One argument against the divinity of Jesus

[barnasha]

Sure, theoretically. But God isn't comprised of two gods, He is three persons in one.

not our god,
... maybe yours

[cbacavis]

not our god,
... maybe yours

Well, great. Have fun with that dogma of yours.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

That's an impossibility

What is impossible, to come to the conclusion that Jesus was God simply from his actions alone?

[cbacavis]

What is impossible, to come to the conclusion that Jesus was God simply from his actions alone?

You, for some reason, cherry-pick only very small portions of what I ever say; then you focus in on those particular few words you can remark about as if they're all that I said.

It is not impossible to come to conclusion that Jesus is God simply from his actions. I know you don't believe that (and you've never told me why you don't believe it; you just tell me that you simply don't), but I do believe it and I provided the applicable passages in post #87... You're telling me I can't use the scriptural texts that talk about Jesus' actions in order to determine what his actions were. That's ridiculous - Ibn Abu Talib, can you tell me about the actions of your god or your prophet Mohammed or any figure in your faith without referring to any of your scriptures? Don't you believe that all of those answers are only contained in those scriptures?

Your answers are absurd and I won't address them any more until you address mine.

Thank you.

[barnasha]

Well, great. Have fun with that dogma of yours.

ok.. see you in the Christian forum

peace

[Huguenot]

What is impossible, to come to the conclusion that Jesus was God simply from his actions alone?

So, this proves that Allah was working through Jesus, or that Allah gave him a secret mystical permission to perform miracles?

John 12:37 NIV But though He had performed so many signs before them, yet they were not believing in Him; 38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spoke, "Lord, who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?" - See Isaiah 53:1 NIV

v 39 For this cause they could not believe, for Isaiah said again, 40 "He has blinded their eyes, and He HARDENED THEIR HEART; lest they see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, and be converted, and I heal them." 41 These things Isaiah said, because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him - See Isaiah 6:10 NIV

[Huguenot]

What does to "exist" mean? it brings up the whole ontological question.

If you say God exists, what does that mean? The god, the thing you worship, exists as a reference point in your mind.

In the case of Abraham's god, the object of that worship does not 'exist', in a sense of being created.

Your POV and this post reveals that you're a Non-Theist or Anti-Theistic IMO.

LOL

[ApologiaPhoenix]

I did, by asking you what I missed.. if you want a response to something you should be able to clarify what it is. I am patient.

The reply I made to you in Post 39. Only two parts got answered.

I say it "hints" - actually demands - otherwise, by the very crux of the Abrahamic mythology.

If there is a plurality, why stop at 3? 7 is a sacred number, too. And 72. Ask the jews.

Because three is the number that has been revealed.

For example?

That there was no precedent for the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicea (Which really wasn't arranged over the Trinity) or that the concept of Trinitarianism is a three-part God. Also, that Nicea destroyed all the previous Trinity concepts and that the first place the Trinity shows up is "God, his Word, his Wisdom."

sorry, what is?

Assuming unipersonalism.

Ok

I'm curious what you mean by "Jesus is Almighty"?

That he does possess omnipotence in his deity.

I don't know

Then why mention it?

What case does it make stronger?

That the early church got the Trinity from the NT.

Why should I make vague characterizations based on who someone is or where they came from or what religion they are? I'm sure I agree with them in some places and disagree in others, I would never assume and make decisions based on politics or categories rather than a thorough understanding of the matter - there seems to be no matter here, just that the church fathers had some interpretations and I'm supposed to make a categorical admission of what I think of their interpretations as a whole as "wrong" or "not wrong" ?

Saying someone is wrong is hardly vague. If they taught the deity of Christ, are you going to say they were wrong or not wrong?

[QUOTE} where? [/QUOTE]

You're the one who knows. Not me.

well your theology aside, when someone says the word "person" it usually refers to a person, not a god.

And the word person means?

and for the record, I grew up in a very christian part of a very english speaking country, in a christian family, so I have a little authority here.

And what education was given on the doctrine of the Trinity?

[QUOTE] like meaning something theological (which is your position here, not mine) ? [/QUOTE}

It's a debate in philosophy before we move it over to theology.

too many to enumerate in a discussion forum, not that I'd ever think that would be a worthwhile use of my time -- even if it were somehow relevant or useful.

Can't even name the most important ones?

What does "co-equal" mean, in clear language?

It means they're both equal in essence.

that's what I was hoping you would explain...

Look at the text again then and consider what it says.

Well, if I said "the trinity" was "made up at that council" that would obviously be incorrect.

Fortunately in this thread some people have clarified the historical purpose of the council, to which I have had no objections,

Back to the discussion at hand,

What I always find interesting about the history of the trinity, is that Theophilus did not view God as a trinity. Theophilus considered God as a part of a trinity.

At what point was it that the trinity itself became God (or however you want to put it)?

Could you demonstrate this with the source from Theophilus and the date of the writing?

[barnasha]

The reply I made to you in Post 39. Only two parts got answered.

The only question i saw in the second half of that post was from the following exchange:

The first place "the trinity" shows up in Christian history it is as
"God, His Word and His Wisdom."

Got a source?

Is there something else there you would like to more properly address?

The source to what I mentioned is Theophilus's "To Autolycus", chapter 15.

Because three is the number that has been revealed.

Revealed how, specifically-- and to whom?

Is there something specific you would like a source for ?

Yes. Any claims of yours involving church history.

For example?

That there was no precedent for the doctrine of the Trinity at Nicea (Which really wasn't arranged over the Trinity) or that the concept of Trinitarianism is a three-part God. Also, that Nicea destroyed all the previous Trinity concepts and that the first place the Trinity shows up is "God, his Word, his Wisdom."

I don't think I claimed that there was "no precedent for [a] doctrine" concerning a trinity at Nicea, nor that a concept of "Trinitarianism" must be of a "three part God" (although trinity does mean three things...).

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, probably because you're more familiar with Paul's writings than I. Are you trying to imply that the Messiah (who is a person foretold of in prophecy) and God Almighty (which created the universe, macro and micro, in which people are able to live) is somehow the exact same thing? Or are you saying Paul worships Jesus the Messiah as his God?

Which is again what I said you were doing earlier.

sorry, what is?

Assuming unipersonalism.

I am unfamiliar with that theological term, but regardless of that, I would ask as to why did you not answer any of the questions?

It's called unipersonalism. When I say Jesus is God, I am using theological shorthand. I do not mean that Jesus is the Trinity. I mean that Jesus fully possesses the nature of God. However, Jesus is Almighty and Paul did worship the Messiah as God.

I'm curious what you mean by "Jesus is Almighty"?

That he does possess omnipotence in his deity.

I am not referring to his deity. That you consider him to have deity or to be one is something specific to your belief system that may not be in common with mine.

I am simply referring to the individual, the man.

Anyway, Paul did not worship the messiah as a god as far as I can tell, although I remember one case where it seems like the greek says Jesus or Christ is a god. However that contradicts, besides the fact that Paul was a religious Jew, his other writings which clearly distinguish between God, Christ, and Jesus... things that amongst most become very, very fuzzy....

you're right, but the council of Nicea's point was to quash any theological differences within the church. what came out of that time period was a the new triune god, which was something not taught by any of the original church fathers, Jesus, or Paul, who were strictly monotheistic (never asserting god had divisible or categorizable natures).

Um. The Trinity is strictly monotheistic. Please tell me again your sources on church history. Note how many times in Pauline thought for instance that Paul goes from the Spirit of God to the Spirit of Christ and notice how many passages in the OT speaking of God, Paul applies to Christ.

The ECF got the Trinity straight out of making sense of the writings of the apostles in the NT.

I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at, probably because you're more familiar with Paul's writings than I. Are you trying to imply that the Messiah (who is a person foretold of in prophecy) and God Almighty (which created the universe, macro and micro, in which people are able to live) is somehow the exact same thing? Or are you saying Paul worships Jesus the Messiah as his God?

Paul saw himself as an apostle of Jesus:
"Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timotheus our brother," (Col 1:1)

Yep. An apostle of Jesus goes against my belief in what way?

I don't know

Then why mention it?

because we were - at least I was - talking about Paul and Jesus and what they worshipped, and how it relates to the starkest differences between the Christian and religious Jewish theologies, namely the Trinity doctrine.

Yes, they got their ideas out of MAKING SENSE OF the writings attributed to the apostles...

I capitalized the operative words in that sentence

Good. It only makes my case stronger.

What case does it make stronger?

That the early church got the Trinity from the NT.

Noone is arguing that they did not base their ideas of the trinity off the writings of the NT. If that is your case you are making it for no reason.

Basing your ideas off something (asserting implicit meaning) instead of deriving them from consulting it (explicit meaning) is entirely different.

I am not saying your idea of the Trinity is inherently invalid, I am saying that one cannot flatly assume it was the teaching of Paul and/or Jesus without any good reason to do so. This is more of a matter of history than philosophical or theological applicability. I can think of many trinities which work well philosophically and theologically, and find bases for them in the scriptures.

Saying someone is wrong is hardly vague. If they taught the deity of Christ, are you going to say they were wrong or not wrong?

If deity meant we should worship the anointed one as god instead of Abraham's god, they would be 'wrong' in a sense that they differed from traditional Messianic prophecy, if you wish to use the word "wrong"....

Saying something or someone is "wrong" without qualification of what "wrong" should mean is too vague - incredibly so.

Unless you are talking about "wrong" as in "it differs from my opinion and/or understanding"... I am not concerned with anyone's opinion, including my own if I had one.

I don't mind being corrected in public for something I've said that's wrong.

Instead of asking for my "sources", why don't you address what's wrong in what I've said? No hard feelings here... I am always willing to learn.

I already did. Now I want to know where the nonsense came from.

where?

You're the one who knows. Not me.

Sorry, I meant to say: "which nonsense?"

I am unaware of what exactly it is you are referring to.

If anyone knows whatever it is to which you refer refer, it's not me - it's you.

Odd because I've referred to God as a person for my life and English is my mother tongue as well. This is a case not of language but of philosophy.

well your theology aside, when someone says the word "person" it usually refers to a person, not a god.

And the word person means?

Well, it does not mean "god", does it?

and for the record, I grew up in a very christian part of a very english speaking country, in a christian family, so I have a little authority here.

And what education was given on the doctrine of the Trinity?

this was in reference to my authority to speak on the usage of the English language, not a knowledge of a Trinity doctrine.

The latter is something most Christians I have encountered are not all that well educated on. Most people know the official position of their organization, few know the history and the details which led to that position.

This is not at all unique to Catholicism or Christianity, or even religion, of course.

too many to enumerate in a discussion forum, not that I'd ever think that would be a worthwhile use of my time -- even if it were somehow relevant or useful.

Can't even name the most important ones?

I intended to make it clear that such an inquiry was not relevant to the topic. (Perhaps you can show otherwise?)

Only when a debater fails to debate on the merits of his argument does he or she attack the credentials of the opposing team.

The texts have Christ claiming deity for himself.

What does "claiming deity" mean - both linguistically and effectively?

It simply means that he claimed to be co-equal with YHWH.

What does "co-equal" mean, in clear language?

It means they're both equal in essence.

Sorry to be so inquisitive and difficult, but what does "to be equal in essence" mean?

I hope to understand clearly what you mean.

How is Jesus "equal in essence with" his god, in a way that we are not, cannot, or do not have the ability to be equal?

In what way does this represent a "claiming of deity" which is unique to Jesus?

If you cannot explain it I do not consider your views as weak or incorrect. It is a difficult question which for you may not require an answer which is easily communicable to me.

1 cor 15:38 says:
"and when the all things may be subjected to him, then the son also himself shall be subject to him, who did subject to him the all things, that God may be the all in all." (ylt)
What are you saying this has to do about position, exactly, in reference to our conversation?

Note those words in the passage. Then the son also himself SHALL BE subject. What does that imply about the Son's status now?

that's what I was hoping you would explain...

Look at the text again then and consider what it says.

Well I don't think anyone would argue contrary to the idea that a son is typically a subject of his father. And man is a subject of God Almighty.

But again I would ask, what were you wanting to say, exactly?

Could you demonstrate this with the source from Theophilus and the date of the writing?

Theophilus' To Autolycus is dated as being from the second century AD.

[Dan Zebiri]

Again Barnasha demonstrates his abysmal logic and complete ignorance and / or failure to comprehend THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'DEIFICATION' AND 'INCARNATION'!

I have challenged you before - sometime earlier this year, to try and figure out WHAT the INCARNATION of Christ actually is, but all you could do is pathetically and falsely accuse us Christians of 'deification' continually - and even now you continue to do so, without realising how outdated and DEBUNKED THIS IDEA IS!

You have actually COMPLETE FAILED TO PROVE TO US that Christians DEIFIED Jesus Christ from the Scriptures themselves. Rather you just continue to parrot and regurgitate worn-out and debunked ideas of polemics about Jesus Christ! Proving to be the Muslim and/or islamophile/neo-Bahai that you are

Now, Barney boy, Deification is IN the totally OPPOSITE DIRECTION when compared with Incarnation.

To 'Deify' something or someone,is to raise him UP FROM THE GROUND TO A HIGHER LEVEL, ABOVE.

To 'Incarnate' - IS to DESCEND, or to COME DOWN from a HIGHER LEVEL TO A LOWER LEVEL.

You actually have the very same kind of concept in Islam but you have blinded yourself to it when applied to the Christ Event!

IN Ramadhan, when muslims believe the quran claims about itself that 'it had descended from God's eternal Word ABOVE IN HEAVEN ('ummul kitab')' TO BECOME THE QURAN.

Read this yourself in sura 17/105-106.

BUT THEN, DO NOT Forget, barney, that more than 600 years EARLIER, JESUS ALREADY DECLARED HIS OWN INCARNATION in John 3: 10-13

11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.

12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you HEAVENLY THINGS?

13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He WHO DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN - the Son of Man.

Jesus here very clearly and unequivocally stakes THE CLAIM AND THE FACT that He ALONE is The SON OF MAN, Who had COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN!

John 8:23
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

SO clearly, Jesus Himself affirms and declares that He is NOT from this earth below, BUT His origin is from HEAVEN ABOVE! With his heavenly Father, God Himself as the Eternal, Living WORD of God.

Furthermore, Jesus also declared His power to give ETERNAL LIFE to souls of men and women:

John 10:26-28:

26"But you do not believe because (C)you are not of My sheep.

27 "My sheep (D)hear My voice, and (E)I know them, and they follow Me;

28 and I - JESUS CHRIST- GIVE ETERNAL LIFE to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

You have not pondered Seriously nor honestly studied these texts, barney!

Jesus Christ is the One who will give you eternal life, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WORDS!

Ignore / deny this FACT at your own PERIL, my friend!

Dan.

[Dan Zebiri]

BIbn abu talib and/or barnasha,

STILL awaiting for your rational and well-thought out response to my post:

Barnasha demonstrates his abysmal logic and complete ignorance and / or failure to comprehend THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'DEIFICATION' AND 'INCARNATION'!

I have challenged you before - sometime earlier this year, to try and figure out WHAT the INCARNATION of Christ actually is, but all you could do is pathetically and falsely accuse us Christians of 'deification' continually - and even now you continue to do so, without realising how outdated and DEBUNKED THIS IDEA IS!

You have actually COMPLETELY FAILED TO PROVE TO US that Christians DEIFIED Jesus Christ from the Scriptures themselves. Rather you just continue to parrot and regurgitate worn-out and debunked ideas of polemics about Jesus Christ!

Proving to be the Muslim and/or islamophile/neo-Bahai that you are

Now, Barney boy, Deification is IN the totally OPPOSITE DIRECTION when compared with Incarnation.

To 'Deify' something or someone,is to raise him UP FROM THE GROUND TO A HIGHER LEVEL, ABOVE.

To 'Incarnate' - IS to DESCEND, or to COME DOWN from a HIGHER LEVEL TO A LOWER LEVEL.

You actually have the very same kind of concept in Islam but you have blinded yourself to it when applied to the Christ Event!

IN Ramadhan, when muslims believe the quran claims about itself that 'it had descended from God's eternal Word ABOVE IN HEAVEN ('ummul kitab')' TO BECOME THE QURAN.

Read this yourself in sura 17/105-106.

BUT THEN, DO NOT Forget, barney, that more than 600 years EARLIER, JESUS ALREADY DECLARED HIS OWN INCARNATION in John 3: 10-13

11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.

12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you HEAVENLY THINGS?

13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He WHO DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN - the SON OF MAN.

Jesus here very clearly and unequivocally stakes THE CLAIM AND THE FACT that He ALONE is The SON OF MAN, Who had COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN!

John 8:23
23 And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

SO clearly, Jesus Himself affirms and declares that His ORIGIN is NOT from this earth below, BUT His that origin is from HEAVEN ABOVE! With his heavenly Father, God Himself as the Eternal, Living WORD of God.

Furthermore, Jesus also declared His power to give ETERNAL LIFE to souls of men and women:

John 10:26-28:

26"But you do not believe because (C)you are not of My sheep.

27 "My sheep hear My voice, and know them, and they follow Me;

28 and I - JESUS CHRIST- GIVE ETERNAL LIFE to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

You have not pondered Seriously nor honestly studied these texts, barney!

Jesus Christ is the One with the authority and the power Who will give you eternal life, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WORDS!

Ignore / deny this FACT at your own PERIL, my friend!

Dan.

[smaneck]

BIbn abu talib and/or barnasha,

STILL awaiting for your rational and well-thought out response to my post:

Barnasha demonstrates his abysmal logic and complete ignorance

Is there any reason Barmasha should respond to a post which insults him this way?

Do you plan to keep regurgiposting until he does answer?

[

B]Ignore / deny this FACT at your own PERIL, my friend![/B]

There is that fire insurance pitch again, Barmasha. Are you in the market? Or can you better sympathize with these words of the Bab?

"WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God's creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men.
Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.
Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God's good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God's favour and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom. "
Selections from the Writings of the Bab, pp. 77-78.

[barnasha]

Is there any reason Barmasha should respond to a post which insults him this way?

I try not waste my time on statements of utter impotence.

There is that fire insurance pitch again, Barmasha. Are you in the market? Or can you better sympathize with these words of the Bab?

"WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise. Thus and thus alone should be the worship which befitteth the one True God. Shouldst thou worship Him because of fear, this would be unseemly in the sanctified Court of His presence, and could not be regarded as an act by thee dedicated to the Oneness of His Being. Or if thy gaze should be on paradise, and thou shouldst worship Him while cherishing such a hope, thou wouldst make God's creation a partner with Him, notwithstanding the fact that paradise is desired by men.
Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.
Although when true worship is offered, the worshipper is delivered from the fire, and entereth the paradise of God's good-pleasure, yet such should not be the motive of his act. However, God's favour and grace ever flow in accordance with the exigencies of His inscrutable wisdom. "
Selections from the Writings of the Bab, pp. 77-78.

yes

it reminds me of a Hadith Qudsi.

The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [ The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I fought for you until I died a martyr. He will say: You have lied - you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

[Another] will be a man who has studied [religious] knowledge and has taught it and who used to recite the Quran. He will be brought and Allah will make known to his His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I studied [religious] knowledge and I taught it and I recited the Quran for Your sake. He will say: You have lied - you did but study [religious] knowledge that it might be said [of you]: He is learned. And you recited the Quran that it might be said [of you]: He is a reciter. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

[Another] will be a man whom Allah had made rich and to whom He had given all kinds of wealth. He will be brought and Allah will make known to his His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I left no path [untrodden] in which You like money to be spent without spending in it for Your sake. He will say: You have lied - you did but do so that it might be said [of you]: He is open-handed. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

[Dan Zebiri]

These are NOT statements of impotence, as you vainly wish they are barney boy !

They are among many of Jesus Christ's own declarations of His distinct and unique divinity, which when it confronts you to your face, barnasha and sue, you have nothing else to say, except insult them - as 'impotent' for instance! Such cowardice!

It is YOUR REPLIES THAT ARE HOPELESSLY IMPOTENT! Barney & Sue etc.

You cannot deny or refute the fact of Jesus' real divne nature - AS HE HIMSELF HAS DECLARED IT, so you make lameduck replies and stupid excuses like the one you just did!

Christians did NOT deify Jesus Christ, but Jesus Himself declared His divinity to His earliest followers which is why we Christians acknowledge His divinity and worship Him!

Dan.

I try not waste my time on statements of utter impotence.



yes

it reminds me of a Hadith Qudsi.

The first of people against whom judgment will be pronounced on the Day of Resurrection will be a man who died a martyr. He will be brought and Allah will make known to him His favours and he will recognize them. [ The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I fought for you until I died a martyr. He will say: You have lied - you did but fight that it might be said [of you]: He is courageous. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

[Another] will be a man who has studied [religious] knowledge and has taught it and who used to recite the Quran. He will be brought and Allah will make known to his His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I studied [religious] knowledge and I taught it and I recited the Quran for Your sake. He will say: You have lied - you did but study [religious] knowledge that it might be said [of you]: He is learned. And you recited the Quran that it might be said [of you]: He is a reciter. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

[Another] will be a man whom Allah had made rich and to whom He had given all kinds of wealth. He will be brought and Allah will make known to his His favours and he will recognize them. [The Almighty] will say: And what did you do about them? He will say: I left no path [untrodden] in which You like money to be spent without spending in it for Your sake. He will say: You have lied - you did but do so that it might be said [of you]: He is open-handed. And so it was said. Then he will be ordered to be dragged along on his face until he is cast into Hell-fire.

[Dan Zebiri]

BUT THEN, DO NOT Forget, barney, that more than 600 years EARLIER, JESUS ALREADY DECLARED HIS OWN INCARNATION in John 3: 10-13

11 "Truly, truly, I say to you, We speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony.

12 "If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you HEAVENLY THINGS?

13 "No one has ascended into heaven, but He WHO DESCENDED FROM HEAVEN - the SON OF MAN.

Jesus here very clearly and unequivocally stakes THE CLAIM AND THE FACT that He ALONE is The SON OF MAN, Who had COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN!

John 8:23:

23 And Jesus said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.

SO clearly, Jesus Himself affirms and declares that His ORIGIN is NOT from this earth below, BUT His that origin is from HEAVEN ABOVE! With his heavenly Father, God Himself as the Eternal, Living WORD of God.

Furthermore, Jesus also declared His power to give ETERNAL LIFE to souls of men and women:

John 10:26-28:

26"But you do not believe because (C)you are not of My sheep.

27 "My sheep hear My voice, and know them, and they follow Me;

28 and I - JESUS CHRIST- GIVE ETERNAL LIFE to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.

You have not pondered Seriously nor honestly studied these texts, barney!

Jesus Christ is the One with the authority and the power Who will give you eternal life, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN WORDS!

Ignore / deny this FACT at your own PERIL, my friend! Call them 'impotent' and you will find out to your eternal regret that it is YOU and your ignorant polemics that are truly impotent!

Dan.