Soul Invictus

What material difference is a "begotten" son over the rest of humanity? I believe it was you who said earlier in this thread,

We are God's children, whats your point?

What is your point is what I ask you. If it's that Jesus is God's favorite son, I wouldn't agree with a conservative nepotism, however it wouldn't be problematic with respect to him choosing Jesus as an especial ideal choice for leadership, which is something I alluded to earlier in this thread.

If you are adamant that he is the Son of God, than to whom do you pay homage to, Jesus the Son or God the Father? You yourself have asserted that there clearly are two entities....the Father and his begotten son. Is your contention that they are equivalent?


When Jesus states that only his Father is good, I wonder his Trinitarians reconcile not worshipping at least two entities.
You quoted John's opinion that in the beginning was the Word and this "Word" is Jesus. With there being two entities, how is this not polytheistic?

cyclone

I know this is a belated response and perhaps no longer relevant, but I think it's important to point out that the Bible does in fact provide warrant for "judging" whether someone is a Christian or not. Consider 1 John 4:2, in which the author states: "Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God."

Historically this passage has served as a litmus test to adjudicate between true Christians and counterfeit believers. I take it for granted that Vinnie does't believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, and at least according to this author, this would imply that he is not a Christian.

Now if i happen to consider the Bible authoritative in these matters, then of course I'm inclined to think that Vinnie is not a Christian. But does this make me judgmental or arrogant? I don't think so, precisely because I'm simply faithfully representing the views of my source of authority.

Moreover, the term "Christian" must mean something in particular. I'm not sure if anyone has the right to morph the term to accomodate their own idiosyncracies. Most Muslims would be offended (and rightly so) if I decided to call myself a Muslim, but I refused to recognize that Allah is the one true God, or I refused to follow the five pillars of Islam. In so doing, I would not be representing the true beliefs of Islam; and in the same way, I think Vinnie is making the same mistake. Certainly he is free to believe whatever he wants, but it is unfair for him to call that "Christianity."

At least that's how I see it

edited by Toto to close quote tag

cyclone

Just to clarify, in the previous post only the first sentence is a quotation, whereas the remainder of the text is my response to that quote. Sorry if that was unclear, but I'm new at this and I just assumed that the system would make a clear distinction between the two in my reply. I tried editing the mistake to no avail. If anyone can tell me how to avoid this in the future, it would be much appreciated.

Dark Jedi

i've heard this response before.

Chapter and verse?
I ask because when you try to point out timeline inconsistencies in the bible, you are told that it is not a chronological work... Thus there has to be a verse that tells you this or you cannot assert such a thing. Without addressing the faulty timelines, that is....

Mageth

The caveat is is that your judgment depends on your particular interpretation of the passage you quote as a litmus test. For one thing, it's talking about judging spirits, not people. For another, and more importantly, what does it mean to acknowledge "that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh"? You interpret it to mean to acknowledge that Jesus was "God in the flesh", which it does not explicitly say, and is indeed open to interpretation in other ways.

Dark Jedi

brings to mind the famous photo of Roosevelt holding up the New York Times with the headline "Dewey Wins!"

one who reports what they see can go wrong. What's to say that the bible we hold today wasn't the copy that was meant to be destroyed when things didn't trun out the way the chroniclers predicted?

Doctor X

Truman.

Ironic that this event occured sooner than the time that elapsed between the events and the composition of some of the NT texts.

--J.D.

cyclone

Originally posted by Mageth


Actually I never claimed this was *my* interpretation of the passage; rather, that historically the Christian church has interpreted it that way. And given that reality, it is unfair for Vinnie to reject the doctrine of the incarnation and still insist that he is a Christian.

As for whether this interpretation is correct, I think it's possible to show that it is, but more on that later.

Mageth

Originally posted by cyclone
Actually I never claimed this was *my* interpretation of the passage; rather, that historically the Christian church has interpreted it that way.

OK, so it's your chosen interpretation - the one you choose to believe, though not original to you (which I did not mean to imply, BTW). Other interpretations are out there available to be selected for one reason or another, no doubt.

And given that reality, it is unfair for Vinnie to reject the doctrine of the incarnation and still insist that he is a Christian.

That doesn't follow. It still boils down to your (and Vinnie's, no doubt) "chosen" interpretation of what it means to be a "Christian".

As for whether this interpretation is correct, I think it's possible to show that it is, but more on that later.

And, no doubt, it's also possible to show that it's not. That's a big problem with the Bible - it can, and has been, interpreted in many different ways. Which interpretation you accept depends on which you choose to believe (in your case, the choice apparently hinges on Church tradition, assuming that the Church must be right).

In any case, you're basically just making a No True Scotsman argument.

Dark Jedi

No problem. So, you a real newbie, or sock puppet?

Just seems a bit suspicious to pop in to a strong ongoing discussion, supporting (indirectly, at least) the one who has disappeared and was getting his butt handed to him.....

It's not like that has ever been the sign of a sock puppet before.