 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Agreed. (...) No, I'm not doing the Bible justice. We're agreed on that. The only way to truly do the Bible justice is to read the whole thing cover to cover. But anytime someone presets only *some* Bible stories, they have their own reasons (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) Socrates was, for example, a Son of God, though I understand that that's not quite what you meant. (Socrates was more moral than Jesus, however). Off the top of my head the other big one I can think of is Appollonius of Tyre, whose name I may (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I'm not sure it was the divine manifestation to which the 'uniqueness' was referring, but (as I took it) Christianity itself. IE that it is Christianity that is unique, with a unique message. Not the Jesus-being-the-son-of-God bit. I could be (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) I would like to see your cites. Christianity offers a few unique twists. One which I believe is unique is the "fully human, fully divine" status of Jesus, and his fulfillment of OT biblical prophesy. I also am not aware of any God-incarnate (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
|
(...) There are any number of self-contradictory assertions inherent in the Christian faith with which one could take issue, but this is the big one that needs to be exorcised whenever it's uttered. The whole God-incarnate-here-to-redeem-us theme is (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
