Jump to content




Photo
- - - - -

Luke, Jon, and Thomas


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
71 replies to this topic

#37 Ken

Ken

    Triple Threat

  • Joined: 20-December 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 3,921
  • Reputation: 965
HUDDLER

Posted 29 March 2013 - 05:33 PM

Willis and Bowman may be better than Davis and Beason but a case could most certainly be made for Kuechly seeing as he outworked both of them this year. So I disagree.



Kuechly had a great rookie season but I do not think he was better than Bowman or Willis.

Hopefully he will be in the future of course.

#38 Promethean Forerunner

Promethean Forerunner

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 15-February 13
  • posts: 8,861
  • Reputation: 3,684
SUPPORTER

Posted 29 March 2013 - 05:42 PM

Kuechly had a great rookie season but I do not think he was better than Bowman or Willis.

Hopefully he will be in the future of course.


He's not better yet, but I do think he's on par with Willis, Bowman and Washington. It'd be hard to debate that after his rookie season.

#39 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:09 PM

He's not better yet, but I do think he's on par with Willis, Bowman and Washington. It'd be hard to debate that after his rookie season.


Big picture, Luke has the potential IMO to be the best....but he isn't on Willis' level yet.

I think Luke instincts coupled with a couple more years work in....could have him as the best in the league. His natural instincts are absurd.

#40 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,262
  • Reputation: 5,361
Moderators

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:12 PM

Unfair to compare a 3-4 to a 4-3....Aldon Smith is technically is a LB. Smith had 19.5 sacks last season.

If you do compare....49ers have us beat easily....Willis, Bowman AND Aldon Smith

#41 frash.exe

frash.exe

    Freddy Frashbear

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 15,279
  • Reputation: 5,871
HUDDLER

Posted 29 March 2013 - 07:37 PM

mary magdalene=matt ryan

#42 Guest_BlueBoyRamses_E1b1a_*

Guest_BlueBoyRamses_E1b1a_*
Guests

Posted 29 March 2013 - 08:35 PM

We're talking religion on this board now but race and politics are not allowed? Talk about hypocritical. Not everyone is religious, by the way. Plus, this thread wasted me a click. That's about 1/10th of a calorie.

#43 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 07:28 AM

Only Thomas was a disciple of Jesus.

Luke and Jon were the names of writers of the gospels, all of which were written over a hundred years after the supposed death of some random dude there's no evidence ever existed.

#44 Guest_Irv_*

Guest_Irv_*
Guests

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:26 AM

watch us draft a linebacker named judas smith in the 7th round and he becomes a bust.

#45 Growl

Growl

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 21-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 8,388
  • Reputation: 4,539
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:32 AM

You're confusing apostle with disciple. The apostles are the twelve, of which John was one. Jesus' disciples were many, many people who likely would have followed him as well and just not been among his twelve closest. Luke was quite likely one of these.

Only Thomas was a disciple of Jesus.

Luke and Jon were the names of writers of the gospels, all of which were written over a hundred years after the supposed death of some random dude there's no evidence ever existed.



#46 fieryprophet

fieryprophet

    WARNING: Do not annoy!

  • Joined: 15-December 08
  • posts: 5,450
  • Reputation: 5,700
SUPPORTER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:44 AM

Only Thomas was a disciple of Jesus.

Luke and Jon were the names of writers of the gospels, all of which were written over a hundred years after the supposed death of some random dude there's no evidence ever existed.


No evidence except for having four biographies written about him, or being referenced by contemporary sources like Josephus, or spawning an entire belief system. People can choose to believe anything they want about the religion itself but to think that the person never existed would require the assumption that Caesar, Genghis Khan, Plato, etc. were mythical figures as well seeing as the evidence for their existence is even less comprehensive.

Also, the writer of the book of John was the disciple John, as he referenced himself in the book, and the earliest extant manuscript fragments place it's authorship within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries.

#47 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 11,063
  • Reputation: 878
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:10 PM

Unlike those other historical figures you listed, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, including Josephus. That's a really stupid fuging thing to suggest and a pitiful comparison.

As far as inspiring a belief system, can I assume you then believe Muhammad to be the one true prophet or what

#48 Mr. Scot

Mr. Scot

    Football Historian

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 48,712
  • Reputation: 16,139
HUDDLER

Posted 30 March 2013 - 03:14 PM

as long as we don't end up with twelve disciples on the field


Penalty for that would be five yards and two fishes.