Jesus - Islam Perspective

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

A few things you have to understand, seriously, BodyGuard:

  1. Being fully man and fully God is not rational — recall my analogy of wave and particle for light? It’s interesting indeed that light acts that way as well. But I digress …

The distinct but unconfused persons of God has always been taught and recognized by Christians, which leads to point

  1. The Church was indeed before the writing and compilation of the holy writings. Again, the scriptures didn’t just fall out of the sky and then people started following them. That’s why Christianity (practiced by most for 1000+ years and still most to this day) is reasonable, flexible, and merciful. The Scriptures are about the WORD of God (Jesus). Nothing more, nothing less. And because works weren’t canonized does not indicate they were valuable or shouldn’t be recognized in some fashion (Didache/protoevangelion of James/etc.)

Again, note that Islam tries to simplify the proclaimed realities of Christianity only to create separation and be divisive in order to control the dialogue (read: follow my new schizophrenic religion) “There is no God but God?” Uh, DUH. As if that were contradictory to Christianity or a problem for it. Alas, Mo’s desires were for booty and the carnal aspects of life, which the most cursory knowlege of Islam shows. He and Jesus are antithetical people in every aspect and on that basis alone should the depth and beauty (or ugliness) of each tradition be judged.

42

[quote]LeanMoreThanMean wrote:
A few things you have to understand, seriously, BodyGuard:

  1. Being fully man and fully God is not rational — recall my analogy of wave and particle for light? It’s interesting indeed that light acts that way as well. But I digress …

The distinct but unconfused persons of God has always been taught and recognized by Christians, which leads to point

  1. The Church was indeed before the writing and compilation of the holy writings. Again, the scriptures didn’t just fall out of the sky and then people started following them. That’s why Christianity (practiced by most for 1000+ years and still most to this day) is reasonable, flexible, and merciful. The Scriptures are about the WORD of God (Jesus). Nothing more, nothing less. And because works weren’t canonized does not indicate they were valuable or shouldn’t be recognized in some fashion (Didache/protoevangelion of James/etc.)

Again, note that Islam tries to simplify the proclaimed realities of Christianity only to create separation and be divisive in order to control the dialogue (read: follow my new schizophrenic religion) “There is no God but God?” Uh, DUH. As if that were contradictory to Christianity or a problem for it. Alas, Mo’s desires were for booty and the carnal aspects of life, which the most cursory knowlege of Islam shows. He and Jesus are antithetical people in every aspect and on that basis alone should the depth and beauty (or ugliness) of each tradition be judged.

[/quote]

Read it again, and provide your rebuttal to the referenced scriptures. The above is your opinion and does not offer much in the way of substance, respectfully.

This is not a discussion about being both man and God.

It’s not a discussion for self-serving appeals to authority (your own church) or widespread belief (of which any belief can lay claim). Both of the foregoing arguments are fallacious.

It IS intended to be a discussion about the apparent scriptures wherein Jesus constantly makes a clear distinction between he and the Father.

43

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I don’t really care for the quote/reply by sentence discourse because after the 1st time it becomes very difficult to keep a flow and it’s more trouble than it’s worth. I will simply say that I respect your convictions and that I disagree. In one breath, you admit the corruption of your Church, and in the next you place your faith in that Church.[/quote]

You really think an institution that can be classified as one of the most corrupt (not meaning as in wars, killing, &c., but as in sinful corruption) institutions would last 2000 years? I wish I remember who originally told this story, but two merchants in Paris were partners in business. One of them asked his friend, Abraham, to become a Christian. Abraham told his partner that he wanted to go to Rome to see how the Pope and the Cardinals and the Church in Rome practiced their faith. Around this time it was pretty bad in the Church, corrupt Popes, &c.

So, Abraham’s friend asked him not to, he wanted him to just get baptized and be done with it. Well, Abraham told his friend, no. Business before pleasure. So he went off to Rome and he came back and told his partner, that he wanted to get baptized and become a Christian immediately, he wanted to join the Catholic Church.

Abraham’s friend was amazed, he asked him that after he saw the corruption and the sinfulness that he still wanted to enter the Catholic Church? Abraham plainly told his partner, that after what he saw in Rome, with the corruption, the debauchery, and the lack of living out their faith in general that G-d had to be behind the Catholic Church otherwise it would have collapsed two weeks after the resurrection.

What I am trying to say is that, besides Mary (who is considered the first Christian) Peter was probably one of the first Christians, and he was the Pope. He was a bad mammagamma, he was Jesus’ best friend. Peter was a rough shod fisherman (he had a wife and a mother-in-law, so don’t discount that), as well the man cut off an assistant of the High Priest.

Think about that there is a difference between punching someone in the face (or even pulling out a gun and shooting someone) and pulling out your sword or knife, walking up to them and cutting off their ear. So, cutting off ears and was a fisherman. And, John and James were two Jewish boys with an ornery Jewish mother (she was the one that asked Jesus to put them at his right and left in Heaven and after Jesus said that was up to the Father, the rest of the Apostles gave them scuff for it), they were both Jesus’ best friends (Jesus took Peter, John, and James up to the mountain for the transfiguration).

John and James weren’t pearly white saints either, they called an Angelic Air Strike down on a Samaritan village when the Samaritan’s didn’t give them hospitality (which isn’t really a surprise since Jews and Samaritans pretty much hated each other). Then, there is Jesus’ best friend in the female category, biggest prostitute in Palestine. She’s the one he stepped in front of the Pharisees when they were going to stone her to death.

So, you got Peter – fisherman and dude that has the guts to walk up to armed dudes and cut off an ear of a high official (don’t forget the dude denied Jesus three times) – John and James – arrogant to the point of having their mother ask for the seats to the right and left of Jesus and call down a curse of a legion of Angels on a Samaritan village for lack of hospitality – and Mary Magdalene – biggest prostitute in all of Palestine.

Great group of friends Jesus had, not even just friends, but best friends of Jesus. Those four right there could convert any slum or ghetto in America. If those three (Peter, John, and James) could be Jesus best friends and people that he could trust to preach and lead the Church, you think some fools that don’t do as they preach are really supposed to be a deviation? It’s not like they changed all that much after Jesus started hanging out with them (I’m sure Mary Magdalene stopped pulling tricks, but the others did most of their stuff after meeting Jesus).

As well, there is the case of Judas I. I mean Jesus gave him the power to preach, the man traded Jesus in for 30 pieces of silver, ain’t much more stabbing in the back a friend can do than that. Especially when at one time Judas knew Jesus was talking truth (point to be made, Judas started falling away after Jesus started talking about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood). So, I don’t put my faith in men, I have my faith in G-d that he won’t allow the Church to teach incorrectly. Trust in men is about as useful as building my mansion three feet into the Pacific ocean, it’ll crumble one day.

[quote]
I simply do not agree and it’s the same circular emotional appeal that sucks people into all sorts of crazy beliefs - including cults (surely we do not have to respect ALL beliefs right? :slight_smile: )

My post is simple. I think the reference made some interesting arguments against the divinity of Jesus. They are not alone in their beliefs. I wanted to see discourse on the scripture, because the scripture should speak for itself. When Jesus himself seems to draw a distinction between he and the Father, I think it bears examination. To surrender examination of that legitimate discourse to a later council and an admittedly corrupt institution is “curious” thinking to me. You’re trying to reason to me that scripture was written by man, inspired by God, at a time when the Catholic Church did not exist, and that the Catholic Church later became the sole authority for the interpretation of those scriptures. I reject that argument.

About the only thing I think we agree on is that if Jesus was merely a prophet, a Son of God (not an inclusive term used only in reference to Jesus), then yes, 2000 years of dogma has been in vain. [/quote]

You bring up a good point, there is three options about Jesus. First option is that Jesus was a liar (he knew he was not G-d), second option is that Jesus was a lunatic (he really believed it, but Jesus was deluded and didn’t know what he was talking about, or Jesus is Lord (Jesus really is G-d). Jesus can’t be a prophet or a wise man or a really good man (or whatever), unless he is Lord.

Because if he’s a prophet and he was lying (both lunatic and liar) then he wasn’t really a prophet, because he told lies. He can’t be a wise man because wise men don’t lie and they definitely know what they are. So, he was one of those three options, and I had to go with option three that Jesus was Lord, because of the fact that with the martyrs, the perseverance of the Church through history, and other stuff all give testimony to Jesus being what he said.

44

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?[/quote]

But to answer your question, I’d respond by saying “why”? Why do it? Doesn’t the question itself root back to the very nature of anthropomorphism?[/quote]

To save us.

No need, just his plan.

Because it did.

Because of humans fallen nature to twist scripture (it’s in scripture).

He did, if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see. However, because of our fallen nature we have a tendency to twist scripture to our benefit, not to the truth.

Not to sound like Tirib, but faith is not based on reason, our reason becomes sound because of what we stand on. Faith is what we receive by what we hear, not by what we reason.

No disrespect Chris, but every single reply of yours constituted various forms of fallacious arguments. Sincerely, I was hoping for more. Increasingly, it seems to me that religion is not a matter of “faith” in God, but rather “faith in man” and institutions. And your Church in particular has a corrupt record dating back to the beginning. I have “faith” that something greater than me exists. I do not have faith in doctrines that suggest very strongly that they were created by man and, when you challenge those doctrines, the default position unfailingly requires you to have faith in men. If I’m going to have faith in men, I might as well include Joseph Smith and his claims. Heck, I might want to consider the likes of Jim Jones too. If the Word is indeed the inerrant word of God, it does not require massage by your Church, or any Church. [/quote]

Someone has to deliver the message. I mean, I’m sure G-d could just drop a book out of the sky, but he never did that. So, you’ll have to truth man in some aspects. I mean Jesus was a man, Moses and the Prophets delivered the word of G-d to his faithful.

However, if you point out to me what kind of proof you wish to have, I am sure I can attempt to bring back a solid answer (I’ll see if I can buy a series that would answer your questions better and see if I can’t put it up for you or something or even transcribe it for you here). But, I’m not sure what you want me to do, there is a proper way to interpret the Bible, and you don’t find it reasonable to interpret it that way.

I can’t do much beyond doing it right. I mean let’s say hypothetically I can show you scripture to prove Jesus divinity, you can say I miss interpreted it. Then, I say well let’s look at what the Church says it says, and you say that’s faith in man. Well that is how you interpret it, the Bible itself says that there is no private interpretation and that you need a guide and that good hearted men twist the scriptures to their own condemnation and death.

We have to have a basis of interpretation before we try to prove anything. Do you wish proof by the Bible alone (because I can’t do that, I need a secondary source to help with proof that is what those scriptures mean)? Or, would you be willing to have secondary sources that come from approved commentaries and doctrines from the Church?

P.S. I appreciate you admitting that you have faith there is something higher than you. Otherwise earth would really be for our disposal as we’re the highest beings in being. Plus, that would suck major you know what because our life would be utterly pointless besides pleasing ourselves…and well, as fun as they may seem, just really doesn’t do much for anybody if they are honest with themselves. So, what is it? I mean if you really wish for me to prove this wrong, I can but if you’re going to say Bible alone, I can’t really do it.

Let me show you something about using the Bible alone. I took a class at a Catholic Seminary on heresies and the Bible. I’ll tell you this about heresies – that most Christians believe are heresies – heresies have a lot of scriptural proof, like if you ignored what Christians “know” is the truth and just looked at the case of the heresies on reason alone, you’d have no option but to believe those heresies (you’d have no option to believe the truth too, but that gets difficult when two things are proven to be true, but only one can be true).

If we’re going verse for verse, I can prove almost every heresy in the Christendom with the Bible alone. I can prove one heresy, and then I can prove another heresy on the flip side of that heresy (meaning like I can prove that Jesus was really a super human and then I can prove that Jesus was just a Spirit of G-d and there was not physical Jesus) without much effort based on reason and the bible alone. Now, how can these two things be true (which neither of them are true by the way, both are heresies proved wrong around the Council of Nicene) that contradict each other?

They can’t, impossible, logically speaking. But, using the Bible both can be proven logically to be true. So, there needs to be an outside source who interprets the Bible and since the Church is the bulwark and pillar of truth, and the Holy Ghost is with the Church guiding it (it’s in the Bible) then that is who we go to to determine what the interpretation of scripture is. Otherwise, we are likely to go into heresy like many people have.

45

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I don’t know Tirib.

You forget the differences between all other faiths and Christianity. With all other faiths you have a prophet or a philosopher saying this is the way to live and if you live this way you’ll experience pleasure and joy, in Christianity you have a dude that says I am G-d, follow me in what I do, humble yourself and die to yourself in sacrifices and for your friends, and I will die for you so that you may become like G-d. No one else does that. Only Jesus.

46

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

I don’t know Tirib.

You forget the differences between all other faiths and Christianity. With all other faiths you have a prophet or a philosopher saying this is the way to live and if you live this way you’ll experience pleasure and joy, in Christianity you have a dude that says I am G-d, follow me in what I do, humble yourself and die to yourself in sacrifices and for your friends, and I will die for you so that you may become like G-d. No one else does that. Only Jesus.[/quote]You’re missing my point (wadda shock =] )Of course I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is alone the means of reconciliation with an offended holy God. I’m saying that epistomologically, only the self aware exaltation of only the triune God of Christianity as the source and definition of all that is or ever could be avoids the universal, sinful pitfall of contingent, circular uncertainty. In that light (darkness actually), where unfortunately far too many professing Christians insist on living because they have not fully grasped the magnitude of the renewal of their mind, ANY belief or none at all is just as possible or impossible as I said.

I refuse to live there and hence can say with utter dogmatic certainty that the triune Lord God most high is the infallible definer and definition of absolutely everything, including and ESPECIALLY me. Aquinas refused to do that. He started with Aristotle and defined God and himself (and now you) from there.

That’s why Paul asked “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.”? 1st Cor. 1. Paul knew the Greeks at least as well as Thomas and rejected them out of hand as godless foolish wranglers. So do I, but not you. or Rome or even my Arminian brethren.

47

Its difficult to understand the differentiation of The Son, The Father, and Holy Spirit if you’re thinking from a Unitarian point of view. But if you can accept the Trinity (not mentioned in scripture, but it is taught) then the distinction between Jesus and the Father becomes quite easy to understand.

God is a being, none other like him. This being has three individuals who compose it. I will respond after TBG. But I assure you I cannot continue in these discussions much longer.

48

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I don’t really care for the quote/reply by sentence discourse because after the 1st time it becomes very difficult to keep a flow and it’s more trouble than it’s worth. I will simply say that I respect your convictions and that I disagree. In one breath, you admit the corruption of your Church, and in the next you place your faith in that Church.[/quote]

You really think an institution that can be classified as one of the most corrupt (not meaning as in wars, killing, &c., but as in sinful corruption) institutions would last 2000 years? I wish I remember who originally told this story, but two merchants in Paris were partners in business. One of them asked his friend, Abraham, to become a Christian. Abraham told his partner that he wanted to go to Rome to see how the Pope and the Cardinals and the Church in Rome practiced their faith. Around this time it was pretty bad in the Church, corrupt Popes, &c.

So, Abraham’s friend asked him not to, he wanted him to just get baptized and be done with it. Well, Abraham told his friend, no. Business before pleasure. So he went off to Rome and he came back and told his partner, that he wanted to get baptized and become a Christian immediately, he wanted to join the Catholic Church.

Abraham’s friend was amazed, he asked him that after he saw the corruption and the sinfulness that he still wanted to enter the Catholic Church? Abraham plainly told his partner, that after what he saw in Rome, with the corruption, the debauchery, and the lack of living out their faith in general that G-d had to be behind the Catholic Church otherwise it would have collapsed two weeks after the resurrection.

What I am trying to say is that, besides Mary (who is considered the first Christian) Peter was probably one of the first Christians, and he was the Pope. He was a bad mammagamma, he was Jesus’ best friend. Peter was a rough shod fisherman (he had a wife and a mother-in-law, so don’t discount that), as well the man cut off an assistant of the High Priest.

Think about that there is a difference between punching someone in the face (or even pulling out a gun and shooting someone) and pulling out your sword or knife, walking up to them and cutting off their ear. So, cutting off ears and was a fisherman. And, John and James were two Jewish boys with an ornery Jewish mother (she was the one that asked Jesus to put them at his right and left in Heaven and after Jesus said that was up to the Father, the rest of the Apostles gave them scuff for it), they were both Jesus’ best friends (Jesus took Peter, John, and James up to the mountain for the transfiguration).

John and James weren’t pearly white saints either, they called an Angelic Air Strike down on a Samaritan village when the Samaritan’s didn’t give them hospitality (which isn’t really a surprise since Jews and Samaritans pretty much hated each other). Then, there is Jesus’ best friend in the female category, biggest prostitute in Palestine. She’s the one he stepped in front of the Pharisees when they were going to stone her to death.

So, you got Peter – fisherman and dude that has the guts to walk up to armed dudes and cut off an ear of a high official (don’t forget the dude denied Jesus three times) – John and James – arrogant to the point of having their mother ask for the seats to the right and left of Jesus and call down a curse of a legion of Angels on a Samaritan village for lack of hospitality – and Mary Magdalene – biggest prostitute in all of Palestine.

Great group of friends Jesus had, not even just friends, but best friends of Jesus. Those four right there could convert any slum or ghetto in America. If those three (Peter, John, and James) could be Jesus best friends and people that he could trust to preach and lead the Church, you think some fools that don’t do as they preach are really supposed to be a deviation? It’s not like they changed all that much after Jesus started hanging out with them (I’m sure Mary Magdalene stopped pulling tricks, but the others did most of their stuff after meeting Jesus).

As well, there is the case of Judas I. I mean Jesus gave him the power to preach, the man traded Jesus in for 30 pieces of silver, ain’t much more stabbing in the back a friend can do than that. Especially when at one time Judas knew Jesus was talking truth (point to be made, Judas started falling away after Jesus started talking about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood). So, I don’t put my faith in men, I have my faith in G-d that he won’t allow the Church to teach incorrectly. Trust in men is about as useful as building my mansion three feet into the Pacific ocean, it’ll crumble one day.

[quote]
I simply do not agree and it’s the same circular emotional appeal that sucks people into all sorts of crazy beliefs - including cults (surely we do not have to respect ALL beliefs right? :slight_smile: )

My post is simple. I think the reference made some interesting arguments against the divinity of Jesus. They are not alone in their beliefs. I wanted to see discourse on the scripture, because the scripture should speak for itself. When Jesus himself seems to draw a distinction between he and the Father, I think it bears examination. To surrender examination of that legitimate discourse to a later council and an admittedly corrupt institution is “curious” thinking to me. You’re trying to reason to me that scripture was written by man, inspired by God, at a time when the Catholic Church did not exist, and that the Catholic Church later became the sole authority for the interpretation of those scriptures. I reject that argument.

About the only thing I think we agree on is that if Jesus was merely a prophet, a Son of God (not an inclusive term used only in reference to Jesus), then yes, 2000 years of dogma has been in vain. [/quote]

You bring up a good point, there is three options about Jesus. First option is that Jesus was a liar (he knew he was not G-d), second option is that Jesus was a lunatic (he really believed it, but Jesus was deluded and didn’t know what he was talking about, or Jesus is Lord (Jesus really is G-d). Jesus can’t be a prophet or a wise man or a really good man (or whatever), unless he is Lord.

Because if he’s a prophet and he was lying (both lunatic and liar) then he wasn’t really a prophet, because he told lies. He can’t be a wise man because wise men don’t lie and they definitely know what they are. So, he was one of those three options, and I had to go with option three that Jesus was Lord, because of the fact that with the martyrs, the perseverance of the Church through history, and other stuff all give testimony to Jesus being what he said.[/quote]

Chris, you’re changing the subject and making argument by generalization and frankly I’m surprised. Your conclusions are completely unsupported. First, that Jesus was lying is not part of the debate. In fact, the quoted scripture apparently has Jesus making the distinction between he and the Father. Jesus as a lunatic is a plausible consideration, but is not in play here. What IS in play is the arguments of Islam as illustrated in the reference and are based upon SCRIPTURE.

Rebut the scripture if you choose because I’d like to hear it as I am genuinely interested in the opposition. Another long fallacious argument will not carry the day! :slight_smile:

49

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
God’s message to man should speak for itself. [/quote]

Who says? [/quote]

I’ll play along.

The almighty wants to deliver his message to his children who are in need of his law. Although there is scriptural evidence for such clarity, such as the ten commandments - thou shalt not kill - can it be any clearer than that - but when it comes time for the message of the divine Jesus, God is suddenly confusing, contradictory and needs man (the Church) to later clarify the confusing, contradictory messages, in order to make a coherent consistent message.

In one place, the doctrine is very clear, and unambiguous. In another, it is not and requires alleged “inspiration” upon the Church to create doctrine.

Do you not find that the least bit curious?

Will the standard response be something along the lines of “God is mysterious, it is not for us to know his ways, only to obey” or some permutation thereof?

God: Thou shalt not kill!

Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]

They are abundantly clear. Clear enough that a billion people living today and countless others before them have had no problem accepting the unequivocal message of the Gospels, that Jesus Christ is at once the flesh and blood Son of God and the eternal Father. The fallacy of widespread acceptance? Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years. It’s not a scientific object. You can’t search abstracts on Pub-God. This isn’t testable. You can’t put God in a petri dish. You can’t peer-review him with Muslim scholars.

Is it paradoxical? Of course it is. The role of the Holy Spirit makes it even harder to wrap one’s brain around. Confusing, even? Sure. But to insinuate that the Gospels provide us with any other message than that of the divinity of Christ the man is either willful ignorance or outright disingenuousness. There are no edges to nibble at here. The doctrine speaks quite unambiguously.

As has already been stated, almost every example cited in your link is open for (mis-)interpretation. Your call for “references” or examples from scripture doesn’t really make sense to me. What are you going to be satisfied with? You’ve already asserted that the Church that gave us the Bible in the first place is not fit to interpret it. The passages pretty clearly demonstrating the divinity of Christ have been posted, but unsurprisingly, nothing is ever quite able to meet your standards of scrutiny. You always have one more angle that negates the defense, one more shift of the goalposts that always assures that the debate is set up in your favor. Hence your hauty demands for “references,” as if we were discussing the role of exogenous hormones in nutrient partitioning.

The link is dumb. Why don’t YOU come up with something original, instead of pompously demanding that others follow your rules? Where are YOUR references to your outlandish assertions? Those links? Is that it? What is YOUR argument?

50

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?[/quote]

But to answer your question, I’d respond by saying “why”? Why do it? Doesn’t the question itself root back to the very nature of anthropomorphism?[/quote]

To save us.

No need, just his plan.

Because it did.

Because of humans fallen nature to twist scripture (it’s in scripture).

He did, if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see. However, because of our fallen nature we have a tendency to twist scripture to our benefit, not to the truth.

Not to sound like Tirib, but faith is not based on reason, our reason becomes sound because of what we stand on. Faith is what we receive by what we hear, not by what we reason.

No disrespect Chris, but every single reply of yours constituted various forms of fallacious arguments. Sincerely, I was hoping for more. Increasingly, it seems to me that religion is not a matter of “faith” in God, but rather “faith in man” and institutions. And your Church in particular has a corrupt record dating back to the beginning. I have “faith” that something greater than me exists. I do not have faith in doctrines that suggest very strongly that they were created by man and, when you challenge those doctrines, the default position unfailingly requires you to have faith in men. If I’m going to have faith in men, I might as well include Joseph Smith and his claims. Heck, I might want to consider the likes of Jim Jones too. If the Word is indeed the inerrant word of God, it does not require massage by your Church, or any Church. [/quote]

Someone has to deliver the message. I mean, I’m sure G-d could just drop a book out of the sky, but he never did that. So, you’ll have to truth man in some aspects. I mean Jesus was a man, Moses and the Prophets delivered the word of G-d to his faithful.

However, if you point out to me what kind of proof you wish to have, I am sure I can attempt to bring back a solid answer (I’ll see if I can buy a series that would answer your questions better and see if I can’t put it up for you or something or even transcribe it for you here). But, I’m not sure what you want me to do, there is a proper way to interpret the Bible, and you don’t find it reasonable to interpret it that way.

I can’t do much beyond doing it right. I mean let’s say hypothetically I can show you scripture to prove Jesus divinity, you can say I miss interpreted it. Then, I say well let’s look at what the Church says it says, and you say that’s faith in man. Well that is how you interpret it, the Bible itself says that there is no private interpretation and that you need a guide and that good hearted men twist the scriptures to their own condemnation and death.

We have to have a basis of interpretation before we try to prove anything. Do you wish proof by the Bible alone (because I can’t do that, I need a secondary source to help with proof that is what those scriptures mean)? Or, would you be willing to have secondary sources that come from approved commentaries and doctrines from the Church?

P.S. I appreciate you admitting that you have faith there is something higher than you. Otherwise earth would really be for our disposal as we’re the highest beings in being. Plus, that would suck major you know what because our life would be utterly pointless besides pleasing ourselves…and well, as fun as they may seem, just really doesn’t do much for anybody if they are honest with themselves. So, what is it? I mean if you really wish for me to prove this wrong, I can but if you’re going to say Bible alone, I can’t really do it.

Let me show you something about using the Bible alone. I took a class at a Catholic Seminary on heresies and the Bible. I’ll tell you this about heresies – that most Christians believe are heresies – heresies have a lot of scriptural proof, like if you ignored what Christians “know” is the truth and just looked at the case of the heresies on reason alone, you’d have no option but to believe those heresies (you’d have no option to believe the truth too, but that gets difficult when two things are proven to be true, but only one can be true).

If we’re going verse for verse, I can prove almost every heresy in the Christendom with the Bible alone. I can prove one heresy, and then I can prove another heresy on the flip side of that heresy (meaning like I can prove that Jesus was really a super human and then I can prove that Jesus was just a Spirit of G-d and there was not physical Jesus) without much effort based on reason and the bible alone. Now, how can these two things be true (which neither of them are true by the way, both are heresies proved wrong around the Council of Nicene) that contradict each other?

They can’t, impossible, logically speaking. But, using the Bible both can be proven logically to be true. So, there needs to be an outside source who interprets the Bible and since the Church is the bulwark and pillar of truth, and the Holy Ghost is with the Church guiding it (it’s in the Bible) then that is who we go to to determine what the interpretation of scripture is. Otherwise, we are likely to go into heresy like many people have.[/quote]

Provide extant evidence (other than declarations from the Catholic Church itself) that the Catholic Church is the authority to interpret scripture.

51

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
God’s message to man should speak for itself. [/quote]

Who says? [/quote]

I’ll play along.

The almighty wants to deliver his message to his children who are in need of his law. Although there is scriptural evidence for such clarity, such as the ten commandments - thou shalt not kill - can it be any clearer than that - but when it comes time for the message of the divine Jesus, God is suddenly confusing, contradictory and needs man (the Church) to later clarify the confusing, contradictory messages, in order to make a coherent consistent message.

In one place, the doctrine is very clear, and unambiguous. In another, it is not and requires alleged “inspiration” upon the Church to create doctrine.

Do you not find that the least bit curious?

Will the standard response be something along the lines of “God is mysterious, it is not for us to know his ways, only to obey” or some permutation thereof?

God: Thou shalt not kill!

Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]

They are abundantly clear. Clear enough that a billion people living today and countless others before them have had no problem accepting the unequivocal message of the Gospels, that Jesus Christ is at once the flesh and blood Son of God and the eternal Father. The fallacy of widespread acceptance? Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years. It’s not a scientific object. You can’t search abstracts on Pub-God. This isn’t testable. You can’t put God in a petri dish. You can’t peer-review him with Muslim scholars.

Is it paradoxical? Of course it is. The role of the Holy Spirit makes it even harder to wrap one’s brain around. Confusing, even? Sure. But to insinuate that the Gospels provide us with any other message than that of the divinity of Christ the man is either willful ignorance or outright disingenuousness. There are no edges to nibble at here. The doctrine speaks quite unambiguously.

As has already been stated, almost every example cited in your link is open for (mis-)interpretation. Your call for “references” or examples from scripture doesn’t really make sense to me. What are you going to be satisfied with? You’ve already asserted that the Church that gave us the Bible in the first place is not fit to interpret it. The passages pretty clearly demonstrating the divinity of Christ have been posted, but unsurprisingly, nothing is ever quite able to meet your standards of scrutiny. You always have one more angle that negates the defense, one more shift of the goalposts that always assures that the debate is set up in your favor. Hence your hauty demands for “references,” as if we were discussing the role of exogenous hormones in nutrient partitioning.

The link is dumb. Why don’t YOU come up with something original, instead of pompously demanding that others follow your rules? Where are YOUR references to your outlandish assertions? Those links? Is that it? What is YOUR argument?

[/quote]

Is this yet another one of your “valuable contributions” to threads in PWI.

The above is not argument. It’s fallacious argument. Either you and ZEB are on in the same, or you subscribe to the same theory of meaningless arguments. Your entire first paragraph is an appeal to widespread belief, and on that basis alone, the Jews and Islam have as much claim to the “truth” as Christians. You’re saying because x number of people believe, that that is evidence of “truth”. Well sir, Islam and the Jews can make the exact same claim. See the problem there?

Your third paragraph is a lie. I have not “moved the goalpost” as you allude to and I’m surprised you raised this because it’s a fallacious argument type and not something I’m engaging in. I provided a reference that interested me. It contained discrete scripture. If it’s out of context, incorrect, etc., the rebuttal should be based on that - rebut the scripture. Tell us why when Jesus continually draws a distinction between himself and the Father that he is not in fact claiming a distinction. If you’re not up to the task, and it appears you are not, why then the need for attacks? Is this some weird stalking thing?

The “link is dumb”. Well that was an intelligent and “valuable” reply! It is estimated that 23% of the world’s population is Muslim. So, by association, they, and their beliefs are “dumb” because they do not comport with your own. Brilliant! There are about 13 million Jews in the world (excluding those that believe in and practice the faith). They also do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. By your logic, they are similarly stupid. Brilliant!

Pompously demanding others follow my rules? It was my post, and it was made in earnest. I reviewed the argument, found it to be logical and the quoted scripture to be compelling. I think the quoted scripture should be accepted or debunked. I don’t think a good debate follows “because we think so” or, “because we believe”. Believe it or not Cortes, there are learned men that do nothing but study and interpret scripture and they do not necessarily reside within your Church. They reside in Universities and such. There is plenty of authority to appeal to that would not result in a circular argument back to the authority of the Church that invented the doctrine in the first place!

As for references, I provided the reference. A plain reading of the scripture appears to illustrate Jesus CONTINUALLY distinguishing between him and the Father. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Why would I need a reference when the basis for the argument has not yet been addressed. There is not yet any counter-point to the thesis.

What is my argument? I’m not sure I’m making an “argument”. Arguing and bickering is what you guys do on PWI. I argue and bicker on GAL and SAMA. I thought this was a serious forum. If you wish to call it “argument” fine. I read the referenced link and found it compelling based upon a plain reading of the cited scripture. I was interested in hearing rebuttals to the plain reading of the cited scripture. It’s really not that complicated is it? But you can continue to attempt to “complicate”, more like obfuscate, the topic with your fallacious arguments and personal attacks…and “valuable contributions”.

I await your next attack. If anything, you’re predictable. Will ZEB be along shortly?

52

[quote]forbes wrote:
Its difficult to understand the differentiation of The Son, The Father, and Holy Spirit if you’re thinking from a Unitarian point of view. But if you can accept the Trinity (not mentioned in scripture, but it is taught) then the distinction between Jesus and the Father becomes quite easy to understand.

God is a being, none other like him. This being has three individuals who compose it. I will respond after TBG. But I assure you I cannot continue in these discussions much longer.[/quote]

Forbes, you cannot continue? You have not even started.

So are you admitting that the basis for the differentiation is a doctrine not of Scripture but that of the Church? And is that why there has not yet been any rebuttal on the scripture to the referenced verses? It sounds to me like the divinity of Jesus was indeed invented. What is the authority for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Don’t act as if participating in a thread is such a burden Forbes. I respect your beliefs but really, participation in this thread or anywhere on this site is voluntary.

53

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?[/quote]

But to answer your question, I’d respond by saying “why”? Why do it? Doesn’t the question itself root back to the very nature of anthropomorphism?[/quote]

To save us.

No need, just his plan.

Because it did.

Because of humans fallen nature to twist scripture (it’s in scripture).

He did, if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see. However, because of our fallen nature we have a tendency to twist scripture to our benefit, not to the truth.

Not to sound like Tirib, but faith is not based on reason, our reason becomes sound because of what we stand on. Faith is what we receive by what we hear, not by what we reason.

No disrespect Chris, but every single reply of yours constituted various forms of fallacious arguments. Sincerely, I was hoping for more. Increasingly, it seems to me that religion is not a matter of “faith” in God, but rather “faith in man” and institutions. And your Church in particular has a corrupt record dating back to the beginning. I have “faith” that something greater than me exists. I do not have faith in doctrines that suggest very strongly that they were created by man and, when you challenge those doctrines, the default position unfailingly requires you to have faith in men. If I’m going to have faith in men, I might as well include Joseph Smith and his claims. Heck, I might want to consider the likes of Jim Jones too. If the Word is indeed the inerrant word of God, it does not require massage by your Church, or any Church. [/quote]

Someone has to deliver the message. I mean, I’m sure G-d could just drop a book out of the sky, but he never did that. So, you’ll have to truth man in some aspects. I mean Jesus was a man, Moses and the Prophets delivered the word of G-d to his faithful.

However, if you point out to me what kind of proof you wish to have, I am sure I can attempt to bring back a solid answer (I’ll see if I can buy a series that would answer your questions better and see if I can’t put it up for you or something or even transcribe it for you here). But, I’m not sure what you want me to do, there is a proper way to interpret the Bible, and you don’t find it reasonable to interpret it that way.

I can’t do much beyond doing it right. I mean let’s say hypothetically I can show you scripture to prove Jesus divinity, you can say I miss interpreted it. Then, I say well let’s look at what the Church says it says, and you say that’s faith in man. Well that is how you interpret it, the Bible itself says that there is no private interpretation and that you need a guide and that good hearted men twist the scriptures to their own condemnation and death.

We have to have a basis of interpretation before we try to prove anything. Do you wish proof by the Bible alone (because I can’t do that, I need a secondary source to help with proof that is what those scriptures mean)? Or, would you be willing to have secondary sources that come from approved commentaries and doctrines from the Church?

P.S. I appreciate you admitting that you have faith there is something higher than you. Otherwise earth would really be for our disposal as we’re the highest beings in being. Plus, that would suck major you know what because our life would be utterly pointless besides pleasing ourselves…and well, as fun as they may seem, just really doesn’t do much for anybody if they are honest with themselves. So, what is it? I mean if you really wish for me to prove this wrong, I can but if you’re going to say Bible alone, I can’t really do it.

Let me show you something about using the Bible alone. I took a class at a Catholic Seminary on heresies and the Bible. I’ll tell you this about heresies – that most Christians believe are heresies – heresies have a lot of scriptural proof, like if you ignored what Christians “know” is the truth and just looked at the case of the heresies on reason alone, you’d have no option but to believe those heresies (you’d have no option to believe the truth too, but that gets difficult when two things are proven to be true, but only one can be true).

If we’re going verse for verse, I can prove almost every heresy in the Christendom with the Bible alone. I can prove one heresy, and then I can prove another heresy on the flip side of that heresy (meaning like I can prove that Jesus was really a super human and then I can prove that Jesus was just a Spirit of G-d and there was not physical Jesus) without much effort based on reason and the bible alone. Now, how can these two things be true (which neither of them are true by the way, both are heresies proved wrong around the Council of Nicene) that contradict each other?

They can’t, impossible, logically speaking. But, using the Bible both can be proven logically to be true. So, there needs to be an outside source who interprets the Bible and since the Church is the bulwark and pillar of truth, and the Holy Ghost is with the Church guiding it (it’s in the Bible) then that is who we go to to determine what the interpretation of scripture is. Otherwise, we are likely to go into heresy like many people have.[/quote]

Provide extant evidence (other than declarations from the Catholic Church itself) that the Catholic Church is the authority to interpret scripture. [/quote]

You’re like a broken record.

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus himself (Matthew 16:18). What the hell else do you require?

54

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
God’s message to man should speak for itself. [/quote]

Who says? [/quote]

I’ll play along.

The almighty wants to deliver his message to his children who are in need of his law. Although there is scriptural evidence for such clarity, such as the ten commandments - thou shalt not kill - can it be any clearer than that - but when it comes time for the message of the divine Jesus, God is suddenly confusing, contradictory and needs man (the Church) to later clarify the confusing, contradictory messages, in order to make a coherent consistent message.

In one place, the doctrine is very clear, and unambiguous. In another, it is not and requires alleged “inspiration” upon the Church to create doctrine.

Do you not find that the least bit curious?

Will the standard response be something along the lines of “God is mysterious, it is not for us to know his ways, only to obey” or some permutation thereof?

God: Thou shalt not kill!

Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]

They are abundantly clear. Clear enough that a billion people living today and countless others before them have had no problem accepting the unequivocal message of the Gospels, that Jesus Christ is at once the flesh and blood Son of God and the eternal Father. The fallacy of widespread acceptance? Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years. It’s not a scientific object. You can’t search abstracts on Pub-God. This isn’t testable. You can’t put God in a petri dish. You can’t peer-review him with Muslim scholars.

Is it paradoxical? Of course it is. The role of the Holy Spirit makes it even harder to wrap one’s brain around. Confusing, even? Sure. But to insinuate that the Gospels provide us with any other message than that of the divinity of Christ the man is either willful ignorance or outright disingenuousness. There are no edges to nibble at here. The doctrine speaks quite unambiguously.

As has already been stated, almost every example cited in your link is open for (mis-)interpretation. Your call for “references” or examples from scripture doesn’t really make sense to me. What are you going to be satisfied with? You’ve already asserted that the Church that gave us the Bible in the first place is not fit to interpret it. The passages pretty clearly demonstrating the divinity of Christ have been posted, but unsurprisingly, nothing is ever quite able to meet your standards of scrutiny. You always have one more angle that negates the defense, one more shift of the goalposts that always assures that the debate is set up in your favor. Hence your hauty demands for “references,” as if we were discussing the role of exogenous hormones in nutrient partitioning.

The link is dumb. Why don’t YOU come up with something original, instead of pompously demanding that others follow your rules? Where are YOUR references to your outlandish assertions? Those links? Is that it? What is YOUR argument?

[/quote]

Is this yet another one of your “valuable contributions” to threads in PWI.

The above is not argument. It’s fallacious argument. Either you and ZEB are on in the same, or you subscribe to the same theory of meaningless arguments. Your entire first paragraph is an appeal to widespread belief, and on that basis alone, the Jews and Islam have as much claim to the “truth” as Christians. You’re saying because x number of people believe, that that is evidence of “truth”. Well sir, Islam and the Jews can make the exact same claim. See the problem there?

Your third paragraph is a lie. I have not “moved the goalpost” as you allude to and I’m surprised you raised this because it’s a fallacious argument type and not something I’m engaging in. I provided a reference that interested me. It contained discrete scripture. If it’s out of context, incorrect, etc., the rebuttal should be based on that - rebut the scripture. Tell us why when Jesus continually draws a distinction between himself and the Father that he is not in fact claiming a distinction. If you’re not up to the task, and it appears you are not, why then the need for attacks? Is this some weird stalking thing?

The “link is dumb”. Well that was an intelligent and “valuable” reply! It is estimated that 23% of the world’s population is Muslim. So, by association, they, and their beliefs are “dumb” because they do not comport with your own. Brilliant! There are about 13 million Jews in the world (excluding those that believe in and practice the faith). They also do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. By your logic, they are similarly stupid. Brilliant!

Pompously demanding others follow my rules? It was my post, and it was made in earnest. I reviewed the argument, found it to be logical and the quoted scripture to be compelling. I think the quoted scripture should be accepted or debunked. I don’t think a good debate follows “because we think so” or, “because we believe”. Believe it or not Cortes, there are learned men that do nothing but study and interpret scripture and they do not necessarily reside within your Church. They reside in Universities and such. There is plenty of authority to appeal to that would not result in a circular argument back to the authority of the Church that invented the doctrine in the first place!

As for references, I provided the reference. A plain reading of the scripture appears to illustrate Jesus CONTINUALLY distinguishing between him and the Father. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Why would I need a reference when the basis for the argument has not yet been addressed. There is not yet any counter-point to the thesis.

What is my argument? I’m not sure I’m making an “argument”. Arguing and bickering is what you guys do on PWI. I argue and bicker on GAL and SAMA. I thought this was a serious forum. If you wish to call it “argument” fine. I read the referenced link and found it compelling based upon a plain reading of the cited scripture. I was interested in hearing rebuttals to the plain reading of the cited scripture. It’s really not that complicated is it? But you can continue to attempt to “complicate”, more like obfuscate, the topic with your fallacious arguments and personal attacks…and “valuable contributions”.

I await your next attack. If anything, you’re predictable. Will ZEB be along shortly?[/quote]

TLDR

I didn’t say the widespread belief of people indicated any “truth.” Your whole premise is a fallacy. Whatever follows, in defense or support, is going to be bullshit.

Boo hoo hoo, I “attacked” you again. For somebody who so desperately wants to be the Alpha Male, you certainly do whine and complain a lot.

55

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Its difficult to understand the differentiation of The Son, The Father, and Holy Spirit if you’re thinking from a Unitarian point of view. But if you can accept the Trinity (not mentioned in scripture, but it is taught) then the distinction between Jesus and the Father becomes quite easy to understand.

God is a being, none other like him. This being has three individuals who compose it. I will respond after TBG. But I assure you I cannot continue in these discussions much longer.[/quote]

Forbes, you cannot continue? You have not even started.

So are you admitting that the basis for the differentiation is a doctrine not of Scripture but that of the Church? And is that why there has not yet been any rebuttal on the scripture to the referenced verses? It sounds to me like the divinity of Jesus was indeed invented. What is the authority for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Don’t act as if participating in a thread is such a burden Forbes. I respect your beliefs but really, participation in this thread or anywhere on this site is voluntary. [/quote]

Oh no. The reason why I won’t be able to continue (temporarily) is because of school work. I’ve had a few days of just relaxing so I participated in these forums. Now Im gonna be bombarded with work again so I will have to take some more down time again from these forums.

56

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You’re like a broken record.

The Catholic Church was started by Jesus himself (Matthew 16:18). What the hell else do you require?
[/quote]

The only broken record is you. You cannot manage an intelligent thoughtful reply without cowardly internet attacks.

Is it your position that the Catholic Church’s potentially self-serving interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is universally accepted? Because I can offer referenced rebuttal if you’d like.

And by the way, a record is circular, like your arguments.

If you would instead respond (as it appears you have after weeding thru your personal attacks and fallacious arguments) that your faith believes in the divinity of Jesus because your Church says so and, you have faith in your Church - well, that would constitute a type of earnest answer. Apparently, it’s not a direct answer that you’re comfortable with, thus the obfuscation with personal attacks and fallacious arguments. If this is the gist of your answer, why couldn’t you state it without the personal attacks? Why not simply say that in spite of the apparent inconsistency of the quoted scriptures, we believe what our Church teaches us and we have no direct rebuttal to these apparent discrepancies. We rely solely upon our Church.

I think it was another thread wherein you touted your contributions to the forums here. I think you mentioned giving valuable advice about steroids. Maybe you should stick to steroids. Perhaps it is there that you state your positions plainly, without fallacious arguments and personal attacks.

57

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
God’s message to man should speak for itself. [/quote]

Who says? [/quote]

I’ll play along.

The almighty wants to deliver his message to his children who are in need of his law. Although there is scriptural evidence for such clarity, such as the ten commandments - thou shalt not kill - can it be any clearer than that - but when it comes time for the message of the divine Jesus, God is suddenly confusing, contradictory and needs man (the Church) to later clarify the confusing, contradictory messages, in order to make a coherent consistent message.

In one place, the doctrine is very clear, and unambiguous. In another, it is not and requires alleged “inspiration” upon the Church to create doctrine.

Do you not find that the least bit curious?

Will the standard response be something along the lines of “God is mysterious, it is not for us to know his ways, only to obey” or some permutation thereof?

God: Thou shalt not kill!

Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]

They are abundantly clear. Clear enough that a billion people living today and countless others before them have had no problem accepting the unequivocal message of the Gospels, that Jesus Christ is at once the flesh and blood Son of God and the eternal Father. The fallacy of widespread acceptance? Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years. It’s not a scientific object. You can’t search abstracts on Pub-God. This isn’t testable. You can’t put God in a petri dish. You can’t peer-review him with Muslim scholars.

Is it paradoxical? Of course it is. The role of the Holy Spirit makes it even harder to wrap one’s brain around. Confusing, even? Sure. But to insinuate that the Gospels provide us with any other message than that of the divinity of Christ the man is either willful ignorance or outright disingenuousness. There are no edges to nibble at here. The doctrine speaks quite unambiguously.

As has already been stated, almost every example cited in your link is open for (mis-)interpretation. Your call for “references” or examples from scripture doesn’t really make sense to me. What are you going to be satisfied with? You’ve already asserted that the Church that gave us the Bible in the first place is not fit to interpret it. The passages pretty clearly demonstrating the divinity of Christ have been posted, but unsurprisingly, nothing is ever quite able to meet your standards of scrutiny. You always have one more angle that negates the defense, one more shift of the goalposts that always assures that the debate is set up in your favor. Hence your hauty demands for “references,” as if we were discussing the role of exogenous hormones in nutrient partitioning.

The link is dumb. Why don’t YOU come up with something original, instead of pompously demanding that others follow your rules? Where are YOUR references to your outlandish assertions? Those links? Is that it? What is YOUR argument?

[/quote]

Is this yet another one of your “valuable contributions” to threads in PWI.

The above is not argument. It’s fallacious argument. Either you and ZEB are on in the same, or you subscribe to the same theory of meaningless arguments. Your entire first paragraph is an appeal to widespread belief, and on that basis alone, the Jews and Islam have as much claim to the “truth” as Christians. You’re saying because x number of people believe, that that is evidence of “truth”. Well sir, Islam and the Jews can make the exact same claim. See the problem there?

Your third paragraph is a lie. I have not “moved the goalpost” as you allude to and I’m surprised you raised this because it’s a fallacious argument type and not something I’m engaging in. I provided a reference that interested me. It contained discrete scripture. If it’s out of context, incorrect, etc., the rebuttal should be based on that - rebut the scripture. Tell us why when Jesus continually draws a distinction between himself and the Father that he is not in fact claiming a distinction. If you’re not up to the task, and it appears you are not, why then the need for attacks? Is this some weird stalking thing?

The “link is dumb”. Well that was an intelligent and “valuable” reply! It is estimated that 23% of the world’s population is Muslim. So, by association, they, and their beliefs are “dumb” because they do not comport with your own. Brilliant! There are about 13 million Jews in the world (excluding those that believe in and practice the faith). They also do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. By your logic, they are similarly stupid. Brilliant!

Pompously demanding others follow my rules? It was my post, and it was made in earnest. I reviewed the argument, found it to be logical and the quoted scripture to be compelling. I think the quoted scripture should be accepted or debunked. I don’t think a good debate follows “because we think so” or, “because we believe”. Believe it or not Cortes, there are learned men that do nothing but study and interpret scripture and they do not necessarily reside within your Church. They reside in Universities and such. There is plenty of authority to appeal to that would not result in a circular argument back to the authority of the Church that invented the doctrine in the first place!

As for references, I provided the reference. A plain reading of the scripture appears to illustrate Jesus CONTINUALLY distinguishing between him and the Father. Res Ipsa Loquitur. Why would I need a reference when the basis for the argument has not yet been addressed. There is not yet any counter-point to the thesis.

What is my argument? I’m not sure I’m making an “argument”. Arguing and bickering is what you guys do on PWI. I argue and bicker on GAL and SAMA. I thought this was a serious forum. If you wish to call it “argument” fine. I read the referenced link and found it compelling based upon a plain reading of the cited scripture. I was interested in hearing rebuttals to the plain reading of the cited scripture. It’s really not that complicated is it? But you can continue to attempt to “complicate”, more like obfuscate, the topic with your fallacious arguments and personal attacks…and “valuable contributions”.

I await your next attack. If anything, you’re predictable. Will ZEB be along shortly?[/quote]

TLDR

I didn’t say the widespread belief of people indicated any “truth.” Your whole premise is a fallacy. Whatever follows, in defense or support, is going to be bullshit.

Boo hoo hoo, I “attacked” you again. For somebody who so desperately wants to be the Alpha Male, you certainly do whine and complain a lot.
[/quote]

LOL you’re a curious man. So Alpha Male status is determined on the internet? You got it my man. You’re the boar hog here. More like boring pig.

Your entire first paragraphs was an appeal to widespread belief. Do you need it quoted back to you or would you like to retract it? “Clear enough that a billion people living today and countless others before them have had no problem accepting the unequivocal message of the Gospels”. That sir, is an appeal to widespread belief. It’s a fallacious argument type and I’ll repeat again, based on that argument, Muslims and Jews can make the same claim for truth. See how that works?

My “whole premise is a fallacy”? Well, since you could not manage a coherent, cogent thought there, we can only guess at what you’re saying. Since my “premise” was the referenced link, are you again arguing the “widespread belief” fallacy to support your position. If it’s a fallacy, what is your rebuttal? By now it’s clear you do not have a rebuttal. So, why are you here, if not to “stalk” me? Is that what “alpha males” do? Perhaps I am not alpha.

58

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Its difficult to understand the differentiation of The Son, The Father, and Holy Spirit if you’re thinking from a Unitarian point of view. But if you can accept the Trinity (not mentioned in scripture, but it is taught) then the distinction between Jesus and the Father becomes quite easy to understand.

God is a being, none other like him. This being has three individuals who compose it. I will respond after TBG. But I assure you I cannot continue in these discussions much longer.[/quote]

Forbes, you cannot continue? You have not even started.

So are you admitting that the basis for the differentiation is a doctrine not of Scripture but that of the Church? And is that why there has not yet been any rebuttal on the scripture to the referenced verses? It sounds to me like the divinity of Jesus was indeed invented. What is the authority for the doctrine of the Trinity?

Don’t act as if participating in a thread is such a burden Forbes. I respect your beliefs but really, participation in this thread or anywhere on this site is voluntary. [/quote]

Oh no. The reason why I won’t be able to continue (temporarily) is because of school work. I’ve had a few days of just relaxing so I participated in these forums. Now Im gonna be bombarded with work again so I will have to take some more down time again from these forums.[/quote]

Understood. I’m interested in your reply when you can manage it. Good luck with school work.

59

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I didn’t finish reading this, but it appears logical and compelling. Any Christians care to directly debunk the claims and conclusions? If there will be a reference to the “triunal” God please provide reference for the same. [/quote]

Ain’t no thousands of people going to die for testifying just a man died on a cross.[/quote]

Why not?

To find a few thousand deluded people cannot possibly be that hard?

[/quote]

Do it. Die on a cross and see how many people will die when they testify that you (just a man) died on a cross.[/quote]

The Romans nailed tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands to the cross, a myth surrounding one of them is a fluke, not a miracle.

60

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
So, he was one of those three options, and I had to go with option three that Jesus was Lord, because of the fact that with the martyrs, the perseverance of the Church through history, and other stuff all give testimony to Jesus being what he said.[/quote]

Bandwagon fallacy.