Total Posts:59|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Jesus is Lord!

Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

Yes indeed!

Polytheistic religions (e.g. Early j.ws & trinitarians) indeed fall in to a great chasm over such an ideology!
anchoredsoul101
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG. The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first. Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:04:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you don't understand the trinity. The trinity says there are three persons in one form. The form is God and the minds are Jesus, his spirit, and God. All connected together and yet in a seperate form. So God got Mary preganant, but Jesus did not. Jesus was restrained as an off-shoot of God before he was born.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/18/2014 11:51:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:04:16 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you don't understand the trinity. The trinity says there are three persons in one form. The form is God and the minds are Jesus, his spirit, and God. All connected together and yet in a seperate form. So God got Mary preganant, but Jesus did not. Jesus was restrained as an off-shoot of God before he was born.

What did God need Mary for?
anchoredsoul101
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 12:13:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."
anchoredsoul101
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 12:13:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with your idea of the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."
Kyle_the_Heretic
Posts: 748
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 12:15:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

For a thorough understanding of how the "trinity" bullied its way into Christian belief, read, When Jesus Became God, by Rubenstein.
Thinking is extremely taxing on the gullible, and it takes hours to clear the smoke.
Composer
Posts: 5,858
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 12:32:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original, but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian Story book jebus!

Factual statement 1.

IF jebus were a 100% Fully man, then there is NO room for anything else e.g. a god!

&

Factual statement 2.

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most claiming to be xtians view jebus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Not a figure of speech there, but a second statement of fact!

If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & Botchtowerites swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas!
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 12:13:04 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 1:15:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 12:13:58 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
God is not a liar.
Are you sure?

http://www.debate.org...
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 1:45:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:13:04 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?

There are Jews back then and even today that believe in Jesus, like Michael L. Brown Messianic Jew . How do we explain how they believe? Simple they choose to believe, just like some of the Jews today believe. Mary was just one of the first.
Accipiter
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 1:56:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 1:15:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:13:58 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
God is not a liar.
Are you sure?

http://www.debate.org...

Just because God is a lie doesn't mean he is a liar.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:22:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 1:45:26 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:13:04 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?

There are Jews back then and even today that believe in Jesus, like Michael L. Brown Messianic Jew . How do we explain how they believe? Simple they choose to believe, just like some of the Jews today believe. Mary was just one of the first.

You just have to be kidding. She believed in Jesus before he was even born (!) and whilst practicing Judaism which laughed at the notion of Greek and Roman gods who had sex with humans? The Jews of the day would consider such a notion as blasphemy - an abomination. And yet the NT has Mary meekly saying, yes please, inseminate me at will. Absurd.

As to Mary's belief in Jesus, there's a verse where she and his brothers come to collect him from a village because they think he has gone mad. So much for her "belief in Jesus". Lol.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 2:53:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 12:32:10 AM, Composer wrote:
IF 100% Natural Orange Juice is tampered with or manipulated or chemicals added, then it isn't the Original, but a corrupted form!

Same goes for the Non-Original trinitarian Story book jebus!

Factual statement 1.

IF jebus were a 100% Fully man, then there is NO room for anything else e.g. a god!

&

Factual statement 2.

The former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most claiming to be xtians view jebus:

"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Not a figure of speech there, but a second statement of fact!

If jebus was really a god, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then it was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh.

Hence Johnny Come Lately trinitarians & Botchtowerites swallow corrupted Orange Juice and believe in Father Xmas!


kfc
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 1:23:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 2:22:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 1:45:26 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:13:04 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?

There are Jews back then and even today that believe in Jesus, like Michael L. Brown Messianic Jew . How do we explain how they believe? Simple they choose to believe, just like some of the Jews today believe. Mary was just one of the first.

You just have to be kidding. She believed in Jesus before he was even born (!) and whilst practicing Judaism which laughed at the notion of Greek and Roman gods who had sex with humans?

That is the thing no "sex" was involved. That is why some Jews believe and you are right she did know before he was born.

The Jews of the day would consider such a notion as blasphemy - an abomination. And yet the NT has Mary meekly saying, yes please, inseminate me at will. Absurd.

The Jews of the day is what helped start the process of the Messiah. Mary accepted it as she accepted the miracle birth of John as well. Not of virgin birth but of two who were already of age.


As to Mary's belief in Jesus, there's a verse where she and his brothers come to collect him from a village because they think he has gone mad. So much for her "belief in Jesus". Lol.

No where does Mary herself say this towards Jesus. It does not distinguish between which ones did or did not at the time. There are Jews today that believe and back then who believed. Your logic does not make sense of why they should not believe, even if now some of them believe.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 9:48:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 1:23:00 PM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 2:22:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 1:45:26 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM, dee-em wrote:

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?

There are Jews back then and even today that believe in Jesus, like Michael L. Brown Messianic Jew . How do we explain how they believe? Simple they choose to believe, just like some of the Jews today believe. Mary was just one of the first.

You just have to be kidding. She believed in Jesus before he was even born (!) and whilst practicing Judaism which laughed at the notion of Greek and Roman gods who had sex with humans?

That is the thing no "sex" was involved.

She didn't know that when she was asked to bear a child! According to Luke it was "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you". Hm. Imagine the scene. You are a 14-or-so-year old virgin Jewish girl. You haven't had sex with your husband yet. You are told (not asked) out of the blue that you have been chosen to bear God's baby. To someone of the Jewish faith this would be an abomination. She should have fled screaming from the room. She should have run to her husband. Instead, she embraces the blasphemy. Incredible!

That is why some Jews believe and you are right she did know before he was born.

I'm not really interested in what some Jews may believe today. I'm talking about the situation Mary found herself in at that time.

The Jews of the day would consider such a notion as blasphemy - an abomination. And yet the NT has Mary meekly saying, yes please, inseminate me at will. Absurd.

The Jews of the day is what helped start the process of the Messiah. Mary accepted it as she accepted the miracle birth of John as well. Not of virgin birth but of two who were already of age.

It's inconceivable that she would have accepted giving birth to the son of a god. That is the point. It runs counter to everything Jewish people believed about God.

As to Mary's belief in Jesus, there's a verse where she and his brothers come to collect him from a village because they think he has gone mad. So much for her "belief in Jesus". Lol.

No where does Mary herself say this towards Jesus. It does not distinguish between which ones did or did not at the time.

Are you seriously denying this passage?

There are Jews today that believe and back then who believed. Your logic does not make sense of why they should not believe, even if now some of them believe.

There were Jews back then who believed what? All they knew was Judaism. Jesus, if he existed, was himself a Jew and taught Jewish beliefs. Are you under the impression that Christianity pre-dated Jesus?
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/19/2014 10:19:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

Saying that "Jesus got his own mother pregnant" sounds kind of primitive if you are talking about a being who could create a life within her womb totally absent of physical contact of any kind.

Much of my life I wondered about the question of whether God having a son would lead to polytheism, and I finally accepted that there are possibilities that are just beyond me. As Einstein often said, only a fool tries to answer every question asked of them.

I think it's inevitable that each person is going to have their own view of God, assuming that they believe in God. After all, we can't even agree on the exact properties of a single human being. Too much of what we believe is a matter of personal perspective.
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 1:16:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 9:48:11 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 1:23:00 PM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 2:22:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 1:45:26 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM, dee-em wrote:

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?

There are Jews back then and even today that believe in Jesus, like Michael L. Brown Messianic Jew . How do we explain how they believe? Simple they choose to believe, just like some of the Jews today believe. Mary was just one of the first.

You just have to be kidding. She believed in Jesus before he was even born (!) and whilst practicing Judaism which laughed at the notion of Greek and Roman gods who had sex with humans?

That is the thing no "sex" was involved.

She didn't know that when she was asked to bear a child! According to Luke it was "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you". Hm. Imagine the scene. You are a 14-or-so-year old virgin Jewish girl. You haven't had sex with your husband yet. You are told (not asked) out of the blue that you have been chosen to bear God's baby. To someone of the Jewish faith this would be an abomination. She should have fled screaming from the room. She should have run to her husband. Instead, she embraces the blasphemy. Incredible!

But she didn't fled. She accepted it according to Luke and no it was considered a great thing for her. And no where did she call it an abomination. In fact she speaks very highly of it. She embraces it as many do today. It is miraculous and joyous, if you have read what she was recorded in saying in Luke. But of course you would just ignore it or make excuses about it.


That is why some Jews believe and you are right she did know before he was born.

I'm not really interested in what some Jews may believe today. I'm talking about the situation Mary found herself in at that time.

Yes. As so am I.


The Jews of the day would consider such a notion as blasphemy - an abomination. And yet the NT has Mary meekly saying, yes please, inseminate me at will. Absurd.

The Jews of the day is what helped start the process of the Messiah. Mary accepted it as she accepted the miracle birth of John as well. Not of virgin birth but of two who were already of age.

It's inconceivable that she would have accepted giving birth to the son of a god. That is the point. It runs counter to everything Jewish people believed about God.

So you say. But I say the believers of Jesus from the Jews know it does not run counter to what they believe. Hence why they believe and some of them today. They simply believe from what they know. As there are those and many Jews who do not believe. This is very hard for you to grasp?

As to Mary's belief in Jesus, there's a verse where she and his brothers come to collect him from a village because they think he has gone mad. So much for her "belief in Jesus". Lol.

No where does Mary herself say this towards Jesus. It does not distinguish between which ones did or did not at the time.

Are you seriously denying this passage?


No. Just saying that Mary "herself" is not quoted as saying such a thing. The same Mary mother of Jesus in Acts 1:13-14 who is found in the congregation praying with the believers of her son.

I can see why you might consider it but I don't agree with your take on it. Since she was happy what God did to her in Luke. She had a confidence in her Son as seen in his first miracle at the wedding. As she also was with Jesus until the end. Yes I am right in saying she believed in her son as the Christ.

The closest thing that you might be able to say, is that it was stated that way, because she did not speak up for him. But let's go to the crux of your argument. Even if that person was correct for Mary at that time. It does not mean that later she did not believe as shown in Acts, after his death.

Even Peter who believed rejected Jesus three times. Would you say he is not a believer?........Of course not. That is your logic and does not make sense to me at all, even if you still believe that.

There are Jews today that believe and back then who believed. Your logic does not make sense of why they should not believe, even if now some of them believe.

There were Jews back then who believed what? All they knew was Judaism. Jesus, if he existed, was himself a Jew and taught Jewish beliefs. Are you under the impression that Christianity pre-dated Jesus?

Jews back then believed in Jesus. Like Mary and his 12 disciples who most of them were Jewish, not all of them obviously. This is what I mean.
dee-em
Posts: 6,451
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 1:49:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 1:16:47 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 9:48:11 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 1:23:00 PM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 2:22:59 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/19/2014 1:45:26 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM, dee-em wrote:

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?

There are Jews back then and even today that believe in Jesus, like Michael L. Brown Messianic Jew . How do we explain how they believe? Simple they choose to believe, just like some of the Jews today believe. Mary was just one of the first.

You just have to be kidding. She believed in Jesus before he was even born (!) and whilst practicing Judaism which laughed at the notion of Greek and Roman gods who had sex with humans?

That is the thing no "sex" was involved.

She didn't know that when she was asked to bear a child! According to Luke it was "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you". Hm. Imagine the scene. You are a 14-or-so-year old virgin Jewish girl. You haven't had sex with your husband yet. You are told (not asked) out of the blue that you have been chosen to bear God's baby. To someone of the Jewish faith this would be an abomination. She should have fled screaming from the room. She should have run to her husband. Instead, she embraces the blasphemy. Incredible!

But she didn't fled. She accepted it according to Luke and no it was considered a great thing for her. And no where did she call it an abomination. In fact she speaks very highly of it. She embraces it as many do today. It is miraculous and joyous, if you have read what she was recorded in saying in Luke. But of course you would just ignore it or make excuses about it.

We are discussing why the story is unbelievable. I explain why, and you respond with "but this is what it says". Do you see the problem?

That is why some Jews believe and you are right she did know before he was born.

I'm not really interested in what some Jews may believe today. I'm talking about the situation Mary found herself in at that time.

Yes. As so am I.


The Jews of the day would consider such a notion as blasphemy - an abomination. And yet the NT has Mary meekly saying, yes please, inseminate me at will. Absurd.

The Jews of the day is what helped start the process of the Messiah. Mary accepted it as she accepted the miracle birth of John as well. Not of virgin birth but of two who were already of age.

It's inconceivable that she would have accepted giving birth to the son of a god. That is the point. It runs counter to everything Jewish people believed about God.

So you say.

It's not just what I say. It's fact.

But I say the believers of Jesus from the Jews know it does not run counter to what they believe. Hence why they believe and some of them today. They simply believe from what they know. As there are those and many Jews who do not believe. This is very hard for you to grasp?

Spock to Scotty. Can you please beam me up please?

As to Mary's belief in Jesus, there's a verse where she and his brothers come to collect him from a village because they think he has gone mad. So much for her "belief in Jesus". Lol.

No where does Mary herself say this towards Jesus. It does not distinguish between which ones did or did not at the time.

Are you seriously denying this passage?

No. Just saying that Mary "herself" is not quoted as saying such a thing. The same Mary mother of Jesus in Acts 1:13-14 who is found in the congregation praying with the believers of her son.

Ah, I see. Apologetics. Enough said.

I can see why you might consider it but I don't agree with your take on it. Since she was happy what God did to her in Luke. She had a confidence in her Son as seen in his first miracle at the wedding. As she also was with Jesus until the end. Yes I am right in saying she believed in her son as the Christ.

I can see this is pointess.

The closest thing that you might be able to say, is that it was stated that way, because she did not speak up for him. But let's go to the crux of your argument. Even if that person was correct for Mary at that time. It does not mean that later she did not believe as shown in Acts, after his death.

What does that have to do with her acceptance of being inseminated by God?

Even Peter who believed rejected Jesus three times. Would you say he is not a believer?........Of course not. That is your logic and does not make sense to me at all, even if you still believe that.

See above.

There are Jews today that believe and back then who believed. Your logic does not make sense of why they should not believe, even if now some of them believe.

There were Jews back then who believed what? All they knew was Judaism. Jesus, if he existed, was himself a Jew and taught Jewish beliefs. Are you under the impression that Christianity pre-dated Jesus?

Jews back then believed in Jesus. Like Mary and his 12 disciples who most of them were Jewish, not all of them obviously. This is what I mean.

Not before he was conceived, which is what I have been discussing all this time!
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 3:33:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.
Thus explaining how one can be rated highly in the church and very poorly in every rational field of study. If each of the three components you named were 100% the egg, then you'd have an egg which was 300%. In other words - three eggs, not one.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).
This too is incorrect. Not all eggs have a shell and many lack a yolk. So I assume you mean a standard bird or reptilian egg. But a frog egg - much like a fish egg - is still an egg and neither one has a shell. Even in the case of a bird egg, the shell doesn't develop into the chick, the albumen does and the yoke provides nourishment. So the albumen and the yolk are vital parts of the egg, while the shell is not. Add an umbilical cord and the yoke becomes unnecessary.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.
And if you have three characters who are each 100% God, you end up with 300%, which means you have three gods. And that's exactly what Christianity has - three gods. And that makes it polytheistic. Name any other monotheistic religion that has three gods.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.
First, second and third, as a matter of fact. It's a biological impossibility. But don't let things like facts and understanding get in your way. It says so in an old book which talks about witches, zombies, dragons, unicorns, sea monsters, and wizards. So it must be true., right?

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.
The most natural question is why would you believe such a load? When you look to the Old Testament Hebrew you find that the coming Messiah was to be born to an "almah" (a young woman). However, when translated to the Greek it was written as "parthenos" (virgin). And once it was accepted as "the word of God", Christians couldn't allow for the proper correction to be made.

You might also look into the Johannine Coma, which was based on a 16th century forgery perpetrated by theologians and offered to Desiderius Erasmus with the understanding that if they could provide him with a Greek manuscript containing the wording they preferred, he would include it in the next edition of his Greek New Testament. What he didn't know is that they produced that manuscript by copying a Greek manuscript letter-by-letter, until they reached 1 John 5:7. The next two verses were translated into Greek from the Latin Vulgate, and then the manuscript was completed from the Greek. And those two verses are still in the Bible today, and constitute the only specific delineation of the Trinity in the entire Bible.

You might wish to consider that.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 3:43:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/18/2014 11:04:16 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that you don't understand the trinity.
Nor does any Christian I've ever seen try to explain it.

The trinity says there are three persons in one form. The form is God and the minds are Jesus, his spirit, and God.
So God gets two billings (form and mind), while Jesus and the spirit each get one. But wait! God isn't physical so he has no form. Jesus was claimed to have the form of a man. The Holy Spirit (or "Holy Ghost") is also non-physical so it has no form. And they have separate minds, separate functions and separate knowledge. For example, the character of Jesus in the Bible claimed that he didn't know the day or the hour of the rapture, but said that "the father" (God) knew.
So this is three Gods. Not one God, not two gods, but three gods, making Christianity polytheism.

All connected together and yet in a seperate form.
Speaking in contradictions doesn't make you look wise. It makes you look confused. But that's okay. The Trinity is a purely confused and irrational concept.

So God got Mary preganant, but Jesus did not. Jesus was restrained as an off-shoot of God before he was born.
Which shows that God and Jesus are two separate gods.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 4:12:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 12:13:04 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 11:49:30 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:49:38 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
At 12/18/2014 10:08:41 PM, Accipiter wrote:
I see that often when reading at Christian web sites. After looking into it a bit I found that there are people who believe that Jesus and God are the same person, others who believe that Jesus and God are not the same person and a wide spectrum of everything in between. Some Christians believe in elaborate systems designed to explain how that relationship works but others believe it's claw hammer simple and requires no thought to understand.

The problem is that a separate Jesus and God smacks of polytheism while Jesus and God being the same person would mean that Jesus got his own mother pregnant which seems rather absurd in more ways then one.

Your thoughts?

When considering this issue, it helps to understand best with an example. The example that comes to mind is that of an egg. A simple egg that we would find in the refrigerator. An egg consists of three parts: the egg white, the yolk, and the shell. All are essential, and all are 100% THE EGG.

Nonsense. They are still parts of the egg. You could assign percentages to them by weight or by volume. The egg is the totality of all three parts. If you took the shell by itself, it is not the egg. Neither is the yolk or the white.

According to you a bolt on an airplane wing is 100% the airplane. You must be kidding.

The yolk is not more of the egg than the egg white. Neither are more important than the shell (after all, there would be no egg without a shell of some form).

You've never eaten a shelled boiled egg? Lol.

In the same way, God is a trinity: God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Ghost. None is more than the other- and They are all 100% God.

That's an incoherent concept. If Jesus was 100% God then he wouldn't need the other two.

The idea of a virgin birth seems ridiculous, at first.

Any time. Lol.

Natural questions would be whether or not that's even possible. However, God allowed for a seed to be put in Mary. It's important, I believe, to recognize that Mary really was a willing vessel for God to use her. There was no dirty impregnation of His mother. Rather, a woman was provided with the "tools" necessary to eventually bear a child.

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother.
Why would he need a flesh mother? According to Genesis he popped flesh up out of dirt, and poofed it up out of nothing. If he couldn't abracadabra himself into a flesh body without a woman in which to gestate, then he's not omnipotent.

He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life
Yeah, sinless... unless you consider committing conspiracy to commit theft in Luke 19:30, or committing assault and damaging the property of others in John 2:15, along with telling people to violate the rules of the Old Testament while at the same time, claiming that the law would change not one jot or one tittle until heaven and Earth pass. (Matthew 5:17-18)

- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh."
Adam and Eve weren't supposed to sin, but they did. Yet God made them flesh. If flesh can't avoid sin, then God set them up knowing they couldn't possibly do as he directed.

In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.
Then he was partially flesh, and partially something else, despite the fact that the council voted that he was 100% God, and 100% man. So now we have God, who is 100% God, the Holy Spirit who is 100% God, and Jesus who is 100% God and 100% man. That's four hundred percent. Did you pass general math?

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.
Are you assuming that the author of Luke knew Mary? He didn't even know Jesus (Luke wasn't the author - check Luke 1:1-4).

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently.
God didn't write the Bible, men did.

The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
seeu46
Posts: 578
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 10:40:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 1:45:26 AM, seeu46 wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:46:29 AM, dee-em wrote:

Don't be naive. Mary was Jewish. The idea that she would be impregnated by God to produce his son would have repelled her. She would have run a million miles. A god having a son with a human is a pagan idea and would have been unthinkable to a pious Jewish girl. This story is an obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects.

Sir, I am not planning to disrespect your opinion. After all, it's your opinion. That being said: The trinity comprises of parts. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. To be "flesh," he needed a "flesh" mother. He came to Earth, and lived a completely sinless life- thus overcoming the mere concept of "flesh." In order to do that, He had to have a divine element to Him. He was not straight flesh, or He surely would've messed up along the road. God the Father, however, has no flesh in Him whatsoever.

In regards to Mary, there's a full account of her say in the matter in Luke 1. I understand that you will probably toss this aside as a mere Christian-born fallacy, but Mary's opinion should be recognized by anyone who is considering this concept.

God is not a liar. We can argue that all day and all night, and I will not believe differently. The reason so is not because I haven't questioned the existence and validity of God before, but because I have assuredly gathered over time that acknowledging the existence of God (and the trinity) as well as the credibility of the Bible makes far more sense than any words and constantly-changing theories that do not involve Him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree in the "obvious Christian invention, irrespective of the ridiculous supernatural aspects."

You've been well indoctrinated. Are you willing to explain how a young Jewish girl would be eager to embrace a wholly pagan idea? Don't you find it more than a little incongruous?

There are Jews back then and even today that believe in Jesus, like Michael L. Brown Messianic Jew . How do we explain how they believe? Simple they choose to believe, just like some of the Jews today believe. Mary was just one of the first.

You just have to be kidding. She believed in Jesus before he was even born (!) and whilst practicing Judaism which laughed at the notion of Greek and Roman gods who had sex with humans?

That is the thing no "sex" was involved.

She didn't know that when she was asked to bear a child! According to Luke it was "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you". Hm. Imagine the scene. You are a 14-or-so-year old virgin Jewish girl. You haven't had sex with your husband yet. You are told (not asked) out of the blue that you have been chosen to bear God's baby. To someone of the Jewish faith this would be an abomination. She should have fled screaming from the room. She should have run to her husband. Instead, she embraces the blasphemy. Incredible!

But she didn't fled. She accepted it according to Luke and no it was considered a great thing for her. And no where did she call it an abomination. In fact she speaks very highly of it. She embraces it as many do today. It is miraculous and joyous, if you have read what she was recorded in saying in Luke. But of course you would just ignore it or make excuses about it.

We are discussing why the story is unbelievable. I explain why, and you respond with "but this is what it says". Do you see the problem?

You believe it is unbelievable. I explain why she believed by the book as you make up things as you want to believe it to be, as if that is what it is. But it is not. So no I do not see it your way.

Maybe you need to find some Mary quotes from the time of Jesus thinking and believing what you are saying other wise. You've got nothing. Do you see the problem?


That is why some Jews believe and you are right she did know before he was born.

I'm not really interested in what some Jews may believe today. I'm talking about the situation Mary found herself in at that time.

Yes. As so am I.


The Jews of the day would consider such a notion as blasphemy - an abomination. And yet the NT has Mary meekly saying, yes please, inseminate me at will. Absurd.

The Jews of the day is what helped start the process of the Messiah. Mary accepted it as she accepted the miracle birth of John as well. Not of virgin birth but of two who were already of age.

It's inconceivable that she would have accepted giving birth to the son of a god. That is the point. It runs counter to everything Jewish people believed about God.

So you say.

It's not just what I say. It's fact.


Nope, you pretend what you say is.

They simply believe from what they know. As there are those and many Jews who do not believe. This is very hard for you to grasp?

Spock to Scotty. Can you please beam me up please?

You have been already beamed and don't know it.


As to Mary's belief in Jesus, there's a verse where she and his brothers come to collect him from a village because they think he has gone mad. So much for her "belief in Jesus". Lol.

No where does Mary herself say this towards Jesus. It does not distinguish between which ones did or did not at the time.

Are you seriously denying this passage?

No. Just saying that Mary "herself" is not quoted as saying such a thing. The same Mary mother of Jesus in Acts 1:13-14 who is found in the congregation praying with the believers of her son.

Ah, I see. Apologetics. Enough said.


You make up stuff for Mary. Enough said.

I can see why you might consider it but I don't agree with your take on it. Since she was happy what God did to her in Luke. She had a confidence in her Son as seen in his first miracle at the wedding. As she also was with Jesus until the end. Yes I am right in saying she believed in her son as the Christ.

I can see this is pointess.


Not for me. I see it is pointless for you.

But let's go to the crux of your argument. Even if that person was correct for Mary at that time. It does not mean that later she did not believe as shown in Acts, after his death.

What does that have to do with her acceptance of being inseminated by God?


Definitely not towards your take. That is your dilemma.

Even Peter who believed rejected Jesus three times. Would you say he is not a believer?........Of course not. That is your logic and does not make sense to me at all, even if you still believe that.

See above.

Your logic does not make sense of why they should not believe, even if now some of them believe.

All they knew was Judaism. Jesus, if he existed, was himself a Jew and taught Jewish beliefs. Are you under the impression that Christianity pre-dated Jesus?

Jews back then believed in Jesus. Like Mary and his 12 disciples who most of them were Jewish, not all of them obviously. This is what I mean.

Not before he was conceived, which is what I have been discussing all this time!

No offense but at first Joseph did not believe and wanted to settle it privately but in the end he believed. Mary believed. Your version of what you believe she should think does not make it so.
anchoredsoul101
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:47:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
-------"Yeah, sinless... unless you consider committing conspiracy to commit theft in Luke 19:30, or committing assault and damaging the property of others in John 2:15, along with telling people to violate the rules of the Old Testament while at the same time, claiming that the law would change not one jot or one tittle until heaven and Earth pass. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

You say "conspiracy" in regards to the story in Luke 19:30. A better term would be "miracle." Firstly, in the context of the story, Jesus and His disciples were coming nigh to Bethphage and Bethany. He instructs His disciples to go into another village and "ye SHALL find a colt tied." He is instructing them to go into a completely different city, claiming that there definitely WILL be a colt. There is no "might" in this. When the disciples go to the complete other city, they find the colt exactly where Jesus said it would be. The owners come along and ask what they"re doing, and they explain. No struggle. That"s a miracle, not a conspiracy of theft.

In John 2:15, again, take the whole context of the story, please. The Temple was God"s House. The design was for the worship of God. Jesus comes to the temple (HIS "HOUSE) and it has literally been turned into a store-atmosphere. People were buying and selling for individual gains in HIS house. In fact, He even addresses it in vs. 16: "Take these things hence: make not my Father"s house an house of merchandise." There you have it.

In regards to the rules of the Old Testament, no man could perfectly follow them. After all, no one is perfect. However, Jesus recognized that falling short of "perfect rule following" was natural. That"s where the element of "grace" comes in. Jesus said in Romans 3:9-23 that "both Jews and Gentiles"are all under sin" and the way of peace have they not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes." Regardless of who we are- the Jews (who considered themselves God"s people) or the Gentiles, we sin. According to the Law, none of us are perfect. Jesus pointed out that there was no room for arrogant, self-righteous rule following. Everyone fell short. People"s good behavior and good works would not get them to Heaven. Belief in Jesus was the only way. Jesus said in John 14:6 that He is THE way, THE truth, and THE life. Our own actions and adherence to the Mosaic Law would not ensure us a spot in Heaven.

Verse 23 says, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." Because everyone sins, Jesus was sent to bring forgiveness, show love, and point people in the right direction. EVERYONE sins and EVERYONE messes up. However, Jesus stated that the laws couldn"t condemn someone to Hell- only God determines that based on our faith (or lack of it). We cannot earn our spot in Heaven from our good deeds, because we will fall short and break at least one of the Mosaic Laws. But, in His grace, we can be saved.

Do you present the idea that Jesus did not exist, or was not the Man I as a Christian believe He was and is? Prove it.

------"Adam and Eve weren't supposed to sin, but they did. Yet God made them flesh. If flesh can't avoid sin, then God set them up knowing they couldn't possibly do as he directed."

Of course. God didn"t want mindless robots. He wanted willing servants. It"s the same as the Mosaic Law I discussed before. We as flesh as going to mess up. It"s natural. But God"s grace steps in where no amount of "perfect living" can (because perfect living doesn"t exist). Jesus was the only One who could overcome a sin nature. He was the only One who exercised perfect living.

------" (Luke wasn't the author - check Luke 1:1-4)."

How can you say matter-of-factly that Luke wasn"t the author? The book of Luke is the first of a two volume piece- the second being the book of Acts. The writer records events- particularly around the life of Paul. There are three different sections between Luke and Acts where the writer narrates as "we"- meaning: He was present and an eyewitness. Paul"s associates were listed as Tychicus, Aristarchus, John Mark, Justus, Epaphruas, Demas, Barnabas, Artemas, Titus, Aquila and LUKE. Careful analysis eliminates many of those names because they are named in the third person throughout either Luke or Acts. External evidence includes the Muratorian canon, Irenaeus, Tertullian, the Monarchian Prologue, and more.

----------"God didn't write the Bible, men did."
Through the inspiration of God. II Timothy 3:16 says: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." In Greek, the word "inspired" was composed of two words: "theos" and "pneim." Combined, they meant "God-breathed." Literally, it was God speaking through man via revelation.

I have a question for, sir: Do you believe in absolute truths? Can you absolutely tell me that this is not true? Show me your evidence. I am interested in your proof.
anchoredsoul101
Posts: 22
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 7:50:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/19/2014 1:15:10 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 12/19/2014 12:13:58 AM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
God is not a liar.
Are you sure?

http://www.debate.org...

Very.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 10:58:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 7:47:42 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:
-------"Yeah, sinless... unless you consider committing conspiracy to commit theft in Luke 19:30, or committing assault and damaging the property of others in John 2:15, along with telling people to violate the rules of the Old Testament while at the same time, claiming that the law would change not one jot or one tittle until heaven and Earth pass. (Matthew 5:17-18)"

You say "conspiracy" in regards to the story in Luke 19:30. A better term would be "miracle." Firstly, in the context of the story, Jesus and His disciples were coming nigh to Bethphage and Bethany. He instructs His disciples to go into another village and "ye SHALL find a colt tied." He is instructing them to go into a completely different city, claiming that there definitely WILL be a colt. There is no "might" in this. When the disciples go to the complete other city, they find the colt exactly where Jesus said it would be. The owners come along and ask what they"re doing, and they explain. No struggle. That"s a miracle, not a conspiracy of theft.

How (not) odd that you would leave some of the most important parts out. But let's start with this... it doesn't matter if Jesus booked his disciples for a flight on the wings of a magic moth, it's STILL conspiracy to commit theft. Do you remember what the Jesus character in the story instructed his deciples to do if they got caught?

(Luke 19:30) And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him.

So Jesus is clearly aware that they do not have permission to take the donkey(s). His intent here is to have his disciples take the property of another without permission, which constitutes theft.

But this story becomes even more interesting when you read the version in "Matthew". We should first understand that the intent of this story is to fulfill the prophecy in Zechariah 9:9, in which the king rides into the city humbly mounted on a donkey.

(Zechariah 9:9) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an a-s-s, and upon a colt the foal of an a-s-s.

Now clearly, if Jesus was God, he should have no problem whipping up a donkey for himself, but this isn't what he does. Instead, the author claims...

(Matthew 21:2) Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an a-s-s tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me.

(By the way, "over against you" sounds like a very nearby village.)

Do you see the discrepancy? In the prophecy, the coming King is to ride a donkey... just one, into the city. But in Matthew 21:2, we find Jesus instructing his disciples to steal two donkeys. Does Jesus plan to straddle two donkeys? Do you know how wide a donkey is? But there's no need to wonder what happened. It's fairly simple. Notice back in Zechariah 9:9 how the donkey is described. It's first referred to as an a-s-s (sorry, the silly profanity filter won't allow the posting of some verses.) But then there is an additional description of the same donkey, in what is known as a Hebrew parallelism. It goes on to describe this same donkey as "a colt the foal of an a-s-s". If not read carefully, it appears to be referring to two donkeys.

And indeed, if we look to an ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Greek Septuagint, we find that this has been mistranslated as two donkeys rather than one. So this explains the problem in the "Gospel of Matthew" (which wasn't written by Matthew, copies over 600-verses from Mark, and refers to Matthew the tax collector in the third person).

The author of "Matthew" obviously wasn't there, didn't witness the event, and couldn't read Hebrew. So he turned to the Greek Septuagint to find the prophecy and then wrote his version of the story around what he found there, combined with the parallel verses he copied from "The Gospel of Mark". So we have (yet another) bit of evidence showing that these are fictional accounts. Clearly, the authors believed they were writing about actual events, and they were doing what they could to reconstruct the stories with as much consistency as they could manage from the Old Testament. So the author read the Greek Septuagint which claims the king was to ride two donkeys, and constructs his story with his fictional Jesus asking for two donkeys, rather than one. So we know this author is not an eye-witness, and is taking his information from the Old Testament prophecy.

This is also common among the other gospels. None of them were written by the authors which were later assigned to them. All of the gospels in the Bible are anonymous works. To this day, no one knows who wrote them. But they did give us enough to know that they are not the authors which are listed in the Bible.

Take a look...

(Mark 15:34) And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

(Psalm 22:1) My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

And this isn't limited to just Jesus or the named characters. Sometimes even unnamed bystanders were provided their dialog by taking it from the Old Testament. For example;

(Matthew 27:43) He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Were these actually the words of an unnamed heckler in the crowd? Or did the author of "Matthew" simply paraphrase Psalms 22:8?

(Pslams 22:8) He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.

Of course there are many other such examples in the Bible, where the authors of the gospels simply turned to Old Testament verses to obtain the dialog for their fictional Jesus character as well as other characters in their stories. And this is why you find so many fulfilled prophecies in the New Testament. The authors knew of the prophecies in the Old Testament and wrote stories to fulfill them. And they did this believing that the prophecies must have been fulfilled, even if they weren't, because that's what Christian faith has always been about... being absolutely confident in your belief, even if you have no cause to be confident.

But the main point here is that no matter what you wish to claim about where the donkeys were or what Jesus appeared to know... IT'S STILL conspiracy to commit theft. So was Jesus without sin? Of course not. Even the fictional character of Jesus in the Bible is shown to commit several sins in the same book which then proclaims that he was without sin.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/20/2014 11:38:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/20/2014 7:47:42 PM, anchoredsoul101 wrote:


In John 2:15, again, take the whole context of the story, please. The Temple was God"s House. The design was for the worship of God. Jesus comes to the temple (HIS "HOUSE) and it has literally been turned into a store-atmosphere. People were buying and selling for individual gains in HIS house. In fact, He even addresses it in vs. 16: "Take these things hence: make not my Father"s house an house of merchandise." There you have it.

Oh, I am taking the whole story in context. What is it about Christians that causes them to believe if they say the word "context", they've presented an argument? Firstly, is it his house as you've claimed, or his father's house as the Bible has him claiming? I know... it's the whole Trinity fiasco - Christianity trying to claim monotheism, with a polytheistic base of gods.

But to cut more to the point... so what? If you come home and find people in your house without permission, doing something in your home which you feel desecrates your property, do you think that gives you permission to commit assault? I worked law enforcement for 30-years... it does not. It's still assault and they can still have you charged with a crime. You can have them charged with trespassing. It doesn't excuse your criminal action, nor does it excuse the criminal acts and hypocrisy of Jesus.

But since we're not talking about today's forms of legislation, let's look to a more pertinent claim from the Bible itself. What does the character of Jesus say about such things in his own teachings? He tells you to turn the other cheek. And if they steal one thing from you, allow them to take something else as well.

(Luke 6:29) And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also.

So that's what the Jesus character of the Bible teaches. But it's not what he does. He fashions a make-shift weapon and turns into a raving lunatic, chasing people about, flipping their tables over, dumping out their money, and drining their animals into the street.

So has Jesus violated his own teachings? You betcha!

Today we would call that; Assault, Criminal Damage and Disorderly Conduct.

Since Jesus taught pacifism, we can add the ethical faux pas of hypocrisy to the list. Now I understand that Jesus is a fictional character, but based on his character in the Bible, he most certainly WAS NOT without sin.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire