Jesus - Islam Perspective

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years.[/quote]

No it hasn’t. It has been subject to mass revision and editing.

Good to see you’re safe btw.[/quote]

I’m talking about the idea that Christ was God. There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity on that point among the people that gave us the knowledge in the first place, but now we are being told that the scholarly interpretation of the Muslim faith is somehow substantially different and therefore more valid than the mere “widespread appeal” that of the Catholics.

Thanks for the kind words, Mak. My family and I were thankfully very far from all of the chaos. It’s very ugly and very tragic for much of the areas up north of us. I would urge you and anyone else who is reading this to donate, even just a little bit, to the relief efforts. Lots of people up there still have no power or running water and are only getting one meal a day and it is freezing cold.

82

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You’re not. You whine and complain too much for that.

Now, to the issue of fallacy, let me try and understand: Do you require a direct quote from Scripture? Or do you want a reference from a scholar of some sort interpreting a scriptural passage? Or will you only accept quotes and references from other Muslim writers? Are references from Christians okay? Not okay? What if one of the references was from someone who was a Christian, but no longer is? How about the other way around? Do you consider Christians “man,” but not Muslims? [/quote]

Speaking of fallacies…

Argument by Question
Failure to State
Argument by Laziness

Were you whining when you rode up on your white donkey and “defended” Pat in the other thread? Or, maybe you were just being “Alpha” when you were hanging off ZEB’s jock strap and being his “hype man” in his jihad of personal attacks, lies and fallacious arguments. As for “Alpha”, if you feel you established Alpha on the internet, you “sir” are in good company because I know of legions of snot nosed, pimple faced, needle dick teenage boys that think they “asserted” themselves over someone (on the internet lmfao), and argue the same way you do. Rather than projecting your personal illusion (delusion?) of “alphaness” here, you should concern yourself with actually contributing and not polluting (trolling, “stalking me”) a thread where people are having a discussion. Some of us here may disagree, but we’re not insulting each other.

Anyway, Rebut it any way you can manage with your apparently limited powers of argument and reason. I was looking for an opposing view of the actual scriptures quoted, the plain reading of which apparently distinguishes (repeatedly) Jesus from the Father. I’m interested in a reasoned explanation other than “because the Church says so”. I’m also interested in a rebuttal on the scriptures in question, not a reference to another scripture which would appear to support a different conclusion - because that would only make the conclusion ambiguous. In other words, if Jesus even distinguishes between he and the Father just once (he does several times however), that scripture begs explanation.

And the say you can’t predict the future…

Cortes returns with a:

Personal insult
an Ad hominem for good measure
false affirmation of his “alphaness”
and at least one paragraph constructed of fallacious arguments
and who knows, maybe ZEB makes an appearance to be HIS hype man.

83

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years.[/quote]

No it hasn’t. It has been subject to mass revision and editing.

Good to see you’re safe btw.[/quote]

I’m talking about the idea that Christ was God. There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity on that point among the people that gave us the knowledge in the first place, but now we are being told that the scholarly interpretation of the Muslim faith is somehow substantially different and therefore more valid than the mere “widespread appeal” that of the Catholics.

Thanks for the kind words, Mak. My family and I were thankfully very far from all of the chaos. It’s very ugly and very tragic for much of the areas up north of us. I would urge you and anyone else who is reading this to donate, even just a little bit, to the relief efforts. Lots of people up there still have no power or running water and are only getting one meal a day and it is freezing cold.
[/quote]

An Appeal to Widespread belief is a fallacious argument. It proves nothing. Each faith, by virtue of it’s significant following, is entitled to reach the same conclusions on the same basis. So you managed to reply by reiterating your fallacious argument while at the same time referencing that fallacy by phrase.

I make no representation that the reference provided was a “scholarly” interpretation. You just picked up your first bail of straw - let’s see if you continue and attempt to build a strawman out of that one.

[/quote]There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity on that point among the people that gave us the knowledge in the first place[/quote]

I challenge you to support that position. Other than the fact that the statement is a fallacious argument type (again) there was plenty of discussion, debate and even killing over the subject. If there was indeed no “ambiguity” why were council’s formed by man to decide the issue? - If it were indeed that “unambiguous”. And the Jews were there…they don’t agree. Further, it was THEIR OT that prophesied of the MESSIAH. THEY say the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. Using your fallacious argument construct, one could equally “argue” that “Jesus is NOT God. There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity on that point among the people (The Jews) that gave us the knowledge (the OT) in the first place.”

You said, “now we are being told”. I made no such affirmations. I wanted to discuss the reference on its merits. So who are you referring to when you state “now we are being told”? If not me (and I made no such conclusions), then you must be referring to Muslims - and they have been saying this for quite some time, not just “now”.

Finally, the idea that Jesus was a prophet and not divine is not an invention of the Muslims as your retorts falsely imply. Here, let me help you. The following religions do not recognize the divinity of Jesus:

Buddhism (predates Christianity and if you ever studied it, you’d find remarkable similarities between the two. Coincidence? A topic for another day)
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
Hinduism - views vary
Islam
Jehovah Witness
Mormons
Theosophy
Unitarian
Judaism

2 out of the 3 major religions agree - Jesus was not divine. See how the appeal to widespread belief is a non-starter?

You’re going to have to do better if you intend to “contribute”.

84

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You’re not. You whine and complain too much for that.

Now, to the issue of fallacy, let me try and understand: Do you require a direct quote from Scripture? Or do you want a reference from a scholar of some sort interpreting a scriptural passage? Or will you only accept quotes and references from other Muslim writers? Are references from Christians okay? Not okay? What if one of the references was from someone who was a Christian, but no longer is? How about the other way around? Do you consider Christians “man,” but not Muslims? [/quote]

Speaking of fallacies…

Argument by Question
Failure to State
Argument by Laziness

Were you whining when you rode up on your white donkey and “defended” Pat in the other thread? Or, maybe you were just being “Alpha” when you were hanging off ZEB’s jock strap and being his “hype man” in his jihad of personal attacks, lies and fallacious arguments. As for “Alpha”, if you feel you established Alpha on the internet, you “sir” are in good company because I know of legions of snot nosed, pimple faced, needle dick teenage boys that think they “asserted” themselves over someone (on the internet lmfao), and argue the same way you do. Rather than projecting your personal illusion (delusion?) of “alphaness” here, you should concern yourself with actually contributing and not polluting (trolling, “stalking me”) a thread where people are having a discussion. Some of us here may disagree, but we’re not insulting each other.

Anyway, Rebut it any way you can manage with your apparently limited powers of argument and reason. I was looking for an opposing view of the actual scriptures quoted, the plain reading of which apparently distinguishes (repeatedly) Jesus from the Father. I’m interested in a reasoned explanation other than “because the Church says so”. I’m also interested in a rebuttal on the scriptures in question, not a reference to another scripture which would appear to support a different conclusion - because that would only make the conclusion ambiguous. In other words, if Jesus even distinguishes between he and the Father just once (he does several times however), that scripture begs explanation.

And the say you can’t predict the future…

Cortes returns with a:

Personal insult
an Ad hominem for good measure
false affirmation of his “alphaness”
and at least one paragraph constructed of fallacious arguments
and who knows, maybe ZEB makes an appearance to be HIS hype man.[/quote]

Who’s the one not answering questions?

85

[quote]
TheBodyGuard wrote:

An Appeal to Widespread belief is a fallacious argument. It proves nothing. Each faith, by virtue of it’s significant following, is entitled to reach the same conclusions on the same basis. So you managed to reply by reiterating your fallacious argument while at the same time referencing that fallacy by phrase.

I make no representation that the reference provided was a “scholarly” interpretation. You just picked up your first bail of straw - let’s see if you continue and attempt to build a strawman out of that one.
There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity on that point among the people that gave us the knowledge in the first place
I challenge you to support that position. Other than the fact that the statement is a fallacious argument type (again) there was plenty of discussion, debate and even killing over the subject. If there was indeed no “ambiguity” why were council’s formed by man to decide the issue? - If it were indeed that “unambiguous”. And the Jews were there…they don’t agree. Further, it was THEIR OT that prophesied of the MESSIAH. THEY say the prophecy wasn’t fulfilled. Using your fallacious argument construct, one could equally “argue” that “Jesus is NOT God. There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity on that point among the people (The Jews) that gave us the knowledge (the OT) in the first place.”

You said, “now we are being told”. I made no such affirmations. I wanted to discuss the reference on its merits. So who are you referring to when you state “now we are being told”? If not me (and I made no such conclusions), then you must be referring to Muslims - and they have been saying this for quite some time, not just “now”.

Finally, the idea that Jesus was a prophet and not divine is not an invention of the Muslims as your retorts falsely imply. Here, let me help you. The following religions do not recognize the divinity of Jesus:

Buddhism (predates Christianity and if you ever studied it, you’d find remarkable similarities between the two. Coincidence? A topic for another day)
CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
Hinduism - views vary
Islam
Jehovah Witness
Mormons
Theosophy
Unitarian
Judaism

2 out of the 3 major religions agree - Jesus was not divine. See how the appeal to widespread belief is a non-starter?

You’re going to have to do better if you intend to “contribute”. [/quote]

So are we allowed to use scripture then?

86

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You’re not. You whine and complain too much for that.

Now, to the issue of fallacy, let me try and understand: Do you require a direct quote from Scripture? Or do you want a reference from a scholar of some sort interpreting a scriptural passage? Or will you only accept quotes and references from other Muslim writers? Are references from Christians okay? Not okay? What if one of the references was from someone who was a Christian, but no longer is? How about the other way around? Do you consider Christians “man,” but not Muslims? [/quote]

Speaking of fallacies…

Argument by Question
Failure to State
Argument by Laziness

Were you whining when you rode up on your white donkey and “defended” Pat in the other thread? Or, maybe you were just being “Alpha” when you were hanging off ZEB’s jock strap and being his “hype man” in his jihad of personal attacks, lies and fallacious arguments. As for “Alpha”, if you feel you established Alpha on the internet, you “sir” are in good company because I know of legions of snot nosed, pimple faced, needle dick teenage boys that think they “asserted” themselves over someone (on the internet lmfao), and argue the same way you do. Rather than projecting your personal illusion (delusion?) of “alphaness” here, you should concern yourself with actually contributing and not polluting (trolling, “stalking me”) a thread where people are having a discussion. Some of us here may disagree, but we’re not insulting each other.

Anyway, Rebut it any way you can manage with your apparently limited powers of argument and reason. I was looking for an opposing view of the actual scriptures quoted, the plain reading of which apparently distinguishes (repeatedly) Jesus from the Father. I’m interested in a reasoned explanation other than “because the Church says so”. I’m also interested in a rebuttal on the scriptures in question, not a reference to another scripture which would appear to support a different conclusion - because that would only make the conclusion ambiguous. In other words, if Jesus even distinguishes between he and the Father just once (he does several times however), that scripture begs explanation.

And the say you can’t predict the future…

Cortes returns with a:

Personal insult
an Ad hominem for good measure
false affirmation of his “alphaness”
and at least one paragraph constructed of fallacious arguments
and who knows, maybe ZEB makes an appearance to be HIS hype man.[/quote]

Who’s the one not answering questions?
[/quote]

That was brilliant!

I shall reply “asked and answered”. You might try actually reading my reply.

87

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You can proceed as you wish but as I already stated, I think that cherry picking other scripture to support an opposing interpretation of the subject scripture is fallacious. If there is one passage (and there are many) where Jesus seemingly separates himself from the Father, then I think that passage begs for specific examination. If the rebuttal of the plain meaning of the referenced scriptures is based on “context” and other scripture illuminates “context” to the disputed verse, well then by all means I think that is fair.

88

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Give me a break. We’re talking about the interpretation of a faith-based doctrine that has remained consistent for 2000 years.[/quote]

No it hasn’t. It has been subject to mass revision and editing.

Good to see you’re safe btw.[/quote]

I’m talking about the idea that Christ was God. There has not been a whole lot of ambiguity on that point among the people that gave us the knowledge in the first place, but now we are being told that the scholarly interpretation of the Muslim faith is somehow substantially different and therefore more valid than the mere “widespread appeal” that of the Catholics.

Thanks for the kind words, Mak. My family and I were thankfully very far from all of the chaos. It’s very ugly and very tragic for much of the areas up north of us. I would urge you and anyone else who is reading this to donate, even just a little bit, to the relief efforts. Lots of people up there still have no power or running water and are only getting one meal a day and it is freezing cold.
[/quote]

Donate? Ha, I’m too cynical for that. I am, however, helping Architecture for Humanity set up temporary shelter for the currently homeless.

89

I couldn’t possibly agree more with the so called Athanasian creed which quite wisely borrows heavily from Augustine who quite wisely deduced it by reverent necessary consequence from scripture:[quote]<<< And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal. As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. >>>[/quote]Yes, I know this is isn’t exactly what’s being asked for, but it does clarify the Christian/biblical view of the Godhead quite accurately. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not each other, but are nevertheless one and only one God. I have no idea how that works and don’t care. Nunna my business.

90

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I couldn’t possibly agree more with the so called Athanasian creed which quite wisely borrows heavily from Augustine who quite wisely deduced it by reverent necessary consequence from scripture:[quote]<<< And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in three persons and three persons in one God, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet there are not three eternals but one eternal. As there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensibles but one uncreated and one incomprehensible. >>>[/quote]Yes, I know this is isn’t exactly what’s being asked for, but it does clarify the Christian/biblical view of the Godhead quite accurately. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are not each other, but are nevertheless one and only one God. I have no idea how that works and don’t care. Nunna my business.
[/quote]

It’s because of their substance. They are pure beings, I hate to make parallels because nothing will give it justice, because nothing is quite as pure as G-d’s being.

91

There’s no debate, scripturally. None.

[i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

A man named John was sent from God.

He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.

He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him.

But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.

And the Word became flesh[/i]…

PAUSE RIGHT THERE!

Scroll back up to and read again the nature of the Word. The Word IS God.

                             [b]Unpause![/b]

[i]…and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. [Note the “grace and truth,” because you …"]

John testified to him and cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.’”

From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace, because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ […will see it again!].

No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God (alarms going off?), who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.[/i]

92

This is why I’ve pretty much given up on the forum. Arguing for four pages that the divinity of Christ isn’t found in scripture, and…oh wait, there it is! In language a 3rd grader could follow, even. Pretty much every topic goes like this. Maybe I’ll check back in another couple of weeks.

93

[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is why I’ve pretty much given up on the forum. Arguing for four pages that the divinity of Christ isn’t found in scripture, and…oh wait, there it is! In language a 3rd grader could follow, even. Pretty much every topic goes like this. Maybe I’ll check back in another couple of weeks.[/quote]

This is why I might give up on the forum. If you’ve read anything I’ve written (and you allude to “arguing for four pages” so I assume you have, you will note that I was interested in explanation for the referenced scripture wherein Jesus was repeatedly distinguished from the Father in “language that a 3rd grader could follow, even”.

94

[quote]Sloth wrote:
There’s no debate, scripturally. None.

[i]In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be
through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

A man named John was sent from God.

He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him.

He was not the light, but came to testify to the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him.
He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him.

But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God.

And the Word became flesh[/i]…

PAUSE RIGHT THERE!

Scroll back up to and read again the nature of the Word. The Word IS God.

                             [b]Unpause![/b]

[i]…and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth. [Note the “grace and truth,” because you …"]

John testified to him and cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘The one who is coming after me ranks ahead of me because he existed before me.’”

From his fullness we have all received, grace in place of grace, because while the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ […will see it again!].

No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God (alarms going off?), who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.[/i]
[/quote]

I’m not sure I’m looking to deconstruct the above, because I was seeking illumination of the REFERENCED SCRIPTURES. However, the “Word” was in use prior to the NT and John. It is connected to the “messiah” or even “son of God”, but does not reference “Jesus” by that proper name. The OT was decidedly Jewish and they do not recognize Jesus as the prophesied messiah. So, this again becomes an issue of “interpretation” and I don’t know of any third graders performing such interpretations as alluded to in your following post :). I am really interested in the scriptures reference in my original link.

My post is not rhetorical or disingenuous in any way. I am interested in the counter-point to the specific scriptures.

95

I think these guys make a better effort. I haven’t reviewed it in its entirety (but will) and I have no opinion on its content or conclusions.

96

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You’re not. You whine and complain too much for that.

Now, to the issue of fallacy, let me try and understand: Do you require a direct quote from Scripture? Or do you want a reference from a scholar of some sort interpreting a scriptural passage? Or will you only accept quotes and references from other Muslim writers? Are references from Christians okay? Not okay? What if one of the references was from someone who was a Christian, but no longer is? How about the other way around? Do you consider Christians “man,” but not Muslims? [/quote]

Speaking of fallacies…

Argument by Question
Failure to State
Argument by Laziness

Were you whining when you rode up on your white donkey and “defended” Pat in the other thread? Or, maybe you were just being “Alpha” when you were hanging off ZEB’s jock strap and being his “hype man” in his jihad of personal attacks, lies and fallacious arguments. As for “Alpha”, if you feel you established Alpha on the internet, you “sir” are in good company because I know of legions of snot nosed, pimple faced, needle dick teenage boys that think they “asserted” themselves over someone (on the internet lmfao), and argue the same way you do. Rather than projecting your personal illusion (delusion?) of “alphaness” here, you should concern yourself with actually contributing and not polluting (trolling, “stalking me”) a thread where people are having a discussion. Some of us here may disagree, but we’re not insulting each other.

Anyway, Rebut it any way you can manage with your apparently limited powers of argument and reason. I was looking for an opposing view of the actual scriptures quoted, the plain reading of which apparently distinguishes (repeatedly) Jesus from the Father. I’m interested in a reasoned explanation other than “because the Church says so”. I’m also interested in a rebuttal on the scriptures in question, not a reference to another scripture which would appear to support a different conclusion - because that would only make the conclusion ambiguous. In other words, if Jesus even distinguishes between he and the Father just once (he does several times however), that scripture begs explanation.

And the say you can’t predict the future…

Cortes returns with a:

Personal insult
an Ad hominem for good measure
false affirmation of his “alphaness”
and at least one paragraph constructed of fallacious arguments
and who knows, maybe ZEB makes an appearance to be HIS hype man.[/quote]

Who’s the one not answering questions?
[/quote]

That was brilliant!

I shall reply “asked and answered”. You might try actually reading my reply.[/quote]

Sorry, it was hard to see the answer through all of the whining and complaining.

You’ve been provided with scripture that attests to Christ’s divinity throughout this entire thread. Over and over. When confronted with this, you scoffed at it and dismissed it offhand. When confronted with the idea that the passages you provided in your link are open to interpretation, you again scoffed. Then at idea that the Catholic church, who gave us the words in the first place, could be trusted to interpret them, all the while assuming your Muslim scholar’s conclusions of Biblical (not Koranic) passages were somehow viable. The “widespread acceptance fallacy” card gets pulled and waved flamboyantly about, as if your author’s conclusions are anything different. As if there is any way to “test” any of this other than plain old interpretation and a reading of the passages in the context of the entire Bible. You want to talk about cherry picking? Your are the cherry picker par excellence.

You are the most transparent of sophists. Move those goalposts and ad-hominem and pee yourself with self-righteous indignation all you want, it does nothing but further affirm your true nature and show you for what you really are: a shameless liar, a sad old hypocrite. You can’t even come up with your own insults, you have stolen every one from me and use it as if you ever had an original thought of your own.

Later.

97

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You’re not. You whine and complain too much for that.

Now, to the issue of fallacy, let me try and understand: Do you require a direct quote from Scripture? Or do you want a reference from a scholar of some sort interpreting a scriptural passage? Or will you only accept quotes and references from other Muslim writers? Are references from Christians okay? Not okay? What if one of the references was from someone who was a Christian, but no longer is? How about the other way around? Do you consider Christians “man,” but not Muslims? [/quote]

Speaking of fallacies…

Argument by Question
Failure to State
Argument by Laziness

Were you whining when you rode up on your white donkey and “defended” Pat in the other thread? Or, maybe you were just being “Alpha” when you were hanging off ZEB’s jock strap and being his “hype man” in his jihad of personal attacks, lies and fallacious arguments. As for “Alpha”, if you feel you established Alpha on the internet, you “sir” are in good company because I know of legions of snot nosed, pimple faced, needle dick teenage boys that think they “asserted” themselves over someone (on the internet lmfao), and argue the same way you do. Rather than projecting your personal illusion (delusion?) of “alphaness” here, you should concern yourself with actually contributing and not polluting (trolling, “stalking me”) a thread where people are having a discussion. Some of us here may disagree, but we’re not insulting each other.

Anyway, Rebut it any way you can manage with your apparently limited powers of argument and reason. I was looking for an opposing view of the actual scriptures quoted, the plain reading of which apparently distinguishes (repeatedly) Jesus from the Father. I’m interested in a reasoned explanation other than “because the Church says so”. I’m also interested in a rebuttal on the scriptures in question, not a reference to another scripture which would appear to support a different conclusion - because that would only make the conclusion ambiguous. In other words, if Jesus even distinguishes between he and the Father just once (he does several times however), that scripture begs explanation.

And the say you can’t predict the future…

Cortes returns with a:

Personal insult
an Ad hominem for good measure
false affirmation of his “alphaness”
and at least one paragraph constructed of fallacious arguments
and who knows, maybe ZEB makes an appearance to be HIS hype man.[/quote]

Who’s the one not answering questions?
[/quote]

That was brilliant!

I shall reply “asked and answered”. You might try actually reading my reply.[/quote]

Sorry, it was hard to see the answer through all of the whining and complaining.

You’ve been provided with scripture that attests to Christ’s divinity throughout this entire thread. Over and over. When confronted with this, you scoffed at it and dismissed it offhand. When confronted with the idea that the passages you provided in your link are open to interpretation, you again scoffed. Then at idea that the Catholic church, who gave us the words in the first place, could be trusted to interpret them, all the while assuming your Muslim scholar’s conclusions of Biblical (not Koranic) passages were somehow viable. The “widespread acceptance fallacy” card gets pulled and waved flamboyantly about, as if your author’s conclusions are anything different. As if there is any way to “test” any of this other than plain old interpretation and a reading of the passages in the context of the entire Bible. You want to talk about cherry picking? Your are the cherry picker par excellence.

You are the most transparent of sophists. Move those goalposts and ad-hominem and pee yourself with self-righteous indignation all you want, it does nothing but further affirm your true nature and show you for what you really are: a shameless liar, a sad old hypocrite. You can’t even come up with your own insults, you have stolen every one from me and use it as if you ever had an original thought of your own.

Later.

[/quote]

Let me help you out here, because you obviously are in need of help. This is my exact original post:

“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.”

The above is not an invitation to a fight. It’s a request to discuss the referenced scriptures.

Next, it’s not my fault you are incapable of having a discussion absent personal attacks or fallacious arguments. The arguments you make are simply fallacious. They are text book fallacious. And it’s not my fault that you think that everyone that might not share your exact views is a threat to you, such as you have shifted the framing of every thread into a fight with those you don’t approve of. If that’s not bitching and whining, I don’t know what it.

I have not “scoffed” at anyone. I have not dismissed anything. I merely reiterated that I was looking to discuss the referenced scriptures, and their plain meaning. You will also notice that nowhere have I taken a position that I am “right” and someone else is “wrong”. In fact, I have absolutely not position at all on the matter other than one of skepticism. I am neither pro-Christian nor pro-Islam.

I agree that the scriptures are open to interpretation. I was looking for the alternate (if any) interpretation of the REFERENCED SCRIPTURES. I was not interested in the use of other scriptures to further muddy the waters and I expressly stated so. I am aware of other conflicting scriptures on the issue, emphasis on conflicting. If the only answer to my query is interpretation by other scriptures, then state so and move on. I was looking for more than “because we say so”. If there isn’t more, fine.

Again, I made no such "assumptions’ that the “islamic scholars” (your strawman) interpretations were correct over that of the Catholic Church. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT CONSTRUCT AN ARGUMENT OTHER THAN A FALLACIOUS ONE CAN YOU? That said, I do take exception to appealing to the authority of the Catholic Church. I wasn’t aware that Jesus was Catholic; I had been lead to believe he was JEW. I stated my objection to using the Catholic Church in this matter but if that was the extent of the rebuttal, then fine. Again, I was looking to examine the specific referenced scriptures. Do. You. Understand?

I did not engage in “cherry picking” because I did not take a position one way or the other. In case you were not paying attention (you are not), I did not say “Jesus was not divine” and here is why: (insert the cherry picked). I was seeking to discuss the referenced scriptures. Your use of fallacious arguments is inadvertent I’m sure. What makes you think you can now identify them when you can’t avoid them?

Move the goal post? LOL. It’s always been in the same place. DISCUSS THE REFERENCED SCRIPTURES. Trying to clarify the scope of my interest is not moving the goal post. Again, no position was taken by me. Only an interest in discussing those specific scriptures.

Ad Hominem? I challenge you to find one uttered by me in this thread to anyone except you and in reply to your transparent attacks. Go ahead, I’ll wait for you to cut and paste my “ad hominem”.

Shameless liar? What did I lie about? I would like for you to cut and paste the lie also. Go ahead, we’ll wait.

Hypocrite? What have I been hypocritical about? Cut and paste evidence for my hypocrisy.

Insults? Well finally you have spoken some truth. I have indeed “STOLEN” your “insults” to mock you. Even that apparently went over your head. At least you admit you’ve been reduced to insulting me from the internet. Like I said earlier, you and a whole legion of teenage boys have that in common. However, if you think that pointing out the utterly fallacious nature of the majority of your content thus far, my reply to you is to simply stop “whining” and post something meaningful. Either that or stay in the shallow end of the pool discussing steroids.

You are literal pollution to any intelligent discussion. Your entire response, once again, was a composition of fallacious arguments. Every single point you made, was false. But then again, I’ve never seen the truth stand in your way. Now I understand why you find kinship with a certain fellow.

Carry on. We will wait for you to prove your claims. Now that you’ve made this thread about you (again), we will wait for you to provide evidence of:

Me “scoffing” at everyone;
Articulation of my alleged “assumptions”;
Evidence of my “cherry picking”;
Evidence of any ad hominem attack;
Evidence that I have moved the “goal post” - attempting to limit the discussion to the referenced scriptures was always the goal post - not that you have ever seen and end zone of any kind, a curious reference for you;
Evidence of any “lie” uttered by me;
Evidence of any personal attack by me other than a response to your own; and,
Evidence of hypocrisy.

You alleged every single item above. Can you at least support that? Or are you just going to keep using bro-logic and the insults of some 14 year old?

98

[quote]Cortes wrote:

You are the most transparent of sophists.

[/quote]

Oh, and don’t think I missed this. I see I made you do some wiki research on your fallacious arguments. You’re locked into at least 6 different fallacious argument forms every time you disagree with someone, liberally sprinkled with juvenile personal attacks.

I used to argue and negotiate for a living. You need to do better.

And the only transparency here is your “arguments” and attacks.

99

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m not here to “win”. I’m here to have a reasoned intellectual discussion of the topic. [/quote]

Hmm, is that me on the very first page of the thread? Hardly sounds like I took a position.

100

Hmm Cortes, I reviewed the first two pages of the thread and I think I said “I respect your position”, “your belief” at least 6 times to 4 different people. Well, if those are “insults” you sure are sensitive. LOL Like I said, don’t let truth deter you…carry on sir. You’re an entertaining little gnat.