Radorth

So for today's puposes, the passages are undisputed and Remsburg and Doherty are full of crap? Jesus did exist then, but he did not work miracles? Is that today's conclusion by the "rational thinkers" here?

You guys should really come up with a story that indicates you actually employ some coherent standard of logic. Talk to Plebe and try again.

I hear Nicea is pleasant in the spring.

Rad

Sojourner553

Nice DESPARATE try, Radorth:

The NT is NOT clear that miracles were hard to come by. For OTHER miracle workers seemed to operate in Palestine during these times with no such problems:

That is,

At no time, did the gospel writers assert that the miracles of OTHER miracle workers were "tricks". Instead miracles were taken at face value as being absolutely real!

Indeed "False" prophets could perform great miracles, and Jesus is quoted by Matthew as concerned that "the very elect" might indeed become deceived by them:

And again,
That is, Jesus is here acknowledging that the disciples of
the Pharisees could ALSO cast out devils.

[I recommend you finding the actual verses than relying from memory -- It makes it much more difficult to make up stuff that way...]

** BTW: Why not show me YOUR sincerity by answering my questions:


So do you celebrate Christmas and worship on Sunday? Under what authority?

[this came from the pagan mystery religions]

Do you believe demons are the cause of all mental illnesses? Explain.

[this belief was probably "shared" with the pagan mystery religions].

Sojourner

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Radorth,

Now I accuse you directly of being insincere. Either that or you suffer from the misconception that "all atheists are exactly alike" (like you no doubt hate it when atheists say "all Christians are exactly alike". Therefore all of you think like Jerry Falwell or the pope).

I have stated in ALL my posts on this Board that I thought Jesus was likely a historical person! I noted earlier that I have had many posts where I have battled atheists over whether Jesus was historical or not.

Proving a person is historical does NOT make him a divine God -- otherwise Buddha would also be a god.

Care to prove differently?

Seems to me you are looking for an escape hatch.

Are you making that up too???


Sojourner

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

johnnybravo

How do we know that "West Side Story," "China Girl," and "A Bronx
Tale" all stem back to "Romeo and Juliette"? As a matter of fact, the
movie "Romeo and Juliette" starring Dicaprio from a few years back
differed quite a bit from the original play, yet still, somehow, we
know that this movie was based on that play. The story of the flood in
Genesis differs quite a bit from that which is found in the Epics of
Gilgamesh.


Was incarnation a novel idea, or already in the air at the time of paul?


Was the motif of a dieing and rising god in the air at the time of paul?

davidH

Sojourner553

Would you be so kind as to address my post up above?
- It would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers

davidH

Again Nogo,

Well avoided. It is obvious to everyone what you are doing.

Nogo, let me spell this out to you - ok.
I'm not being patronising or anything so don't get me wrong.

As far as I am concerned Jesus saying, "I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE" that verse supports Jesus being God.

Ok, this being so, I have proved my point. I showed all this stuff long ago when showing verses that supported the Trinity.

Now this is the problem;

You say this doesn't support the Trinity because Jesus is not claiming to be God, but that it is the Word that is God

ie. Your interpretation of what Jesus says.

Your interpretation differs from mine.
Whatever verses I put down you will say as you have already done.

"No, that is Jesus referring to the Word." or "No the Son of God is God but not Jesus" etc.

Wordsymth brought this up and has now left. He said the Word referred to God's commands you are saying that the Word is God.

Hence whatever verses I put up and all the verses that I have put up you have used this arguement.
But I have let you use it without you explaining it to me and where you get it from.

My last post has to be addressed by you Nogo otherwise you will keep on using this here - possibly fooling yourself.
Because it has got to the stage where you are tying yourself up in knots, contradicting yourself and avoiding clearly explaining to me what I mentioned in the post above.
I can't even understand now how you are justifying yourself. Firstly it's the obscure "Word" that you say doesn't mean Jesus but God, then the "Son of God" refers to God etc etc.

This makes me wonder Nogo,

What is the big deal in explaining to me exactly what you see the "Word" as etc.

It makes me wonder why you are trying to avoid this? - Way back on page 9 I first asked you to, but so far no answer.


For my interpretation is going to be contradicted by your interpretation and unless you justify all your claims (see post on page 9 etc) your contradictions are useless for they have no basis.


As for Jesus being God and you asking how the angels could be his companions.
A little Bible reading will help.
Angels are in heaven, God's throne is in heaven, God is with angels - therefore angels are God's companions.

If I am locked up in a jail cell in Africa and spend 1 year there, then my companions could be mice, insects, dogs, birds, fellow humans etc.
Companion doesn't mean the same as, it just means something that you are with or spend time with.

Have to go now, I hope I can get back soon.
Hope Sojourner can answer, and that Nogo can answer.

Sojourner553

So sorry I did not see your reference to me earlier:

I think you are asking (correct me if I am wrong) the following:

You have found verses in the New Testament that describe Jesus as a member of a Trinity. I think your position is that Jesus became less than all-powerful when he "metamorphasized" into human form. (Help me if I got that wrong, because I was posting with Radorth for awhile -- you're much nicer by the way.)

My response: Are you persuaded by OTHER religions texts that proclaim THEIR God as an all-powerful, even a member of the Trinity (for example the Hindu texts of a trinity)? If you drop the Trinity requirement, there are of course thousands of other religions and sects to choose from.

There are also ancient religions to choose from.

<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MYSTERY.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/MYSTERY.TXT</a>
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/index.html</a>

###########################################
Take an example: Let's say a guy named Frank is trying to persuade you and I that Vishnu (from India) and Krishna are the only "true" gods.

Let's say for proof they showed us the amazing miracles in their holy texts. They would note (correctly) that their holy texts are much older than Christianity. Their religion stresses moral goodness and living a virtuous life. Their religion promises a heavenly eternal existence for "believing" and becoming a practicing Hindu.

I suspect both you AND I would be looking at their religious texts for more OBJECTIVE proof. We might be even more skeptical if we found:

(1) Superstitious explanations of the nature of the world (examples: demons caused illnesses; witches exist; the earth is flat, etc)
(2) Contradictions within their holy texts and events and commandments (for example where two texts describe an event in contradicting ways so that both could not possibly be true.)
(3) Their history showed Hindu sects using their religion to keep the poor satisfied while the wealthy (rulers/priests) lived off their work.
(4)There was a lack of scientific/physical proof that ANY of their miracles have ever occurred. They were not able to display a current miracle either (that could not be repeated by a magician)


I suspect we would both be skeptical that Frank had truely found the real religion. We would be on the same side trying to RATIONALLY point out to Frank that he had no real proof -- he was just taking the superstitious stories in his Bible and believing them without even caring to "test" them.

The only difference between you and I, David, is that I am skeptical of just "one" more religion than you are(for the reasons listed in items 1-4)

Cheers to you too! (We don't all have to agree on everything afterall.)

My goal with you is just for you to "understand" the other side. I was once a very devout Christian myself before I began seriously reading/analyzing the Bible. Now I still consider myself devout (or spiritual). But I target this towards caring about people and humanity -- as opposed to substituting this with a theoretical God, whom other people too often twist to do evil.



Sojourner

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

NOGO

David, when we are through discussing the trinity I will explain all that you want to know about my interpretation of who Jesus was and who the Word was. For now we will focus on the trinity. What I object is that you are trying to defend the trinity by attacking my interpretation. That is a not right. The trinity must stand on its own.

As usual your answer above is hopelessly inadequate.

Hebrews 1:9
"YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS;
THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU
WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

This says that God has anointed Jesus/Word above HIS (your in the text) companions. That is Jesus/Word's companions.

Your answer is that God has anointed himself above his buddies in heaven which makes zero sense.

Now look at verse 5
For to which of the angels did He ever say,
"YOU ARE MY SON, TODAY I HAVE BEGOTTEN YOU"?
And again, "I WILL BE A FATHER TO HIM AND HE SHALL BE A SON TO ME"?

This says that the Word is considered at par with the angels since only he among the angels did God call his son.

According to your interpretation God here is comparing himself to the angels. Or one of the trinity of God is compared to the angels.

I asked you:
when was Jesus anointed above his companions?
When did he inherit the name of "Son of God"?

This is important because it will tell us when Hebrews 1:9 occurred. You have not answered.

Hebrews 1
4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

"having become" not "is"
How do you explain this? You tried the bit about Jesus resurrected above the angels but that does not fit in.

Verse 4 says that he became better than the angels to the EXTENT that he inherited a more excellent name.

So when did this occur?

This cannot have anything to do with Jesus because John 1 says that the Word created the world. So logically the Word was superior to the Angels way back when. Unless the angels are also capable of creating the world.

Do you now see the problem, David?

NOGO

Your interpretation of this verse is totally wrong. Just compare with John 17:22 "... that they may be one, just as we are one. Being "one" with somebody does not mean the trinity.

Verses John 14:10 and 12:44 are two verses which show that Jesus is not the Father. Your version of the Bible has been corrupted by the additions of words "just" or "not only" in order to align them with the doctrine of the trinity. Once you get a good translation you will need to explain these verses.

NAB
John 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own. The Father who dwells in me is doing his works.

NASB
John 12:44 And Jesus cried out and said, "He who believes in Me, does not believe in Me but in Him who sent Me.

You said
DavidH,
Yo Nogo - before you go accusing a certain translation or anything maybe you should check up the greek on that verse to see what it really means.

Yes David, why don't you do that. For John 12:44 Peter Kirby showed you the Greek versions. The conclusion is that the NIV does not translate but modifies.

[ October 01, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Actually my post was about 14:10.

Even if you don't know any Greek, that is no excuse for relying on a single translation (the NIV at that!), especially when the internet makes it so easy to compare versions.

best,
Peter Kirby