Joakim Noah vs. Biblical Noah

[scott0326]

God is real, those who don't believe are stupid.

[plowking]

God is real, those who don't believe are stupid.

Which one though?

Are people who aren't Christian believers stupid? How about Muslims? Buddhists?

[scott0326]

Which one though?

Are people who aren't Christian believers stupid? How about Muslims? Buddhists?

The God. There isn't 45. If you believe otherwise you will be the 3rd turtle and not get on Noahs ark.

[plowking]

The God. There isn't 45. If you believe otherwise you will be the 3rd turtle and not get on Noahs ark.

Which God though? There are various religions, which one do you believe is right?

[icewill36]

The God. There isn't 45. If you believe otherwise you will be the 3rd turtle and not get on Noahs ark.

lol

[Yung D-Will]

God is real, those who don't believe are stupid.

[Micku]

God is real, those who don't believe are stupid.

"Intelligent people 'less likely to believe in God' "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ve-in-God.html

As an earlier post said, biblical Noah probably won't like Cleveland either. Cleveland sucks that badly.

[vinsane01]

IMO, Joakim > biblical noah.

I bet the biblical noah cant talk sht to lebron unlike joakim!

[CakeorDeath]

Can we get back to the point of this thread? To compare NBA players to biblical figures?

I've got one:

James the Greater, Son of Zebedee vs. LeBron James

One is a beloved disciple of Jesus whose burial site is the ultimate destination of the third most important pilgrimage route in Christendom and the other is TOTALLY OVERRATED!!!

[Chuchu]

I usually don't like to get into these type of arguments over the Internet, but I just felt I had too. A preacher once preached in my Church and he compared God to pain, you can't see it, but you know it's there.

To each his own, you either believe or you don't believe.

God Bless,
Chuchu.

[icewill36]

I usually don't like to get into these type of arguments over the Internet, but I just felt I had too. A man once preached in my Church and he compared God to pain, you can't see it, but you know it's there.

To each his own, you either believe or you don't believe.

God Bless,
Chuchu.

thats the dumbest thing ive ever heard.... you DONT know its there, you want it to be there so let yourself believe you feel it.

[Chalkmaze]

A man once preached in my Church and he compared God to pain, you can't see it, but you know it's there.

Take a couple sugar pills and the pain will go away.

[jbot]

Whatever you think.

Its historical documentiation, with the birth, death and ressurection of Christ verifiying all of it 2,000 years ago.

yet there are no other historical accounts for jesus walking around and doing all his wonders other than the bible itself.

religion is a good thing for the people who believe in it, but not in the magical way most believe.

[liquidrage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus.

Josephus was not a Christian.

Physical Appearance of Jesus



Facial composite of Yeshua Bar Josef. ( Jesus, Son of Joseph)

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus.

He devoted almost nothing in his History to Jesus (John the Baptist got several chapters for example), one inclusion is considered by most to be forged in terms of impact (though accurate in mentioning), and the other regards Josh as brother of James. The fact that Christians existed and worshiped Jesus by the time he wrote Antiquities is not in debate, it's an obvious fact, and his writings do nothing more then confirm that already established fact.

Whether a historical Jesus exists or not is debatable. Possible, but the evidence isn't overwhelming. The most likely the stories are at least based on someone (or even someones) I would argue, but it's not established by any means.

What makes it more complicated is Jesus is a transliteration in English from Joshua. So in English we have Jesus and Joshua as two separate names. But that's just English. Natively in Hebrew, Jesus was called Yehoshua/Yeshua, which was the most common name of the time. So really, ignoring the English only context based transliteration, it's Joshua, Son of God. And you can see how, in an era where people didn't really use last names, that it becomes hard to identify historical evidence for Jesus. Basically, everything that points to a specific Joshua as Jesus is done after his life on Earth, after a following already exists.

[niko]

Josephus was not a contemporary of Jesus.

He devoted almost nothing in his History to Jesus (John the Baptist got several chapters for example), one inclusion is considered by most to be forged in terms of impact (though accurate in mentioning), and the other regards Josh as brother of James. The fact that Christians existed and worshiped Jesus by the time he wrote Antiquities is not in debate, it's an obvious fact, and his writings do nothing more then confirm that already established fact.

Whether a historical Jesus exists or not is debatable. Possible, but the evidence isn't overwhelming. The most likely the stories are at least based on someone (or even someones) I would argue, but it's not established by any means.

What makes it more complicated is Jesus is a transliteration in English from Joshua. So in English we have Jesus and Joshua as two separate names. But that's just English. Natively in Hebrew, Jesus was called Yehoshua/Yeshua, which was the most common name of the time. So really, ignoring the English only context based transliteration, it's Joshua, Son of God. And you can see how, in an era where people didn't really use last names, that it becomes hard to identify historical evidence for Jesus. Basically, everything that points to a specific Joshua as Jesus is done after his life on Earth, after a following already exists.

wtf are you talking a bout any of this in the joke noah thread?