Paul Manata Reveals Truth: Jesus Not Human
Aaron Kinney Permalink
31 comments
I recently wrote a reply to one of Paul Manata's long winded posts about abortion, and when I went to go inform him in his comments section, I came across a real gem of a quote.
In the comments section of his recent post, Paul Manata is addressing some atheist as "vile sinner," and the atheist objects. Manata defends his ad hominem attack by saying:
PM: Well, since all men are sinners, and you're a man (i.e., mankind), then you're a sinner.
I laughed my Goddamn ass off. Literally. Naturally I had to ask him:
Paul, was Jesus a sinner?
If not, then how can he be a man?
I can't wait to see him squirm out of this one, or ban me from his comments section. I think this should be submitted to "Fundies Say the Darndest Things."
So much for Christianity.
Post a Comment
31 Comments:
Todd-
Why couldn't Jesus be a space alien? And how does your explanation tell us why Jesus, being a man, didn't sin, even though all men sin?
And I was really only asking him some questions to get the breadth of his belief. He's so defensive that he wasn't even able to honor me with a normal reply.
Aaron,
I'll be responding to your contradictory post responding to my argument later, but what was interesting was your comment on how I took your definition of human and ran with it (which I'll show that 'twas no fault of mine to do so). You moaned because it was a off-handed comment "in the comments section." You complained because I should have been aware of the broader "context" which gave you definition meaning. Etc.
Now, when it is my turn, you don't afford me the same respect you wish to be afforded. This is more example of the hypocrisy of atheists. When it happens to you, you whine and complain, if I do the same thing, you capitalize.
So, was what I did to your definition wrong? If not, then please add an appendix to your post. If it was, then please ad an appendix to this post. Either way, you loose.
Now, to get to the question at hand. It's funny that you claim to have been a Christian. The Bible says that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." So, it is not me who just came up with this, the Bible said it before me. So, this "contradiction" has been around for millenia. I wonder why no one has caught it before?
Second, all does not always mean all (e.g., news casters will frequently say, "the whole world is watching").
My quote is from Romans 3:23, and the context is clear that it is talking about mere humans, not the human Jesus, who was the God-man.
The broader context, Romans 1-3, is very plain that the "all men" referred to, throughout those chapters, is all of us humans as considered having a human father and mother, i.e., the mere human race. Not, the God man. In fact, Jesus is contrasted with the "all have sinned."
Furthermore, even more broader context tells us that God cannot sin, Jesus is God, therefore Jesus cannot sin.
Thus, the only way your "problem" materializes is if one ignores the plain context of the chapters I took the quote from. Frankly, this is a gigantic blunder, and is most embarrassing.
Nice try Paul. Realize that it is you who got all technical with my human definition initially, it is you who called up bats and rats and all this immature shit.
You went on for paragraphs about it and it was tedious to read considering it was in the middle of an 8000 word essay.
And when you so sweepingly said that all men are sinners, I thought it would only be fair to challenge you on it.
Now, when it is my turn, you don't afford me the same respect you wish to be afforded. This is more example of the hypocrisy of Christians. When it happens to you, you whine and complain, if I do the same thing, you capitalize.
Paul, dont try to play the "who is more respectful to who" game. We both know that you are much more eager to act disrespectful than I am, and to a much larger degree.
Youre just pissed that I actually treated something you said the same way you nitpick everything that I say.
Paul, you said:
Now, to get to the question at hand. It's funny that you claim to have been a Christian.
Paul, what is wrong with you? First off, you claim there are no atheists. Then you imply that I was never a Christian. So what the fuck am I???? You refuse to believe that atheists exist, yet you refuse to believe that I was a Christian? What do you think I am, a Hasidic Jew????? A Scientologist?
I suppose you will simply call me a fool. But "fool" is not a belief system.
The insane amount of contradictions within your little worldview are maddening.
Incidentaly, have you ever turned a non-Christian into a Christian ever in your entire life? I dont imagine that you are too good at converting people.
My quote is from Romans 3:23, and the context is clear that it is talking about mere humans, not the human Jesus, who was the God-man.
Theres nothing clear about that cognitive dissonance. Funny how you cannot conceive of a human with both male and female genitalia, but you have no problem conceiving of a finite man who didnt sin and is simultaneously an infinite God, when your definition of man is that they all sin.
Furthermore, even more broader context tells us that God cannot sin, Jesus is God, therefore Jesus cannot sin.
Yes, and Jesus was not a man. This has already been discussed at length between you and other atheists, and you got your butt kicked frankly. Your retarded attempts to smooth over the chasms within your imaginary superstition are laughable.
From the first law of thermodynamics, to the definition of human vs. God, to the concept of inherited guilt, your superstition is totally irreconcilable with reality, through and through. No amount of Bible reading or praying is going to make your fairy tale book come true Paul. And no amount of promises of heavenly rewards or threats of burning hellfire will make the afterlife real, nor will it make your consciousness exist after your body dies. Just give up your ridiculous cult already! Your Christian superstition is destined for the dustbin of ancient mythologies.
Paul argues:
"So, this "contradiction" has been around for millenia. I wonder why no one has caught it before? "
That's too funny. Not only is it an argumentum ad populum, but it's the same argument Jason Gastrich gave me when I pointed out two contradictory versions of the Ten Commandments. You two been drinking from the same trough?
Why can't we all just smoke a fatty and get along?
Isn't Paul a great example of how religious people are "scared, whining children" ?
Tremblay,
Heck yeah, did you read how he jumped all over me for asking a couple of simple questions? Currently he has run away from my last post like a little girl.
HAHA!
I thought the fact that Jesus wasn't human (or existent) was made obvious by the fact that not a single secular contemporary of his referenced him. Quoting from the book Atheist Universe, "There is not a single reference to a 'Jesus' or to 'Jesus Christ' written by any secular source who lived during the years in which Christ supposedly walked the Earth."
That's all I need...
Aaron, I don't think I was unfair to your definition, as my respoinse will point out. So, you shot yourself in the foot. But, and here's the kicker, you did think it unfair, yet you did the same thing to me. I guess the irrationalism of atheism knows no bounds.
As to your first red herring, believing in God does not make you a Christian (even the demons believe, right?). So, you loose on this score. I guess that little detail was left out because you're careless in comments sections?
Your second red herring did nothing to address that the context was referring to all mere humans. We've already discussed your attempts at pointing out a contradiction. if you remember, I posted last on that thread and you can feel free to start the embarrassment all over again.
Anyway, you asked about how I could "squirm" out of "this one." I showed you. Now, if you'd like to respond, rather than fly into a temper tantrum, and embarrass yourself, then be my guest.
Aaron, I go to you when I need to embarrass an atheist and not put much thought in it.
It's amazing how you atheists at this blog jump and down at the silliest things. I've read a few posts here and laugh at how you guys so quickly pat eachother on the back when you spot Christians making mistakes. Paul has clearly indicated he used a common understanding of "men" even you atheists get. But you already know the Bible teaches that Jesus is not a created person as you and I are which is why you got so excited with Pauls response. That is, if Paul was lumping Jesus into a definition into which Jesus to did not belong, he would be contradicting himself. Yes, that would be an error if he meant Jesus as a created shlub like you and I. But since none of you are in any mood for a sermon on Christology, lets just say you seem to get a lot of pointing out others errors, as if your ad hominems have anything to do with truth.
So here's a question. If a Christian making an error in Christology provides evidence to you that Christianity is wrong, does a Christian getting it right provide any evidence that it's true? Of course not. You already knew the truth and disregarded it yet love to point out errors (real or straw) as evidence denying the truth. That's hypocrisy.
fancisthemagnificentsaid
"not a single secular contemporary of his referenced him. "
For crying out loud francis, Christ preached for just 3 years as an itinerant preacher in a land full of religious people ruled by a secular power who cared little about all their religious goings-on which included all kinds of self proclaimed messiahs. Not surprising, then, that he was not a topic of all those secular authors in proximity of Jerusalem in 1st century Palestine. The revelation of what his life and death meant to Gentiles comes shortly after his resurrection.
But after his resurrection and the message leaves Jerusalem, it didn't take long for extra-biblical references to arise.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_extrabib.html
zachary moore re "Why couldn't Jesus be a space alien?". You should take note that there is nothing in a worldview that finds rationality in that question that can honestly provide an answer to "why can't zachary moore be a space alien?" When you're ready to use rationality, post me back.
Bla bla bla, why are you morons wasting your time trying to convince us that "Jesus" existed ? If we're going on credibility here, you should start with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Stupid Christians.
* There is ZERO historical evidence that "Jesus" existed.
* There is ZERO originality in the mythical character of "Jesus". It all comes from previous and contemporary myths.
* There is ZERO reason to whoreship this raving lunatic, failed cult leader "Jesus".
* There are ZERO neurons in your head.
Oh francois you do so tempt me with your blather. But since you offer nothing but to shut your eyes and close your ears, and curl yourself into such a comatose little ball to clutch your vain little excuses I just can't decide if I'd rather watch you pout or pounce on your pathetic precepts. Meow, hiss.
Shut up, godboy nerd.
Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny, oh my! You can't be serious. Interpolation and hearsay, my man. Can't you find even one extrabiblical person who witnessed the zombie army in Jerusalem?
And why is the idea of extraterrestrial life irrational? Was that just a rhetorical flourish, or were you just trying to chicken out of answering the question?
thetranscendental wrote: "But you already know the Bible teaches that Jesus is not a created person as you and I are which is why you got so excited with Pauls response."
I see. So, it's only when the Christian god creates men that they are sinners. When the Christian god does not create them, they aren't sinners. It seems that whatever the Christian god creates turns out to be deficient in some way, like a cheap product off a cheap assembly line. This does not jive with the claim that the Christian god is a perfect creator, for a perfect creator would not create imperfection.
I'm glad these aren't my problems!
Regards,
Dawson
todd f: "If God wants to create life elsewhere in the universe, that's fine with me. Who am I to say 'no'."
Yeah, that's right - in the cartoon universe of Christian theism, the cartoonist-god of Christianity can do whatever the hell it wants, for wanting is its only standard since there are no objective constraints on what it can or cannot do. But we already know that it does not create perfection.
Regards,
Dawson
Todd-
I'm not making the argument that the zombie army as reported in Matthew makes it false. I'm arguing that if there really was a huge zombie army in Jerusalem, surely someone else besides Matthew would have written about it. It's kind of a once-in-a-lifetime event. But not even Josephus, the great Jewish historian, so much as mentions it.
Can you find the AAS quote? You're right- a taxonomy is simply a classification. But biology has shown us that taxonomic relationships are also phylogenetic relationships- that is to say, a salmon is more closely related to a trout than to a horse, in the same way that you're more closely related to your cousin than to me. If creationism is true, there is no reason why any two organisms should be more related to each other than anything else. Tune in to my podcast for a series on these evidences.
I'm glad all can agree that I've "squirmed out of this one" and can agree that Kinney is a hack.
What awful, awful people. Just despicable.
I think we can all agree that you're quite squirmy, Paul, but as far as putting words in our mouths, you're really much better served when you do that to your god.
LOL Paul Manata needs to make these claims to convince himself ;)
He sure doesnt put much thought into it when he writes eight thousand word responses to a handful of comment posts, I agree.
For the record, it is much more plausible to suggest material space aliens than extra-dimensional ghosts from heaven (or hell).
Space aliens are less of an extraordinary claim than a man-god from heaven on every level.
todd f said If you want to go against the widely accepted fact that Jesus was a real person, was born out of wedlock, was executed as a heretic, had a missing body after his death, and started a movement that took many people (including high-ranking Jewish religious leaders) -- the burden of proof lies with your side. Good luck.
Wrong. The burden of proof ALWAYS lies with the one making the original claim. Since Christians are the ones making the claim that this Jesus person a)existed and b) was the son of God, the burden is on you. In fact, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this god entity exists in the first place, and you havent' even accomplished that, in spite of thousands of years of effort.
"Jesus" was this, "Jesus" was that... "Jesus" didn't exist, you idiot. Shut the hell up.
Argumentum ad Exorcisum. Nice.
By the way, which one of us was crying over tolerance? Oh. Just you, then. Get over it.
Todd-
Why don't you send me an email? zach at drzach dot net.
Pavielle-
We love truth. Why should we tolerate anything less?
And didn't I already dismiss Josephus and the others as interpolation and hearsay? Did any of those guys actually see Jesus themselves? No? Then it's called hearsay.
Can you find anyone outside the bible who witnessed the zombie army in Jerusalem? Email me if you can.
Is anyone threatening to eternally torture me if I don't believe that Jessica Simpson exists?
<< Home