One argument against the divinity of Jesus

[smaneck]

[I][U]So, the scrioptures are right, and the word used in all

But we thy people, whom thou hast called thy firstborn, thy
only begotten, and thy fervent lover, are given into their
hands.

(Deuterocanonical Apocrypha, Esdras 2 (Ezra 4))

[Sparko]

Psst, virgins don't have sex. And don't blame Allah for what dirty-minded 'ulama imagined later one.

I think the point is that they are virgins UNTIL they are given to the men to have sex with. sheesh. Think much?

[smaneck]

I think the point is that they are virgins UNTIL they are given to the men to have sex with. sheesh. Think much?

Except there is nothing in the Qur'an which says the men are supposed to have sex with them.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

In a sense, you seem to be limiting what I can discuss here. I really can't bring up anything said by others about Jesus? Then I can't bring ANY of the New Testament books into this, right? I'll instead give you a comparison of Christ with God on my terms and not dishonest terms. I'm surprised anyway that no one's addressed this yet, so I'll give it a start. This is by no means covering everything:

Again, you are resorting to a circular argument to prove Jesus was God. All I wanted was for you to answer my question. I will post it again for your convenience:

Can we come to the conclusion Jesus was God solely by looking at his actions without taking into account the statements he made or what other people said about him?

Of course, knowing especially what 1 John 4:7-8tells me about God's nature! God as a trinity is the most perfect and complete example of love. So what?

Why must God be composed of three persons to be All Loving? Why not 100? Why not 1? Why can't there be two Gods since the argument from God being All Loving requires that there be an object or objects of love?

God is Spirit correct?

Not according to the Quran. "There is nothing comparable to Him" (112:4)

God is a Spirit
a spirit does not have flesh and bones

If God is a spirit, and Jesus partakes in God, Jesus must be a spirit. Since Jesus was not a Spirit, he wasn't God, according to your own definition.

Substance is not meant as in the iron or clay. A metaphorical illustration is ice, water and water vapour. H2*O right? One yet different forms - all of the same molecles.

That is simply an elaborate way of saying Jesus shares the same substance as the other persons. However, it does not address the issue of the substance preceding the persons.

[cbacavis]

Again, you are resorting to a circular argument to prove Jesus was God. All I wanted was for you to answer my question.

I did answer your question, citing both qualities and acts that are shared between God and the Christ. Can you respond to that rather than claiming my argument about your unfair guidelines (?) is circular?

I will post it again for your convenience:

Can we come to the conclusion Jesus was God solely by looking at his actions without taking into account the statements he made or what other people said about him?

Well, there you go. See post #87 again and then respond to the actual meat of what I said. Yes, I did complain about your conditions, but I gave you an answer regardless.

Why must God be composed of three persons to be All Loving? Why not 100? Why not 1

It's because the only true God revealed in the Bible is revealed as three persons in a unity (the Hebrew 'echâd) - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Why can't there be two Gods since the argument from God being All Loving requires that there be an object or objects of love?

There simply are not two Gods. The Father is an object of the Son's love, the Son is an object of the Holy Spirit's love, the Holy Spirit is an object of the Father's love, the Son is an object of the Father's love, and on and on.... How does this not work out logically?

[Sparko]

Except there is nothing in the Qur'an which says the men are supposed to have sex with them.

riiiight.

why did you come into this thread again?

[barnasha]

Except there is nothing in the Qur'an which says the men are supposed to have sex with them.

riiiight.

why did you come into this thread again?

guess that one dead-ended, eh Ms. Maneck?

[smaneck]

guess that one dead-ended, eh Ms. Maneck?

People will believe what they want I guess.

[barnasha]

People will believe what they want I guess.

That's what belief (in the dogmatic sense of the word) is.. when you don't know the truth or you want it to be different, you make up something you want and then grasp onto it as if it were true - regardless of its correspondence to the truth.

On one hand we must give up anything that gives us more doubt.

"Leave what causes you to doubt and keep what does not cause you to doubt." -Muhammad

Yet, we must doubt everything.

"Believe those who are seeking the truth. Doubt those who find it." - Andre Gide


"If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things." - Rene Descartes

"You cannot be a man of faith unless you know how to doubt." -Thomas Merton

[Sparko]

People will believe what they want I guess.

wooosh. my point just flew over your head. Maybe you should go back and read my post again? I dont care if Islam actually teaches 70 virgins or if the virgins actually have sex or not. My point was that people can always come up with a way to "improve" upon God, or Allah, so saying that God is the highest conceivable being has no real meaning.

[cbacavis]

The term "only begotten" does not appear in John, since that is not the meaning of monogenes. Except in the "Christian understanding". Which one might argue the author of the gospel of John had... but I will never assume that without precedent.

Regardless of what your source from B-Greek says, the evidence for monogenes meaning anything other than "only-begotten" is any context is very poor. Historically, the scholars (starting, I believe, with Dan Moody and his published article called "Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version“) who argue for a meaning other than “only-begotten” have these evidences:

1. Hebrews 11:17, where Abraham is said to offer up “his only-begotten son.” Well, of course, Abraham didn’t have only one biological son and we know this. But the scholars ignore what the next verse says: that “in Isaac shall thy [Abraham’s] seed be called.” And then you have Romans 9:7-10, where again only ISAAC is even referred to as being Abraham’s son. This one is a technicality and so it doesn’t change the definition of monogenes; the use of the word in Hebrews is obviously figurative. And we don’t have any contextual indication that the word as attributed to Jesus is figurative.

2. There are historical texts like Parmenides and the writings of Clement where the word monogenes has been viewed by people as having to mean “one of its kind.” But no scholar who asserts this ever gives any substantive reason why “begotten” couldn’t work, in addition, with the context it’s contained in.

3. Then you have the Agamemnon of Aeschylus. He writes of Agamemnon’s wife, and she compares Agamemnon to an only-begotten son. Scholars know he had siblings. But they assert that the word monogenes can only be translated as “unique” son or something to this effect. And so they effectively ignore that this word is being used in the context of a metaphorical passage!

I don’t know of any other notable proofs except these. I’m standing by my conclusion about the word unless you provide something (different!) to successfully counter it; I’ve provided textual comparison in the way of N.T. verses and historical writings, but you’ve only provided your assertion, as well as a scholar's assertion with no background info or explanation.

So any biblical translation which uses "unique" or "only" isn't correcting anything. It is doing nothing more than under-translating the Greek word.

[smaneck]

wooosh. my point just flew over your head. Maybe you should go back and read my post again?

Your post consisted of nothing more than a snarky remark inferring I have no business here.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

I did answer your question, citing both qualities and acts that are shared between God and the Christ.

I asked you to answer my question on the condition that you would not consider the statements made by Jesus or what other people said about him. As you did not abide by this requirement, the question technically remains unanswered.

It's because the only true God revealed in the Bible is revealed as three persons in a unity (the Hebrew 'echâd) - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Talk about circularity! Cbacavis, is it necessary for God to be comprised of only three persons in order to be All-Loving?

There simply are not two Gods. The Father is an object of the Son's love, the Son is an object of the Holy Spirit's love, the Holy Spirit is an object of the Father's love, the Son is an object of the Father's love, and on and on.... How does this not work out logically?

It is also logical for two gods to love each other.

[Sparko]

Your post consisted of nothing more than a snarky remark inferring I have no business here.

well yeah. after you just hopped in here and started making comments from the peanut gallery without bothering to even read the thread, like commenting that the virgins would not have sex or they wouldnt be virgins, when that makes no sense and was not the point of my post anyway.

you just hopped in and disrupted the thread with a bunch of off topic comments.

[cbacavis]

I asked you to answer my question on the condition that you would not consider the statements made by Jesus or what other people said about him. As you did not abide by this requirement, the question technically remains unanswered.

That's an impossibility, because all we know about Jesus is what is written about him. Can you show me what Allah's character is like without referring to things he said or what other people said about him?

Talk about circularity! Cbacavis, is it necessary for God to be comprised of only three persons in order to be All-Loving?

I never implied that.

It is also logical for two gods to love each other.

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