1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Who do YOU say Jesus is?

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Spartan, May 3, 2019.

  1. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,532
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Then let's test that.

    Offer a better method of exploring the question, What's true in reality? than reasoned enquiry, honest and transparent argument from examinable evidence.

    To be clear, when I say reality, I mean objective reality ─ the world external to the self, nature, the realm of the physical sciences.

    And as for truth, a statement is true to the extend that it conforms to / corresponds with / accurately reflects objective reality.

    Go!
     
  2. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,033
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Didn’t you just posit that anything beyond human reasoning is nonsense, an unproven premise you expected us to accept on faith rather than evidence?

    So “a mystery in the strict sense is the same thing as a nonsense”. As I stated before, you do have a sense of humor Blu.

    This is why we dally at the crossroads. Eventually discussions between skeptics and Christians come to this point.

    Yet I’m having great difficulty finding any reputable scholar who agrees with your rather peculiar analysis of the biblical text (even from the ranks of Sabellianists and Arians) and little difficulty finding scholars to defend mine. It’s most peculiar.

    Given the lack of scriptural and scholarly support for the heresies you’ve espoused we can certainly understand why.



    We explained how you can answer these verses yourself Blu. Is Jesus speaking as a man or is he speaking as God? If he can do nothing of his own accord, and can do nothing on his own authority, then he is speaking as a man. The distinction you have to make is that Jesus is also Divine. You are also a man, yet you can do pretty much anything on your own accord, whilst Jesus could not, and you can do anything you had a mind to do, whilst Jesus could not.

    Jesus "could not" because as a man he is subject to the Father. Thus he does the will of the Father who sent him.

    Notice that Jesus said if ye believe in God, believe also in me. That's blasphemy unless Jesus is God. We do not put faith in prophets, but in He from whom the prophets are sent.

    Great! So who do you say Jesus was prior to his incarnation? Was he an angel ? A divine being that could say “I Am”? Little God junior? Or do you take Peter’s approach, and simply say you have no idea who Jesus is at all?

    So who or what was Jesus prior to his incarnation?

    Again and again I get you to try to answer the question yourself rather than just spell it out for you. The reason I do that is that you are much more likely to believe an answer you arrive at then if I simply state it here on this forum.

    So I’ll ask another question since you’re unable to answer my prior. If one knows Jesus Christ, does one know God also? If you can answer that, you can answer John 17:3.

    Okay. So we agree the Father is God. Nothing new to understand here folks…let’s keep it moving.

    Nah. The Trinity doctrine shows scripture to be logical.

    All men are to worship the Father. We just agreed the Father is God, did we not?

    Correct. He’s not a false God.

    Let’s not get confused as to who is saying what here. This is something Blü states, not me or the gospel authors.

    Enough rabbit holes! This is simply “busy work” you want me to chase, was addressed in my last post and ventures far from thread theme.

    Sheesh! Okay, since you insist:

    It means they’re are one. If you know Jesus, you also know God. If you know God you know Jesus.

    Actually it means the converse.

    I'm not going to argue with that. John 1:1 states the same.

    Now, who is the Word?

    Correct, and this is an important distinction you’ve made here. As scripture states, “The Father and I are one” but never “The Father and I are the same”. One God but 3 distinct (not individual) persons.
     
  3. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,185
    Ratings:
    +164
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yeah, I did, in Post #318. And they weren't wild claims.

    Are you a Jehovah's Witness who believes Jesus was once the Archangel Michael?
     
  4. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,033
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Actually all the verses I’ve seen lead me to the same idea. There were over 150 of them in all, so I wouldn’t refer to them as a “few”.



    It’s not at all surprising to me, because Jesus is God and man. It should be surprising to you, because Jesus is only a man.

    Let’s go back to Num 23:19 and exegete this properly.

    1. God is not a man, that he should lie

    2. Neither the son of man, that he should repent.

    This verse tells us that men sin and need to repent. So if scripture is telling you that all men need to sin and repent it should certainly surprising to learn of a man who does neither.

    This does not mean Num 23:19 is lying, nor does it give us license to declare some men don't sin in direct contrast to scripture that tells us all men sin. Men sin, and Num 23:19 is correct. So we need something more than man that he should not lie, and something more than man that he should not have to repent in order to end up with an unblemished lamb.

    You are presupposing that Num 23:19 doesn't apply to all men, that there are certain exceptions, when there are none.Quite simply, if Jesus was just man then any verse that applies to you and me would also apply to him. God does not show favoritism (Romans 2:11) so there is not one set of scripture for us and another set of scripture for someone else. Scripture applies equally to everyone, no matter the man.

    With that in mind, lets look at some more:

    9 What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written:
    None is righteous, no, not one;
    11 no one understands;
    no one seeks for God.
    12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
    no one does good,
    not even one.Romans 3

    Wasn’t Jesus a Jew? So how does Paul, writing under the Spirit, tells us that there is NO Jew, not even one, who is righteous, and that no one does good, not even one???

    Perhaps Paul was mistaken? Or should we side with the skeptics, and decide Paul simply had no idea who or what he was talking about?

    Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin. Romans 3:20

    Didn’t Christ obey the Law? Isn’t Christ righteous? Does “no one” actually mean “no one” to you or does it mean something else?

    All men sin, so being a man, even an extraordinary man, does not qualify you to be a lamb without blemish:

    "When they sin against You (for there is no man who does not sin) and You are angry with them and deliver them to an enemy, so that they take them away captive to the land of the enemy, far off or near (1 King 8:46)​

    You appear to miss the forest for the trees.

    Being an extraordinary man does not mean you do not sin. In fact 1 King 8:46 tells us there are no men that do not sin. Neither Num 23:16 nor 1 King 8:46 have a footnote with exceptions for extra ordinary men. Why are you creating or inserting one here?

    And yes, Jesus was a man. No one here is arguing that point so pointing this out when we already agree is pointless.

    But he had to be more than man to not sin.

    Look, I think you would agree that Adam was extraordinary when it comes to men. Yet he still sinned. Creating a 2nd Adam but expecting different results would be the very definition of insanity. Remember, God created Eve too. She sinned, and Adam followed suit!

    He called himself God when he said before a Jewish audience that before Abraham was born, I am! @Spartan pointed that out and made it abundantly clear, so what is your response?

    Who do you say “I AM” is? @blü 2 essentially argues that "I am" is an incomplete sentence because he didn't finish it off with "God". Do you agree? Perhaps the Jews acted hastily, picking up stones before they gave Jesus a chance to finish his sentence? What of Moses? Should the Jews have been a little more inquisitive when they heard "I AM" sent him? Perhaps Moses wandered off before God could complete His sentence?

    This sentence you gave is a knot. Did you mean to say something else?

    Since God is giving glory to Jesus, then whose glory is God giving? Some angel's? All praise and glory belong to God does it not?

    Glory belongs to God, whose power is at work in us. Ephesian 3:20​

    That’s pretty clear… “Glory belongs to God”. Not some glory, not most glory, just plain glory…and it belongs to God. We do not give glory to another because He does not share the glory with anyone. If he did we could have idols and worship God through that idol. That didn't work prior to Jesus being born, and it certainly wouldn't work after his ascension.

    Now let's read another verse:

    All honor and glory to God forever and ever! He is the eternal King, the unseen one who never dies; he alone is God. Amen
    Before we go on, we need to answer a question. How much glory is ALL? Is it some glory or all glory? Do you have an answer? Good! Hold on to it. Remember He alone is God and it ALL belongs to him.

    Now read one more, and this will end if for the "glory" series:

    And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. John 17:5

    How on earth or heaven could Jesus have HIS OWN GLORY when it ALL belongs to God? This is not glory Jesus "earned while on earth", it's glory he already had!

    There is ONLY one answer @rrobs: JESUS IS GOD.

    When you point out these verses to Unitarians, suddenly all doesn't really mean "all". What do you say?

    If Jesus is just man, and he states that looking upon him is the same as looking upon God, then you have an idol. The Jews tried that before with they attempted to worship God through the calf, remember? Pharoahs have tried it, Caesars have tried it, Jesus did not.

    There is no one "like" God (Isaiah 46:9) so there is no one who can say that when you look at them you’re looking at God. That includes any man or any calf. The only way Jesus gets a pass on saying something like this is if he’s not only man but also God. Anything or anyone less than God is an idol.

    Correct. He's also a jealous God and doesn't want us worshiping any McGod's. Also I think He would take a very dim view of anyone claiming to be "I am!".

    You arrive at the end and works your way back rrobs. I need you to start at the beginning. Why is Jesus making all these fantastic claims BEFORE he's CRUCIFIED rather than AFTER?

    So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you.

    Before Abraham was born, I am!

    Truly, truly, I tell you, whatever you ask the Father in My name, He will give you.

    There is a lot of misunderstanding about the Trinity and this is one of them. The doctrine does NOT state that God and Jesus are “equal in all ways”. It simply isn’t in the doctrine.

    Jesus as man is subordinate to the Father. Jesus as God is not subordinate to anyone.

    How many times and how many examples have we given on this thread that spell out clear distinctions within the Trinity? Any reading of the doctrine will tell you the same.

    There are many distinctions between man and God. For instance, God doesn’t lie but man does. God doesn’t need to repent, but man does. Number 23:19 makes this clear, so if Jesus is just man, he lies and needs to repent no matter how extraordinary he or other people think he is. We do not have two sets of scriptures, one for Jesus the man, and another for "all other" men. Remember "no one" actually means "no one" (Romans 3:20). I'm not sure how Unitarians can twist these verses around to reverse engineer a person that scripture explicitly states couldn't possibly be there.

    No twist, just simple exegesis. We look upon scripture as a whole, not isolated into separate silos ready to be fired off in the form of a proof text. I’d like to see Unitarians be a bit more critical with their exegesis. This would require diligent analysis and less presumptive reasoning. :)

    But here is another question for you, the same one I posed to Blu:

    Who do you say Jesus was prior to his birth? Was he in the loins of Joseph, or in heaven? If heaven, was he a man, an angel, another God, or some kind of spirit "creature"?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,532
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    An unproven premise is entirely different to 'beyond human reasoning', just as 'the bus will leave at 6.20 pm today' is entirely different to '1+1+1=1'.
    And as I stated before, your answer shows you don't understand what a 'mystery in the strict sense' is.
    Ah, if only you'd stayed away from those truthless apologists and actually looked at the texts. Pity.
    Heresy is a political tool, the enforcement of the views of the team in power, certainly not interested in what's true in reality. For that reason many apologists are fond of it. 'The supernatural', being an imaginary realm, has no objective test for 'truth'. Arguments based on the wording of texts can however give such a basis.
    Come, let us reason together.

    Is Jesus God? Well, he declares that the Father is 'the only true God' and that the Father is the god he worships, so Jesus can't be God.

    So is Jesus speaking as God? Nope, he's ruled that out. But as God's envoy he can, I dare say, speak for his principal.
    I don't see how the words of God's envoy can be blasphemy, since Jesus is simply assuring his audience of the source of his authority.
    A divine being of some kind, possibly called 'the Son' who wasn't God. John's Jesus makes that clear.

    So does Paul, in a passage for which I'm indebted to @rrobs

    1 Corinthians 15:27 “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.
    28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.​
    Yes, of course. We have

    John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."​

    and this is more fully explained in

    John 17:20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

    So the Father tells Jesus what to do, and Jesus does it. The Father, after all, is 'the only true god', and the god Jesus worships.
    Not just God but in Jesus' words, 'the only true god' AND the god Jesus worships. But you knew that, if only because I already said it above.
    Where does it say "One God but 3 distinct (not individual) persons"?

    Or is it just you saying that?
     
  6. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,532
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    No, that's not what I said. Instead I pointed out that "I am" would have to be an incomplete sentence before it could provide what you still lack, any statement from Jesus "I am God". As I told you more than once, it refers instead to Jesus as a being who has resided in Heaven with God from the start, part of the gnostic views that the author of John shares with Paul.

    (And for @rrobs).
     
    #326 blü 2, May 17, 2019
    Last edited: May 17, 2019
  7. rrobs

    rrobs Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2018
    Messages:
    938
    Ratings:
    +215
    Religion:
    Christian
    Uncle! I give up. Not that I now think Jesus is God (the idea is actually repulsive to me), but that I realize at this point in your walk you prefer tradition over truth. When Jesus is made into a God-man creature then admittedly all the things trinitarians say is true. They can always fall back on the "man part" for this or the "God part" for that, whatever is convenient.

    Nonetheless, I predict that one day you will see the true greatness of God's plan for redemption and the love Jesus had in carrying it out by his own free will and not because he was God and thus had no real choice in the matter.

    God bless...
     
    #327 rrobs, May 18, 2019
    Last edited: May 18, 2019
  8. Ancient Soul

    Ancient Soul The Spiritual Universe

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2018
    Messages:
    464
    Ratings:
    +123
    Religion:
    None
    You did NO such thing.

    I replied to your baseless comment about JESUS, so switching tracks and trying to "refute" my comments with a verse about DAVID is, well, kind of makes me wonder if you are even worth debating with. As replying to you is more like a game of dodge ball.
     
  9. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,185
    Ratings:
    +164
    Religion:
    Christian
    I just looked at Post # 318 again and it was fine. You have something else bothering you?
     
  10. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,033
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian

    Granted, but for Blu to allege he had suddenly become both does requires a certain sense of humor.


    I would disagree with your premise. Scripture has been of tremendous value to believer and unbeliever alike, shaping our morality and heavily influencing our culture, politics and history.


    I mentioned why on another thread, but in a nutshell:

    Blu is able to argue as if scripture were authoritative to him. This requires either a good deal of intellect or a certain amount of empathy which is rare. If you read his postings you can sometimes forget you're arguing with a skeptic. I think it's something that should be encouraged even if I mostly disagree with his conclusions.

    Secondly, but importantly for my purposes, he asks good, logical, challenging questions of the Trinity which help showcase how and why the doctrine survived the many heresies confronting the early church.


    There are Christians and non-Christians alike who reject that Jesus is God. The point here is to show that scripture doesn’t do the same.



    I think we can all agree that many people have put words Christ never spoke into his mouth, and that this has been going on long before your 35 years, even before any of us were born.



    We were made in the image of God, but we’re not replicas. God is Spirit, while man is flesh and bones. Nevertheless we have a certain amount of His attributes, just not all of them. We have a spirit but we're not made of it.

    Agreed.

    Correct. God is not made in our image but we in His.

    With the exception of magical power I would agree. Magical infers demonic power to me. I realize to others it may infer something else.


    While Jesus never had a spouse, engaged in sex or divorce (despite claims to the contrary) many men have never experienced these things either, and yet count themselves among the body of men. Certainly if God is in the Unitarian mode He is aloof and impersonal, hiding Himself behind the Son, always observing but never quite personally experiencing the things you’ve mentioned.

    I do believe he was born, had parents, had siblings, friends, and experienced heart break, cold, heat, hunger and a number of other things. As Jesus the man, God experienced all of these things first hand and invited us to form a personal relationship with Him.

    We have His attributes but not all of them. For instance, we have grace, mercy and intellect but not omniscience. Some of these attributes are shared by animals.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,033
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    I would respectfully disagree. Historically, Skepticism questions the certainty of knowledge. In other words, it denies we can be certain about anything, so in its most extreme form states we should suspend judgement about everything, because arriving at any certainty of knowledge would be impossible.

    Skepticism has its adherents but I would question (be skeptical) as to whether it has any broad appeal. Of course, if anyone here is a true skeptic, they would also question any claim of broad, but to a narrow or focused appeal as well.

    However there are new forms of skepticism which have arisen since the 17th and 18th centuries with the rise of the scientific method. IMO, Blu makes argument for Empiricism as witnessed by his avocation for scientific methods of inquiry. But modern science makes no claim that it has proven or disproven God through empirical study.

    Besides, there is little evidence that advances in empiric methods of inquiry leads to disbelief in God. Religion continues to grow, not shrink despite what can only be said are some rather amazing advances in technology and science.

    Again I want to make it clear that I don’t doubt scientific inquiry has helped explain our external world, but I certainly do question that it has, can, or will explain all of it. I also question the underlying vanity (or arrogance, depending on one's POV) that the actual external world has somehow been made subject to human external sense or reason. To my knowledge, no reputable scientist has ever made such a claim nor have I seen objective evidence to support it.

    As far as justice and the rule of law, this is a “bias” also supported in scripture from the time of Moses, long before the Greeks came into the picture. So whether it’s in the form of philosophy or modern day empiricism, Skepticism is rather late to the party and IMO, would be properly stand towards the end of the line.

    I believe Skepticism can be traced back to the early Greeks, but there have always been skeptics. We have skeptics who claim the earth is flat, that the lunar landing was faked, even those who question whether the holocaust ever happened. Like any endeavor, it has its share of wins and losses.

    However, I really don’t want to get into a long discussion of Skepticism, Empiricism or even Rationalism. IMO, it’s simply one of those discussions that can drag the whole day long and as stated previously, I barely have time to post here. It would make an interesting discussion but it’s rather far afield from thread theme.

    Totally agree! :)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Oeste

    Oeste Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2015
    Messages:
    1,033
    Ratings:
    +389
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, they’re both different, but neither is unreasonable, neither the unproven premise nor something ‘beyond’ human reasoning. As stated earlier, the notion everything is ‘within’ human reasoning is a human vanity.


    My answer is in keeping with the historic Church. As for yours, who knows?

    Lol, if only you'd stay away from @It Aint Necessarily So. Pity.

    Heresy is simply unsound doctrine. I would agree that it can be used as a political tool.

    Not in Christianity. We've handed skeptics, especially empiricists,all the tools necessary to show whether the supernatural exists or not.

    I'll agree with that.


    Then Jesus misspoke. Instead of saying “I am” he should have said, “the Father is” or some such thing.

    There's simply no getting around that Jesus was speaking to a Jewish audience and that he was speaking of himself, not of his Father. Your assertion only makes half-sense if we strip Jesus’ comments from their context.

    That’s how idols are made., something strictly prohibited under scripture.

    You can't say "I am!" in front of a Jewish audience and point to a statue. Ditto for any man, and certainly for any man pointing to himself.


    That would make it impossible to resolve these verse:

    Revelation 22:8-9

    I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed me these things. But he said to me, "Do not do that I am a fellow servant of yours and of your brethren the prophets and of those who heed the words of this book. Worship God."

    Matthew 4:9-10

    and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me." Then Jesus said to him, "Go, Satan! For it is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD, AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

    Luke 4:7-8

    "Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours." Jesus answered him, "It is written, 'YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.'"

    Romans 1:25

    For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

    Colossians 2:18

    Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind,​

    This is Christ’s functional subjection to the Father and has nothing to do with his nature or being. Christ came to live as man on earth and not to live as God on earth. That’s something Satan wanted Jesus to do. As a man he is subject to the Father but as God He is subject to no one.

    Again, look to the verse and see whether it speaks of Jesus as a man, or as God.

    "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent

    Nothing here conflicts with Trinitarian understanding of the Triune God. There is only one true God and Christ was most certainly sent.

    Remember the context here. Christ is speaking as a man.


    My goodness, it's all over the biblical text! When Marie Antoinette's head came rolling off the guillotine nobody had to ask "Is she dead?"

    @Spartan gave plenty of verses showing Jesus is Jehovah. Nobody's refuted that. I'd pull out the post for you but I can hardly keep my eyes open. It's late.
     
  13. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,185
    Ratings:
    +164
    Religion:
    Christian
    Here's the link on Jesus Must be Jehovah

    Jesus Must be Jehovah
     
  14. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,532
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    The question is, 'What's true in reality?' Where else than reality should you, can you, look for information on that question?
    The reason for this strongly appears to be that gods are not elements of reality, existing only in the imagination of individuals. One striking piece of evidence for that is the total absence of a definition of a real god, such that if we found a candidate we could determine whether it were God or not. This comes hand in glove with the absence of a definition of 'godness', the real quality a real god would have that a real superscientist ─ or a real teaspoon or a real dachshund ─ would lack.

    Without such definitions, what is science supposed to be looking for, what's the proposition that's to be shown to be an accurate statement about reality or not?
     
  15. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    4,532
    Ratings:
    +2,685
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    What test do you use to tell whether anything is outside of human reasoning? I can't think of one. Yet without one, every incoherent statement is suddenly declared to be true, accurate, satisfactory, in your book ─ by virtue of being incoherent. Strongly disagree.
    Your understanding is not 'in keeping with the historic Church' unless you understand why the Trinity doctrine 'cannot be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, and cannot be cogently demonstrated by reason when revealed'. The clear demonstration of your failure to understand is that all your purported explanations of the doctrine try to make sense.
    No, once again you haven't given any meaningful definition, this time of 'supernatural', 'immaterial', 'spiritual' at all ─ again, such that if we encountered an example, we could tell whether or not it was indeed supernatural, immaterial, spiritual, or as the case may be.
    Why would Jesus' saying 'I am' be inconsistent with the proposition, found in Paul and John, that Jesus existed in heaven from the start with God, and was indeed God's agent in creating the universe?

    And that reminds me of another point. In Matthew 28:18, the risen Jesus says, 'All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me,' (ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς). First, who gave Jesus that authority? Second, that leaves the Father and the Ghost powerless, not each 100% of God ─ indeed, why need anyone every mention either of them again?.
    Ahm, why would the angel saying 'Worship God' rule out Jesus as God's envoy. God doesn't have just the one envoy, after all.

    And why would Satan bother with Jesus if Jesus were god? God doesn't need all the kingdoms of the world. So it makes perfect sense for Jesus to tell him to stop clowning around and get on with worshiping their common boss.

    And so on.
    "This is Christ’s functional subjection to the Father and has nothing to do with his nature or being." I'm trying to think of the theological word for your proposition ─ is that 'bunkum', would you say, or 'balderdash'?


    Anyway, this topic is getting boring, so when you reply, just give me those definitions ─ they're the only interesting things here after all this time.
     
  16. We Never Know

    We Never Know Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2019
    Messages:
    2,179
    Ratings:
    +709
    Religion:
    It exists
    Is he Rob Zombie?

     
  17. It Aint Necessarily So

    It Aint Necessarily So Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2017
    Messages:
    5,243
    Ratings:
    +5,364
    Religion:
    None
    Perhaps, but I can't find value in it. I turn to it for nothing.

    I think that political theory (and hence culture and the human condition) took a quantum leap forward with Enlightenment such as democracy, limited and divided government, church-state separation, egalitarianism, and guaranteed personal freedoms replaced the biblical model and the doctrine of the divine right of kings.

    I thought that blu made a compelling case for there being multiple scriptures supporting the idea that Jesus never claimed to be God. You showed contradictory scriptures. That's common. The Bible makes both claims.

    As I argued, I think that I am more in the image of a chimp than the god of the Christian Bible. The chimp an I are both mortal, were both born, experience fear and hunger, etc.. If a chimp could speak, we could compare the human condition to the chimp condition and commiserate on the similarities - how we both cared about feeding and protecting our young, and taking shelter from the elements. If there was a god nearby listening in, what could the god add? What it's like to make a universe? You mentioned that we are in His image intellectually, but I suspect that we would be closer to the chimp in intellect than to an omniscient god.

    Yes, the educated rational skeptic understands that very little knowledge is certain, and that philosophical doubt must be maintained in all cases except possible doubting one's own conscious existence.

    The most salient feature of skepticism is its rejection of received wisdom and instead, believe only that which can be supported empirically (with evidence properly understood). As I indicated, it has been one of the most fruitful notions in man's intellectual history. Question revealed wisdom. It's an ancient precept :

    "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conductive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." - Buddha

    Skepticism underlies the sciences. Although people would be well advised to be skeptical themselves, they will benefit from the advances brought on by the skepticism of others even if they continue to prefer received wisdom to verified claims.

    I'm not sure what you mean, but if you are suggesting being skeptical of skepticism, I would say that I have been, and the practice has enough evidence to justify continuing it. Being skeptical has paid off time and again, where taking the words of others on faith has been costly. That's evidence of the value of the principle.

    Reconsider the point made above about rejecting the received wisdom of the Bible commanding man to submit to earthly rulers appointed by God. Skepticism says show me. If you can't show me a god commanding this, there is no reason to assume that it happened. Skepticism says maybe there are better ways to govern, And going down that road has paid tremendous dividends.

    Skepticism says throw out the received wisdom about the stars controlling the lives of men and your sterile horoscopes, and instead fix your gaze to heavens and decide how the world works not from received wisdom, but empirically. And with that, the useless astology became the very successful science of astronomy

    That's the evidence in support of the principle of skepticism.

    You should question that. That's skepticism. We'll take all of the help we can get from science, and thank it for what it has accomplished rather than berate it for what it has not.
     
Loading...