this; ':D well you can't disprove that god doesn't exist?'

    Well, first of all, this argument STILL doesn't get you any closer to proving his existence and convincing me of anything you've got to say, and secondly, I guess if I can't also disprove unicorns, witches, wizards, and Aduni the high priest that's supposed to mean that my default position on them should be that I have to accept that they totally exist given that they have the slightest possibility of existing.

    Oh wait, no I don't, and no logical person thinks this way on any other matter. Rationality doesn't function where you have to accept that something might exist if it can't be completely disproven. More of, if there isn't enough valid evidence to support the idea of something then it can be rejected. Like for example, all those other fairy tales you choose not to believe in based around a lack of evidence to support their existence.

    So, yeah, the argument 'you cannot disprove god' actually isn't half as clever as people tend to think it is, because no one is expected to believe that Gamithor the invisible Kingdom exists if there's no credible proof of it.

    After this, you need to next get around to proving how your ancient book has any more credibility than the thousands of other religions in this world. So basically, the very first argument we've hit a brick wall and now we're moving on to making completely absurd claims that's actually incredibly conceited, never mind one that's essentially statistical phenomenon for anyone to belong in the right religion even if one of them are actually right.

    Next, you've got to give me a reason why I'm supposed to accept that the bible properly represents god's will (even if he does exist) and that the people who wrote the bible have any actual credibility and that they weren't just either flat out full of BS or simply incredibly superstitious.

    And then we finally get to Jesus, we have no reason to believe that any of the folks that supposedly wrote the gospels were legitimate eye witnesses. John is disputed, and Mark or Peter (I forgot which) didn't seem to have anything to say until around what, at least fifty years after Jesus died? This is at a time when most people would live no older than being forty years of age - meaning even if these people were babies at the time of Jesus it still wouldn't be likely that they would live. This is without getting into the fact that I'm not seeing any legitimate historians commenting on anything that happened to Jesus.

  • Making the claim that 'Jesus is lord' is actually an incredibly absurd claim to make.

    All right, so lets go ahead and say that Jesus totally existed. All right? Cool. Now, here's all the things you'd have to prove for me for that statement to hold and credibility:

    Prove to me that god exists. Already, we've hit a brick wall and I'm sure some Christian somewhere thinks they've totally got a legit argument to this; ':D well you can't disprove that god doesn't exist?'

    Well, first of all, this argument STILL doesn't get you any closer to proving his existence and convincing me of anything you've got to say, and secondly, I guess if I can't also disprove unicorns, witches, wizards, and Aduni the high priest that's supposed to mean that my default position on them should be that I have to accept that they totally exist given that they have the slightest possibility of existing.

    Oh wait, no I don't, and no logical person thinks this way on any other matter. Rationality doesn't function where you have to accept that something might exist if it can't be completely disproven. More of, if there isn't enough valid evidence to support the idea of something then it can be rejected. Like for example, all those other fairy tales you choose not to believe in based around a lack of evidence to support their existence.

    So, yeah, the argument 'you cannot disprove god' actually isn't half as clever as people tend to think it is, because no one is expected to believe that Gamithor the invisible Kingdom exists if there's no credible proof of it.

    After this, you need to next get around to proving how your ancient book has any more credibility than the thousands of other religions in this world. So basically, the very first argument we've hit a brick wall and now we're moving on to making completely absurd claims that's actually incredibly conceited, never mind one that's essentially statistical phenomenon for anyone to belong in the right religion even if one of them are actually right.

    Next, you've got to give me a reason why I'm supposed to accept that the bible properly represents god's will (even if he does exist) and that the people who wrote the bible have any actual credibility and that they weren't just either flat out full of BS or simply incredibly superstitious.

    And then we finally get to Jesus, we have no reason to believe that any of the folks that supposedly wrote the gospels were legitimate eye witnesses. John is disputed, and Mark or Peter (I forgot which) didn't seem to have anything to say until around what, at least fifty years after Jesus died? This is at a time when most people would live no older than being forty years of age - meaning even if these people were babies at the time of Jesus it still wouldn't be likely that they would live. This is without getting into the fact that I'm not seeing any legitimate historians commenting on anything that happened to Jesus.

  • There is no god

    I completely agree with The Fox Wolf here. None of you can prove that God exists. Even if that was possible, no one could prove which religion is even correct. I will happily debate this with anyone. Just click on the link to my profile here, right under this comment. Challenge me.

  • No. Jesus is fake.

    Until Jesus is proven, which isn't likely, he is not a Lord. Especially not my lord. He commands so much stupidity, I'm surprised that he has so many followers. He can be your Lord, but keep him away from me and my kids, if he even exists at all (again, not likely).

  • Jesus never existed

    Jesus is a copy off of Horus the Egyptian Sun God, whom is a copy off of Tammuz the Sumerian Sun God. Jesus never existed. There were over 40 historians alive during the so called time of Jesus, not one of them mentions Jesus. Philo was alive during the time of Jesus and he says nothing about him. The Levites wrote the Old Testament and the Piso Family wrote the New Testament and Constantine made Christianity the official religion,

    also regarding Islam, Muhammad and his friends fabricated the Quran and then Uthman changed the Quran.

    All Religions and holy books are fake.

  • Jesus Christ never existed, man or god.

    Ovid created the character we know as Jesus Christ. Here is my YouTube video on that subject.

    Http://www.Youtube.Com/watch?V=ZzY2bVsZK5s

    It seems I need more words so.....How you all doing?
    It sure in snowy here. Lots of snow and ice. It's been snowy.
    Perhaps, in six more words it will be less snowy.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.