Total Posts:91|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus is not God

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:04:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

Why do you say Jesus was not omniscient?
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:06:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?
The Christian defense is unbreakable - Jesus is God, but in a different form. There's nothing you can say against that. Any argument against the Bible for that matter seems useless.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:09:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:06:29 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?
The Christian defense is unbreakable - Jesus is God, but in a different form. There's nothing you can say against that. Any argument against the Bible for that matter seems useless.

No its not unbreakable if we have good reason to believe the following two premises....

1) It is a necessary condition for something to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything

If those two premises are accepted some vague notion of "God in another form" isn't going to cut it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:10:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:04:12 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

Why do you say Jesus was not omniscient?

Not so much I, but as the story goes..............Jesus didn't know exactly when he would return.................only the father.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:13:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:10:31 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/29/2013 12:04:12 AM, phantom wrote:
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

Why do you say Jesus was not omniscient?

Not so much I, but as the story goes..............Jesus didn't know exactly when he would return.................only the father.

I guess it would seem somewhat far-stretched to say he was omniscient as a baby as well.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:13:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:09:00 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
No its not unbreakable if we have good reason to believe the following two premises....

1) It is a necessary condition for something to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything

If those two premises are accepted some vague notion of "God in another form" isn't going to cut it.
It does. If God takes presence in human form, he is by definition limited in capacity, but only in that form. Jesus not knowing everything is not surprising, considering he felt and thought in many ways that God in His true form never does.

I disagree with this, but again - anything in defense of the Bible goes.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:16:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The best counter to the Jesus divine theory is a critical examination of the Biblical texts, e.g., whether or not "I AM" was a claim of divinity, or whether Jesus' disciple saying "My God" when seeing Jesus meant he was calling Jesus God and Jesus not rejecting it means he agreed with the title - et cetera.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:18:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:16:35 AM, Mirza wrote:
The best counter to the Jesus divine theory is a critical examination of the Biblical texts, e.g., whether or not "I AM" was a claim of divinity, or whether Jesus' disciple saying "My God" when seeing Jesus meant he was calling Jesus God and Jesus not rejecting it means he agreed with the title - et cetera.

Well your entitled to your view what is the best counter. I think the best counter would be grounding some base principles as opposed to "examining texts".

The reason being, if you go outside reason then you have nothing but warring tribes arguing over "texts" and interpretation texts.

How is that working out for ya ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:22:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:18:51 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I think the best counter would be grounding some base principles as opposed to "examining texts".
Clearly that doesn't work out, as I just gave you a very common defense argument.

The reason being, if you go outside reason then you have nothing but warring tribes arguing over "texts" and interpretation texts.

How is that working out for ya ?
Examining the texts works out better, as you go to the root cause of the belief, not just making another interpretation.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:27:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think it's just a more specific version of the problem of the trinity. Christians will answer it with their three aspects in one remarks which they themselves admit are problematic but most will just say it's out of their realm of understanding but it's all good because faith and sh!t.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:36:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:22:11 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/29/2013 12:18:51 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I think the best counter would be grounding some base principles as opposed to "examining texts".
Clearly that doesn't work out, as I just gave you a very common defense argument.

Common defense doesn't mean its a good defense.

The reason being, if you go outside reason then you have nothing but warring tribes arguing over "texts" and interpretation texts.

How is that working out for ya ?
Examining the texts works out better, as you go to the root cause of the belief, not just making another interpretation.

Not really. A root text may help you understand what people believe, but not necessarily as to why.

The idea of invisible beings who punish and reward humanity long predate the bible or quran and goes to issues as how man in ignorance tries to make sense of the world around them.

Long story short, time and time again when man doesn't know what is going on their default answer is..............invisible personal agents with magical powers.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:50:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

Christ had 2 natures, God and Man. His nature as a man was only what he learned while alive, whereas his nature as God knew everything.

And, Christ was around before he became a man:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband"s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 7:56:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

oh man just see this u will understand the Holy Trinity!
https://www.youtube.com...
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 8:13:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

I would say it is just one of many rock solid arguments.

As you point out, Jesus said there were things only his father knew, not him.

How can a father and a son be the same being? Even the Apostles, long after Jesus death, still called the Christ, the one who came to earth to become flesh, God's son, as in 1 Peter 1:3, where Peter calls God "The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ".

So there is another.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 8:50:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
MCB: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Anna: Straw man. Nobody says that the Father and the Son are the same being any more than they say that John Adams and John Quincy Adams are the same person - but they were both called "President".

Answer the question. It's easy.

True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"? I have told you dozens of times that the Father and the Son are not the same person - nor can they possibly be. I never said they were "co-equal", either, and will go so far as to say that in His fleshly or human state, the Son is constantly depicted as inferior to the Father. I have also told you very plainly that we do not pray to the Son. I've never even heard a prayer offered to the Son.

As a general rule, when discussing the trinity, you have the nasty habit of telling others what they must believe - and you usually get it wrong.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 8:57:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

We saints ( including the flesh of Jesus ) know we're not the Creator. But we do learn from our Creator that we were created as His voice and that's the reason our flesh speaks for Him. Of course we don't know everything but we are taught by our Creator what happened in the past to get us to this point in time and how He created us. He also teaches us about the strong delusion that His people are under and the future of when His people will be freed from this delusion and experience new life in the next age.

Not ONE Christian or atheist has ever known our Creator, therefore, when they say they speak for our Creator, they are liars.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 9:00:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:06:29 AM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?
The Christian defense is unbreakable - Jesus is God, but in a different form. There's nothing you can say against that. Any argument against the Bible for that matter seems useless.

I'm a true saint, just like Jesus, Peter, Timothy, Paul and all the other saints were. We know we're not the Creator but we do learn from our Creator that we were created as His voice. Everything we speak for our Creator is the Truth so this means we will always obey the commandments of God.

Christians are sinners and all sinners are liars who can't obey the commandments of God because they do NOT know Him. Therefore, whatever a Christian speaks or writes is a lie.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 9:06:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:50:36 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

Christ had 2 natures, God and Man. His nature as a man was only what he learned while alive, whereas his nature as God knew everything.

And, Christ was around before he became a man:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband"s will, but born of God.

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

The Word was spoken through the flesh of ALL God's prophets and saints. So the flesh called prophets and saints are only illusions that were used by our Creator to testify in writing and speaking from our invisible created existence called the Holy Spirit, known as Christ, Son of God, Kingdom of God, Heaven, Messiah, Zion, Jacob, Eternal Life, Breath of Life, Book of Life, Tree of Life, etc.

John 6
63: It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 10:28:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 8:50:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Anna: Straw man. Nobody says that the Father and the Son are the same being any more than they say that John Adams and John Quincy Adams are the same person - but they were both called "President".

The Trinity teaching does.

Even you say they are really Brothers not Father and Son.


Answer the question. It's easy.

True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

A moot point since the son is not God (capital "G") but simply one of the many lesser "god's" which includes the Angels, and according to scripture, some humans.

Psalm 82: 6 "I have said, "You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.

Which Christ referred to at:

John 10:34, 35
34 Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, "I said: "You are gods""?*+ 35 If he called "gods"+ those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified"

And Paul echoed at:

1 Corinthians 8:5
5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,+ just as there are many "gods" and many "lords,"


If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"? I have told you dozens of times that the Father and the Son are not the same person - nor can they possibly be. I never said they were "co-equal", either, and will go so far as to say that in His fleshly or human state, the Son is constantly depicted as inferior to the Father. I have also told you very plainly that we do not pray to the Son. I've never even heard a prayer offered to the Son.

As a general rule, when discussing the trinity, you have the nasty habit of telling others what they must believe - and you usually get it wrong.

For one thing I do not tell people what they must believe, I simply pass on what scripture says the should believe if they want eternal life. The choice is still theirs.

As for what I teach on that subject, as on all scriptural subjects, my teachings come from scripture, including the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

You say I usually get it wrong when what you really mean is that I teach other than what you choose to believe, and that is because what I teach is true, whereas what you teach has little or no scriptural, or historic backing.

The difference is that I can back up what I teach from any translation you care to choose, even the easily demonstrably adulterated ones you support.

You cannot possibly say with any truth that they have not been adulterated. The removal of the holy name of God from so many places and replacing it with LORD is evidence enough.
annanicole
Posts: 19,791
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 11:07:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Anna: True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

MCB: A moot point since the son is not God (capital "G") but simply one of the many lesser "god's" which includes the Angels, and according to scripture, some humans.


Anna: The question is based upon a hypothetical, and whether the hypothetical is in reality true or false is irrelevant.

Notice that once again you must evade simple questions by claiming that the questions are irrelevant.

Anna: If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"?

Well, I was half-right. You didn't say, "True" - but you also didn't say "False". Why?

Here's why. You want to be able to ask a meaningless question: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Has anybody said they were the same person?

Once has to laugh when you flat-out refuse to answer simple questions. Last time around, you got flustered after the same questions were thrown at you 5-10 times - and you knew you couldn't afford to answer - so you said, "You've gotten all the answer you're going to get" - which shows precisely what you are
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 11:20:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 10:28:00 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/29/2013 8:50:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Anna: Straw man. Nobody says that the Father and the Son are the same being any more than they say that John Adams and John Quincy Adams are the same person - but they were both called "President".

The Trinity teaching does.

Even you say they are really Brothers not Father and Son.


Answer the question. It's easy.

True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

A moot point since the son is not God (capital "G") but simply one of the many lesser "god's" which includes the Angels, and according to scripture, some humans.

Psalm 82: 6 "I have said, "You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.

Which Christ referred to at:

John 10:34, 35
34 Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, "I said: "You are gods""?*+ 35 If he called "gods"+ those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified"

And Paul echoed at:

1 Corinthians 8:5
5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,+ just as there are many "gods" and many "lords,"


If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"? I have told you dozens of times that the Father and the Son are not the same person - nor can they possibly be. I never said they were "co-equal", either, and will go so far as to say that in His fleshly or human state, the Son is constantly depicted as inferior to the Father. I have also told you very plainly that we do not pray to the Son. I've never even heard a prayer offered to the Son.

As a general rule, when discussing the trinity, you have the nasty habit of telling others what they must believe - and you usually get it wrong.

For one thing I do not tell people what they must believe, I simply pass on what scripture says the should believe if they want eternal life. The choice is still theirs.

As for what I teach on that subject, as on all scriptural subjects, my teachings come from scripture, including the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

You say I usually get it wrong when what you really mean is that I teach other than what you choose to believe, and that is because what I teach is true, whereas what you teach has little or no scriptural, or historic backing.

The difference is that I can back up what I teach from any translation you care to choose, even the easily demonstrably adulterated ones you support.

You cannot possibly say with any truth that they have not been adulterated. The removal of the holy name of God from so many places and replacing it with LORD is evidence enough.

my dear friend i dont understand why you christains trust in the bible and you all know that the writers are anonymous? we dont know who wrote them how when... there are many differnt bibles how you choose the right if at all? and how you know the holy ghost is not your imagination?
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 11:50:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 11:20:39 AM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 12/29/2013 10:28:00 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/29/2013 8:50:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Anna: Straw man. Nobody says that the Father and the Son are the same being any more than they say that John Adams and John Quincy Adams are the same person - but they were both called "President".

The Trinity teaching does.

Even you say they are really Brothers not Father and Son.


Answer the question. It's easy.

True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

A moot point since the son is not God (capital "G") but simply one of the many lesser "god's" which includes the Angels, and according to scripture, some humans.

Psalm 82: 6 "I have said, "You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.

Which Christ referred to at:

John 10:34, 35
34 Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, "I said: "You are gods""?*+ 35 If he called "gods"+ those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified"

And Paul echoed at:

1 Corinthians 8:5
5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,+ just as there are many "gods" and many "lords,"


If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"? I have told you dozens of times that the Father and the Son are not the same person - nor can they possibly be. I never said they were "co-equal", either, and will go so far as to say that in His fleshly or human state, the Son is constantly depicted as inferior to the Father. I have also told you very plainly that we do not pray to the Son. I've never even heard a prayer offered to the Son.

As a general rule, when discussing the trinity, you have the nasty habit of telling others what they must believe - and you usually get it wrong.

For one thing I do not tell people what they must believe, I simply pass on what scripture says the should believe if they want eternal life. The choice is still theirs.

As for what I teach on that subject, as on all scriptural subjects, my teachings come from scripture, including the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

You say I usually get it wrong when what you really mean is that I teach other than what you choose to believe, and that is because what I teach is true, whereas what you teach has little or no scriptural, or historic backing.

The difference is that I can back up what I teach from any translation you care to choose, even the easily demonstrably adulterated ones you support.

You cannot possibly say with any truth that they have not been adulterated. The removal of the holy name of God from so many places and replacing it with LORD is evidence enough.

my dear friend i dont understand why you christains trust in the bible and you all know that the writers are anonymous? we dont know who wrote them how when... there are many differnt bibles how you choose the right if at all? and how you know the holy ghost is not your imagination?

OK.

Firstly the writers are not truly anonymous, some just to clam that they are. Each one is named or betrayed by what he writes and the style he writes in.

As for the number of different bibles, there is only one bible, just different translations done with different motives and therefore differing levels of accuracy. However exactly the same truths can, despite the attempts at corrupting them, be gleaned from all translations. God has built enough safeguards into what is essentially his word to ensure that is so, provided one studies it deeply enough and prays for his wisdom to do so.

It is the only book I have ever come across in which there is not one fact stated that has ever been proved wrong. Admittedly however there are many that have not been proven right either.

However, amongst those who have accepted the bible for what it is, absolute truth and accuracy, are scientists and I am sure you would find their stories interesting.

They are not fools.

They are not, as at least one person on here would have you believe "tards", they are highly qualified, and sometimes published, in the fields of Micro-biology, Biochemistry, Space research and other fields. Yet they feel that the science they study supports the bible.

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

Maybe when you read their stories, if you choose to, you will understand why ignoramuses (my words not yours) like me also put faith in God's word.

I know that holy spirit is not a figment of my imagination because of the things it has in the past enabled me to do which I could not have done without it, and in fact still does.

Of course there are those on here who claim to be Christian, who claim holy spirit is a sentient being, a belief that completely puts the lie to their claims to Christianity. It is simply spirit, the spiritual equivalent of the best Swiss Army knife there ever could be.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 11:53:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 11:07:09 AM, annanicole wrote:
Anna: True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

MCB: A moot point since the son is not God (capital "G") but simply one of the many lesser "god's" which includes the Angels, and according to scripture, some humans.


Anna: The question is based upon a hypothetical, and whether the hypothetical is in reality true or false is irrelevant.

Notice that once again you must evade simple questions by claiming that the questions are irrelevant.

Anna: If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"?

Well, I was half-right. You didn't say, "True" - but you also didn't say "False". Why?

Here's why. You want to be able to ask a meaningless question: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Has anybody said they were the same person?

Once has to laugh when you flat-out refuse to answer simple questions. Last time around, you got flustered after the same questions were thrown at you 5-10 times - and you knew you couldn't afford to answer - so you said, "You've gotten all the answer you're going to get" - which shows precisely what you are

In such important questions the hypothetical is irrelevant. all that matters is truth.

How can I answer a question on one of the most fundamental truths in Christianity when the question is merely hypothetical, and therefore the answer cannot be.

I gave you the only answer there is, without departing from the truth.

It is your continual attempts to undermine me which are laughable and which demonstrate clearly your real motivation behind your preaching on here.
LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 12:09:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 11:50:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/29/2013 11:20:39 AM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 12/29/2013 10:28:00 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/29/2013 8:50:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Anna: Straw man. Nobody says that the Father and the Son are the same being any more than they say that John Adams and John Quincy Adams are the same person - but they were both called "President".

The Trinity teaching does.

Even you say they are really Brothers not Father and Son.


Answer the question. It's easy.

True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

A moot point since the son is not God (capital "G") but simply one of the many lesser "god's" which includes the Angels, and according to scripture, some humans.

Psalm 82: 6 "I have said, "You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.

Which Christ referred to at:

John 10:34, 35
34 Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, "I said: "You are gods""?*+ 35 If he called "gods"+ those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified"

And Paul echoed at:

1 Corinthians 8:5
5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,+ just as there are many "gods" and many "lords,"


If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"? I have told you dozens of times that the Father and the Son are not the same person - nor can they possibly be. I never said they were "co-equal", either, and will go so far as to say that in His fleshly or human state, the Son is constantly depicted as inferior to the Father. I have also told you very plainly that we do not pray to the Son. I've never even heard a prayer offered to the Son.

As a general rule, when discussing the trinity, you have the nasty habit of telling others what they must believe - and you usually get it wrong.

For one thing I do not tell people what they must believe, I simply pass on what scripture says the should believe if they want eternal life. The choice is still theirs.

As for what I teach on that subject, as on all scriptural subjects, my teachings come from scripture, including the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

You say I usually get it wrong when what you really mean is that I teach other than what you choose to believe, and that is because what I teach is true, whereas what you teach has little or no scriptural, or historic backing.

The difference is that I can back up what I teach from any translation you care to choose, even the easily demonstrably adulterated ones you support.

You cannot possibly say with any truth that they have not been adulterated. The removal of the holy name of God from so many places and replacing it with LORD is evidence enough.

my dear friend i dont understand why you christains trust in the bible and you all know that the writers are anonymous? we dont know who wrote them how when... there are many differnt bibles how you choose the right if at all? and how you know the holy ghost is not your imagination?

OK.

Firstly the writers are not truly anonymous, some just to clam that they are. Each one is named or betrayed by what he writes and the style he writes in.

As for the number of different bibles, there is only one bible, just different translations done with different motives and therefore differing levels of accuracy. However exactly the same truths can, despite the attempts at corrupting them, be gleaned from all translations. God has built enough safeguards into what is essentially his word to ensure that is so, provided one studies it deeply enough and prays for his wisdom to do so.

It is the only book I have ever come across in which there is not one fact stated that has ever been proved wrong. Admittedly however there are many that have not been proven right either.

However, amongst those who have accepted the bible for what it is, absolute truth and accuracy, are scientists and I am sure you would find their stories interesting.

They are not fools.

They are not, as at least one person on here would have you believe "tards", they are highly qualified, and sometimes published, in the fields of Micro-biology, Biochemistry, Space research and other fields. Yet they feel that the science they study supports the bible.

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

Maybe when you read their stories, if you choose to, you will understand why ignoramuses (my words not yours) like me also put faith in God's word.

I know that holy spirit is not a figment of my imagination because of the things it has in the past enabled me to do which I could not have done without it, and in fact still does.

Of course there are those on here who claim to be Christian, who claim holy spirit is a sentient being, a belief that completely puts the lie to their claims to Christianity. It is simply spirit, the spiritual equivalent of the best Swiss Army knife there ever could be.

no you are wrong. protestants don't consider catholics as christians, prots have bible with 66 books, and chathos have 73 books.. its not the same and its not transletion. there are bibles with 81 books,79 and 27... until 4th century there was a dispute what is authentic or not. secondly the writer are in fact anonymous. its academic your christain scholars admitting that its not just blind faith. about the science there are endless errors, begining with Genesis?
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:09:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 12:09:43 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 12/29/2013 11:50:12 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/29/2013 11:20:39 AM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 12/29/2013 10:28:00 AM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 12/29/2013 8:50:37 AM, annanicole wrote:
MCB: "How can a father and a son be the same being? "

Anna: Straw man. Nobody says that the Father and the Son are the same being any more than they say that John Adams and John Quincy Adams are the same person - but they were both called "President".

The Trinity teaching does.

Even you say they are really Brothers not Father and Son.


Answer the question. It's easy.

True or false. If the Son is God, and if the Father is God, then they necessarily must be the same person or being.

A moot point since the son is not God (capital "G") but simply one of the many lesser "god's" which includes the Angels, and according to scripture, some humans.

Psalm 82: 6 "I have said, "You are gods,
All of you are sons of the Most High.

Which Christ referred to at:

John 10:34, 35
34 Jesus answered them: "Is it not written in your Law, "I said: "You are gods""?*+ 35 If he called "gods"+ those against whom the word of God came"and yet the scripture cannot be nullified"

And Paul echoed at:

1 Corinthians 8:5
5 For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth,+ just as there are many "gods" and many "lords,"


If not (and I do not think even you will say, "True), then why all this constant rambling about "same being"? I have told you dozens of times that the Father and the Son are not the same person - nor can they possibly be. I never said they were "co-equal", either, and will go so far as to say that in His fleshly or human state, the Son is constantly depicted as inferior to the Father. I have also told you very plainly that we do not pray to the Son. I've never even heard a prayer offered to the Son.

As a general rule, when discussing the trinity, you have the nasty habit of telling others what they must believe - and you usually get it wrong.

For one thing I do not tell people what they must believe, I simply pass on what scripture says the should believe if they want eternal life. The choice is still theirs.

As for what I teach on that subject, as on all scriptural subjects, my teachings come from scripture, including the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

You say I usually get it wrong when what you really mean is that I teach other than what you choose to believe, and that is because what I teach is true, whereas what you teach has little or no scriptural, or historic backing.

The difference is that I can back up what I teach from any translation you care to choose, even the easily demonstrably adulterated ones you support.

You cannot possibly say with any truth that they have not been adulterated. The removal of the holy name of God from so many places and replacing it with LORD is evidence enough.

my dear friend i dont understand why you christains trust in the bible and you all know that the writers are anonymous? we dont know who wrote them how when... there are many differnt bibles how you choose the right if at all? and how you know the holy ghost is not your imagination?

OK.

Firstly the writers are not truly anonymous, some just to clam that they are. Each one is named or betrayed by what he writes and the style he writes in.

As for the number of different bibles, there is only one bible, just different translations done with different motives and therefore differing levels of accuracy. However exactly the same truths can, despite the attempts at corrupting them, be gleaned from all translations. God has built enough safeguards into what is essentially his word to ensure that is so, provided one studies it deeply enough and prays for his wisdom to do so.

It is the only book I have ever come across in which there is not one fact stated that has ever been proved wrong. Admittedly however there are many that have not been proven right either.

However, amongst those who have accepted the bible for what it is, absolute truth and accuracy, are scientists and I am sure you would find their stories interesting.

They are not fools.

They are not, as at least one person on here would have you believe "tards", they are highly qualified, and sometimes published, in the fields of Micro-biology, Biochemistry, Space research and other fields. Yet they feel that the science they study supports the bible.

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

http://wol.jw.org...

Maybe when you read their stories, if you choose to, you will understand why ignoramuses (my words not yours) like me also put faith in God's word.

I know that holy spirit is not a figment of my imagination because of the things it has in the past enabled me to do which I could not have done without it, and in fact still does.

Of course there are those on here who claim to be Christian, who claim holy spirit is a sentient being, a belief that completely puts the lie to their claims to Christianity. It is simply spirit, the spiritual equivalent of the best Swiss Army knife there ever could be.

no you are wrong. protestants don't consider catholics as christians, prots have bible with 66 books, and chathos have 73 books.. its not the same and its not transletion. there are bibles with 81 books,79 and 27... until 4th century there was a dispute what is authentic or not. secondly the writer are in fact anonymous. its academic your christain scholars admitting that its not just blind faith. about the science there are endless errors, begining with Genesis?

Most Protestants aren't truly Christian eitehr.

The only ones who are truly Christian are those who follow the teachings of Christ.

I take it you didn't bother reading the life stories then, because if you had you would not have been able to.

It is the 66 books that count, though you can manage well enough with the 40 that form the Hebrew scriptures, since that is what Jesus and the Apostles taught from.

Those and the 26 that for the so called "New Testament" however fit together very well, since the Christian Greek scriptures add nothing more to the Hebrew Scriptures than explanations either of the fulfilment of what prophecies were fulfilled or of prophecies which were to come, though in the latter case the explanations were more expansions than full explanations since they only added more detail.

You have evidently been listening to the wrong people, including some, no doubt, who falsely claim that Evolution has been proved, which is far from the case, though they have got as far as proving adaptation, which in now way contradicts the Genesis story. It simply shows the loving consideration, and foresight of our creator who simply added in the ability to adapt to changes in environment he knew were coming.

I am afraid you have been seriously misinformed, and all that your comments on the bible have proved is precisely what I said, that many have tried to corrupt it, with limited success.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:12:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

It is a fallacy to claim that Jesus is not omniscient. Afterall, you have no proof behind that and there is plenty of evidence supporting that he was. For example, from a very young age he knew he was the Son of God (Story of him in the Temple), he knew of his crucifixion, he knew that one of his apostles would betray him, ect. ect.

These things point to him being omniscient.

HOWEVER, let's presume that Jesus was not omniscient, but he did know some things about the future. Even then that wouldn't refute the validity of Jesus being God since Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Being fully human would make sense that Jesus isn't omniscient. In addition, since the Old Testament has already set that God the Father is omniscient, and God the Father and God the Son are two of the three persons of the Holy Trinity which make up one God, then God is still omniscient altogether. After all, each person of the Holy Trinity is as much God as the other two.
Nolite Timere
LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:32:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:09:40 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:

Most Protestants aren't truly Christian eitehr.

The only ones who are truly Christian are those who follow the teachings of Christ.

I take it you didn't bother reading the life stories then, because if you had you would not have been able to.

It is the 66 books that count, though you can manage well enough with the 40 that form the Hebrew scriptures, since that is what Jesus and the Apostles taught from.

Those and the 26 that for the so called "New Testament" however fit together very well, since the Christian Greek scriptures add nothing more to the Hebrew Scriptures than explanations either of the fulfilment of what prophecies were fulfilled or of prophecies which were to come, though in the latter case the explanations were more expansions than full explanations since they only added more detail.

You have evidently been listening to the wrong people, including some, no doubt, who falsely claim that Evolution has been proved, which is far from the case, though they have got as far as proving adaptation, which in now way contradicts the Genesis story. It simply shows the loving consideration, and foresight of our creator who simply added in the ability to adapt to changes in environment he knew were coming.

I am afraid you have been seriously misinformed, and all that your comments on the bible have proved is precisely what I said, , that many have tried to corrupt it, with limited success.

i know your bible inside out. well most christains are chatholics... so they dont considering you as a chrsitian. ok about science can you explain me this:

Gospel of Mark ch16 at the end its says - (by the way its thrown out as a fabrication its not appearing in the earliest manuscripts)
" "There will be signs for true believers and among the signs - In my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak foreign tongues, new tongues, they shall take up serpents - And if they drink deadly poison, they shall not be harmed - And when they place their hand over the sick, they shall be cured.""

if you do agree that it is a fabrication here this one:
Leviticus 12 - If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days,If she bears a female child, then she shall be unclean two weeks and She shall continue in the blood of her purification sixty-six days.

so how you explain that?
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
LAZARUS77
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:37:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:12:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

It is a fallacy to claim that Jesus is not omniscient. Afterall, you have no proof behind that and there is plenty of evidence supporting that he was. For example, from a very young age he knew he was the Son of God (Story of him in the Temple), he knew of his crucifixion, he knew that one of his apostles would betray him, ect. ect.

These things point to him being omniscient.

HOWEVER, let's presume that Jesus was not omniscient, but he did know some things about the future. Even then that wouldn't refute the validity of Jesus being God since Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Being fully human would make sense that Jesus isn't omniscient. In addition, since the Old Testament has already set that God the Father is omniscient, and God the Father and God the Son are two of the three persons of the Holy Trinity which make up one God, then God is still omniscient altogether. After all, each person of the Holy Trinity is as much God as the other two.

jesus says - "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son (himself), but only the Father.
No man is a true believer unless he desires for his brother that, what he desires for himself. - Prophet Muhammad saw
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2013 1:48:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/29/2013 1:37:43 PM, LAZARUS77 wrote:
At 12/29/2013 1:12:47 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 12/28/2013 11:56:10 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
In another post I claimed to be God (don't worry I wasn't serious). Rational thinker provided a counter argument against me errr "I" being God, that being...

"God by definition is omniscient (because he is maximally great, and it is less great to be ignorant). So, if you are saying a being who is omniscient, could not be omniscient is illogical."

In other words it is a necessary condition (although not sufficient) condition that something be omniscient to be God.

Now consider.......

1) It is necessary to know everything to be God
2) Jesus did not know everything
C) Jesus is not God

Is this a rock solid argument ?

If not, why not ?

It is a fallacy to claim that Jesus is not omniscient. Afterall, you have no proof behind that and there is plenty of evidence supporting that he was. For example, from a very young age he knew he was the Son of God (Story of him in the Temple), he knew of his crucifixion, he knew that one of his apostles would betray him, ect. ect.

These things point to him being omniscient.

HOWEVER, let's presume that Jesus was not omniscient, but he did know some things about the future. Even then that wouldn't refute the validity of Jesus being God since Jesus was fully human and fully divine. Being fully human would make sense that Jesus isn't omniscient. In addition, since the Old Testament has already set that God the Father is omniscient, and God the Father and God the Son are two of the three persons of the Holy Trinity which make up one God, then God is still omniscient altogether. After all, each person of the Holy Trinity is as much God as the other two.

jesus says - "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son (himself), but only the Father.

Precisely. God the Father is omniscient, however the other two persons of God are just as much God as God the Father.

It's confusing, but in the end the conclusion is that God is omniscient.
Nolite Timere