CL Edwards Tries to Debate Me, Runs Away After One Question
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,
I knew he couldn’t resist me, CL. Edwards tried to engage me in a debate, a little discussion on Jesus, unfortunately for him, he made a claim, I questioned that claim and he ended up running away. What I did was simple, I questioned his statement, he tried to manouver out of answering the question, but I remained intent on having him show everyone that he did not know what he was speaking about. I laid a premise, he took the bait and when he realised he could no longer answer the statement he so proudly made, he imitated the disciples and fled when the truth (according to the Bible) got to real for him:
Then everyone deserted him and fled. – Bible : Mark (14) : 50.
If you want to view his apparent obsession with me and his creepy inbox messages, you can check out this post here. What you’ll discover as odd and rightly so, is his sick comment about masturbation and myself:
…….you may mentally masturbate with someone with more free time….
Creepy messages, posts focused on me, mental masturbation with me, I’m not sure what his angle is here, but I do not feel comfortable with the level of attention this adult is giving myself, a teenager over the internet. Foregoing the weird comments and inbox messages, I suggest you all read the little discussion/ debate I had with him below:
This is a lesson he should learn, don’t make claims that you cannot prove or defend. I’m still confused as to why he thinks I could not question his statement, in a discussion you question your opponents statements, if I didn’t then he’d either accuse me of ignoring his statements and questions (which he did above) or he would justify it by saying I’m incapable of responding to him. Listen Mr. Edwards, if you’re uncomfortable with people questioning your logic, questioning your statements, then I suggest you quit this arena of theological discourse, you’re clearly not cut out for this job. Leave it to the adults like myself.
wa Allaahu Alam.
[and God knows best.]
the idea that jesus was substituted on a cross might not be false after all. 3 DIFFERENT reasons
1.The “evidence” for the resurrection of Jesus consists of the
1) The claim of one person to have seen him appear in an ecstatic
2) This person goes on to claim that he “appeared” (arguably also in
visionary experiences) to several other people, and to a group of 500
at once. We do not have any recorded reports from any of these people
or corroboration of Paul’s specific claims even in the other canonical
Epistles (James, Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, etc.), so we’re still at one
3) Accounts written decades after the alleged events by anonymous
authors who are not eyewitnesses and show little to no concern for
accuracy, as demonstrated by the way they plagiarize from a source [Q/
GMark] while moving various pericopes around, change the narrative
context for utterances of Jesus, etc. to suit their own narrative
purposes, and so on
On the subject of resurrection, the Gospels themselves offer
compelling reason to be skeptical of resurrection claims. On more than
one occasion, the Gospels tell us that significant numbers of people
in Jesus’ day* were willing to believe in spurious resurrection
fables. Jesus is portrayed in the Synoptics as asking his disciples
“Who do men say that I am?” His disciples report to him that he is
commonly believed to be John the Baptist, Elijah, or one of the
In all of these accounts, a resurrected John the Baptist is mentioned
first, i.e. as the most commonly-accepted “candidate” for Jesus’
identity. Elsewhere, King Herod is portrayed as agreeing with this
common belief. What is especially striking about this is that the
Gospels also tell us that Jesus and John the Baptist were
contemporaries, born about six months apart! Not only that, the
Gospels tell us the two men knew each other, and interacted on more
than one occasion.
So, according to the testimony of the Gospel writers themselves, it
was considered plausible at the time that one man could appear
“resurrected” as another who lived at the same time. Now when we look
at the “resurrection appearances” of Jesus, several of them describe
him as being unrecognized by his own disciples and closest followers–
i.e.,looking like someone else until “their eyes are opened” and they
“recognize” this other person as Jesus. In the account of the
“appearance” on the road to Emmaus, Jesus’ disciples spend hours
discussing the Scriptures with an insightful interlocutor, whom they
later “recognize” as Jesus. in John’s Gospel, Mary Magdalene
encounters someone she’s sure is a gardener, then “recognizes” him as
Jesus when he says her name.
If we take this belief that a holy man like John the Baptist–or
Jesus–could be “resurrected” in the person of another, even a
contemporary, these first “appearances” of Jesus deserve no more
credence than the belief that Jesus himself was John the Baptist, the
Sequel. No miraculous or supernatural explanation is necessary. The
proto-Christian community could simply have started seeing Jesus in
the faces of other “spiritual” types just as the Baptist’s community
saw their leader “resurrected” in Jesus. Progressive growth of urban
legend and a desire for more spectacular apparitions is sufficient to
explain the later, more concrete accounts.
In fact, the early “as-someone-else” appearances and the more
“concrete” appearance accounts (such as the Doubting Thomas story)
cancel each other out. Why? If we try to accept both sets of accounts,
then we have to assume that the “as-someone-else” accounts present a
deceptive entity who uses shape-shifting and/or Illusion spells/Jedi
Mind Tricks to change his appearance. But if we have an entity like
that, we have no way to know what it really looks like. It could just
as easily fake the “wounds” Thomas stuck his finger into as the
unrecognizable, non-wounded appearance it presented on the road to
Emmaus and to Mary Magdalene at the tomb.
Either that, or we must reject the (alleged, hearsay) “testimony” of
the “witnesses” the Gospels describe as unreliable. They cannot tell
us whether Jesus looked like some other person (who obviously was not
covered in gashes, penetration wounds, and ribbons of skin hanging
from his body), or like the reanimated body of the man they saw die of
crucifixion, wounds and all. Even if we try and take their (alleged,
hearsay) “testimony” at face value, we’re left with a deceptive,
trickster-entity the Gospels themselves portray as being able to
easily fool Jesus’ closest followers.
3. christianity is READING theology into murdered meat ALL the time. christians are claiming that all the OLAH/ burnt offerings are symbolizing the idea that the righteous saints were sacrificing god to god lol, paul himself seems to be DERIVING majic from blood and stick and is selling these ideas to persecuted people living far away from jerusalem. if christians can crucify jesus in thier imaginations and even READ thier crucified god into ANCIENT passages, then WHICH CAME 1ST? the IMAGINATION or the EVENT?
think about it. are all the details in matthews infancy narrative historical or did ot give matthew ideas about what to create in the infancy narratives just like it gives christians ideas about seeing jesus in BURNT ola offerings? if the crucifixion was a historical event you would expect the christians to PIN IT TO ONE KILLER AND one date, but there is not even agreement on WHO killed jesus . if the crucifixion was an historical event why do the jews have A SHORT memory? they are taking no RESPONSIBILITY when peter ACCUSES them of killing jesus, they say peters accusation is ” the ramblings of an illiterate commoner” indication that no jewish crowd was INVOLVED and no claim “his blood be upon us and our children” was ever made. it is IMAGINATION which is at work , just like christians can derive MAJIC from thier imaginary cross .
Pingback: Chessie L. Edwards: Runs from Muslim Challenge « Calling Christians