Originally posted by Chrawnus
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostWell it seems as though you want to have your cake and eat it to. Your argument is that God suffered and died on the cross for us and that he was then self resurrected, while at the same time arguing that God never dies. If God was dead, how did he resurrect himself?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostJohn 10:29 is not a disapproval of the Trinity because Jesus goes on to say in verse 30, "The Father and I are one” claiming equality with the Father. The Father being greater than all therefore has clear exceptions, as verse 30 proves. If the statement "My Father is greater than all" was meant to be absolute, with no exceptions what so ever allowed, then Jesus wouldn't have stated that He and the Father are one immediately afterwards.
1 Timothy 6:16 is completely irrelevant to the question of whether God the Son could die physically on the cross. God alone possessing immortality is speaking of the Father having life in Himself. The Son also has life in Himself, but on accord of being born of the Father in eternity:
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostLogically speaking, the son would either have to be eternal and one with the father, and therefore have life in himself, or the father granted the son also to have life in himself. Which is it?
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostHow is one begotten in eternity. What is meant by begotten here?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt means the source, or origin of the Son's existence lies in the Father. This is not a temporal action however, it simply means that without the Father existing, neither could the Son exist.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostIt does not, because 1 Tim 6:16 has nothing to do with physical death.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...sh/immortality
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostJohn 10:29 is not a disapproval of the Trinity because Jesus goes on to say in verse 30, "The Father and I are one” claiming equality with the Father. The Father being greater than all therefore has clear exceptions, as verse 30 proves. If the statement "My Father is greater than all" was meant to be absolute, with no exceptions what so ever allowed, then Jesus wouldn't have stated that He and the Father are one immediately afterwards.
1 Timothy 6:16 is completely irrelevant to the question of whether God the Son could die physically on the cross. God alone possessing immortality is speaking of the Father having life in Himself. The Son also has life in Himself, but on accord of being born of the Father in eternity:
Furthermore, 1 Tim 6:16 is speaking about being eternal and indestructible. Even if the Son died physically on the cross He did not die in the way 1 Tim 6:16 means, which would be a complete annihilation of the spirit. 1 Tim 6:16 has nothing to do with physical death, but is speaking of ceasing to exist altogether, which it is impossible for God to do.
John 10:29 says "My Father is greater than ALL" and therefore the Father is greater ALL including the Holy Spirit.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
1) More accurately, God dies a human death. It's not that only half of God dies, but rather that there is a physical death that Jesus underwent as a person. His entire person, human and divine endured separation from His body. His divine part not dying refers to the fact that His divine nature did not cease existing, or stop functioning, as a result of this separation. So the God-man Jesus did die a physical death.
2) Every man is sinful (with one notable exception), but it's not an essential part of being human, so I would say, sort of? At least you got the sinful man not being able to die for the sins of humanity right.
3) Incorrect. Sinless God became a sinless man to bear our sins. As I noted above, sinfulness is not an essential part of being human. It's more like a defect, or a corruption that we are all born with, with the exception of Jesus, Who was miraculously conceived and did not fall under the curse of sin.
So the Son took on human nature and lived a sinless life as an example for us to follow, and died physically on the cross, human and divine nature alike, to atone for our sins. So Jesus offered himself up completely, enduring the death and shame of the cross to atone for our sins
4)Well, maybe if you didn't draw such far-fetched and groundless conclusions from what I wrote you might not be so confused.
points 1, 2 and 3---rephrasing with particular note to the underlined points in the above explanation...
a) sinful humanity is useless for incarnation
b) God has to create a sinless creature in order to incarnate (God-man)
c) Incarnation is necessary in order to de-Incarnate (spiritual death)
d) De-incarnation is necessary to forgive sins. (most important part in this whole process)
so...the formula is...sinless creature + incarnation/de-incarnation = forgiveness.
This makes Jesus unnecessary---as there are plenty of sinless creatures on earth---any animal can do. Just incarnate into one---then de-incarnate and there you go---all sins are forgiven!!
Such logic would make Hinduism the most forgiving religion in the world as it has God hopping around incarnating into, and de-incarnating out of, a variety of creatures....all of them sinless..
Prediction---
at this point---a Christian might argue that Jesus is very necessary, that God had to create "sinless" Jesus in order to incarnate and de-incarnate...because it is Jesus who suffered on the cross and the above formula of forgiveness requires a cross/torture for it to be valid. (without a cross/torture = no forgiveness)
so...sinless creature+incarnation+torture & cross +de--incarnation = forgiveness as per God's will.
...but this logic brings up an even more disturbing point...
According to Christianity itself---This whole process/formula is in accord with God's will and is a message that Jesus (the God-man) himself taught.
and...according to Christianity---it is the Jews and Romans that obeyed God's will and followed his instructions....NOT the Christians who watched from the sidelines without even lifting a stone to throw at Jesus!!! In fact, Christians are the ones who blatantly disregarded and/or actively disobeyed God's will.
God specially creates a "sinless" creature to get the whole process of forgiveness started---and the very people to whom he gives the message/formula are too chicken to do it. They have others do the dirty deed then have the gall to claim the benefits of God's forgiveness!!! That is indeed Bold!
Comment
-
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and siam and same hakeem demonstrate exactly that by intentionally ignoring the consistent Bible records of the words, sayings and deeds of Christ, twisting His mission and teachings into siam’s incomparably amusing and comical piece of nonsensical misrepresentations and hence, misinterpretations below.
None of your polemical speculations are actually consistent with what Jesus Christ actually taught and brought into the world. Your ‘prophet’ Muhamed and the later redacted koran, from inaccurate and in-complete knowledge of Jesus Christ coming centuries later, only brought revisionist ideas based on hear-say, rumours, unorthodox heresies and Islamic agenda.
All the NT ie the Synoptics and the Johannine Gospels from the Canon of Scripture are from 400 years before Muhamed’s birth. It is so easy to see how Mohamed copied ideas from both the OT and NT of the
Bible.
In John 6: 41 Jesus said “I AM the bread that came down from heaven”
John 6: 51 “I AM the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats this bread, he will live
forever.”
John 3: 13 “No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man.”
The koran imitates and mimics Jesus Christ coming down in His incarnation in sura 17/105-107-
“We sent it (the koran) DOWN in truth, and in truth IT HAS DESCENDED.. It is a koran which We have di-vided, in order that you may recite it to men at intervals.. When it is recited to them, they FALL DOWN ON THEIR FACES in prostration.”
This is called “the incarnation of the Koran”. Notice how the koran imitates Jesus Christ’s descent and coming down to earth. And is worshipped by people FALLING on their faces IN PROSTRATION when they encounter the koran.
Siam and same hakeem were challenged to hold the koran in the left hand, to place it on the floor and bring it to the bathroom but both of them are cowards to run away from this challenge. Because the koran is sacralized and is divine to the extent Muslims worldwide idolize it to veneration beyond any other book! There is no pure monotheism in orthodox Islam.
Why muslims are forced to ritually wash themselves in ritual ablutions before they can touch the koran?
If we light the Koran with a matchstick flame, it will be burned and destroyed, reduced to ashes and can be easily flushed down the tube. So where is its 'power'. Isn't Allah's Word destroyed?
The incarnation of the koran is as ludicrous as the "de-incarnation of Christ"! Siam and s.Hakeem. Muslims practically worship the Koran, especially the orthodox, sunni ones, even if you deny it.
Originally posted by siam View Post4) Well, maybe ...if Christianity was more simple and clear, I would not be drawing far-fetched conclusions and be confused!!??
points 1, 2 and 3---rephrasing with particular note to the underlined points in the above explanation...
a) sinful humanity is useless for incarnation
b) God has to create a sinless creature in order to incarnate (God-man)
c) Incarnation is necessary in order to de-Incarnate (spiritual death)
d) De-incarnation is necessary to forgive sins. (most important part in this whole process)
so...the formula is...sinless creature + incarnation/de-incarnation = forgiveness.
This makes Jesus unnecessary---as there are plenty of sinless creatures on earth---any animal can do. Just incarnate into one---then de-incarnate and there you go---all sins are forgiven!!
Such logic would make Hinduism the most forgiving religion in the world as it has God hopping around incarnating into, and de-incarnating out of, a variety of creatures....all of them sinless..
Prediction---
at this point---a Christian might argue that Jesus is very necessary, that God had to create "sinless" Jesus in order to incarnate and de-incarnate...because it is Jesus who suffered on the cross and the above formula of forgiveness requires a cross/torture for it to be valid. (without a cross/torture = no forgiveness)
so...sinless creature+incarnation+torture & cross +de--incarnation = forgiveness as per God's will.
...but this logic brings up an even more disturbing point...
According to Christianity itself---This whole process/formula is in accord with God's will and is a message that Jesus (the God-man) himself taught.
and...according to Christianity---it is the Jews and Romans that obeyed God's will and followed his instructions....NOT the Christians who watched from the sidelines without even lifting a stone to throw at Jesus!!! In fact, Christians are the ones who blatantly disregarded and/or actively disobeyed God's will.
God specially creates a "sinless" creature to get the whole process of forgiveness started---and the very people to whom he gives the message/formula are too chicken to do it. They have others do the dirty deed then have the gall to claim the benefits of God's forgiveness!!! That is indeed Bold!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by siam View Post4) Well, maybe ...if Christianity was more simple and clear, I would not be drawing far-fetched conclusions and be confused!!??
Originally posted by siam View Postpoints 1, 2 and 3---rephrasing with particular note to the underlined points in the above explanation...
a) sinful humanity is useless for incarnation
b) God has to create a sinless creature in order to incarnate (God-man)
c) Incarnation is necessary in order to de-Incarnate (spiritual death)
Originally posted by siam View Postd) De-incarnation is necessary to forgive sins. (most important part in this whole process)
so...the formula is...sinless creature + incarnation/de-incarnation = forgiveness.
This makes Jesus unnecessary---as there are plenty of sinless creatures on earth---any animal can do. Just incarnate into one---then de-incarnate and there you go---all sins are forgiven!!
Originally posted by siam View PostSuch logic would make Hinduism the most forgiving religion in the world as it has God hopping around incarnating into, and de-incarnating out of, a variety of creatures....all of them sinless..
Originally posted by siam View PostPrediction---
at this point---a Christian might argue that Jesus is very necessary, that God had to create "sinless" Jesus in order to incarnate and de-incarnate...because it is Jesus who suffered on the cross and the above formula of forgiveness requires a cross/torture for it to be valid. (without a cross/torture = no forgiveness)
so...sinless creature+incarnation+torture & cross +de--incarnation = forgiveness as per God's will.
No, they might argue that you're still strawmanning and continuing to draw completely unwarranted conclusions.
Originally posted by siam View Post...but this logic brings up an even more disturbing point...
According to Christianity itself---This whole process/formula is in accord with God's will and is a message that Jesus (the God-man) himself taught.
and...according to Christianity---it is the Jews and Romans that obeyed God's will and followed his instructions....NOT the Christians who watched from the sidelines without even lifting a stone to throw at Jesus!!! In fact, Christians are the ones who blatantly disregarded and/or actively disobeyed God's will.
God specially creates a "sinless" creature to get the whole process of forgiveness started---and the very people to whom he gives the message/formula are too chicken to do it. They have others do the dirty deed then have the gall to claim the benefits of God's forgiveness!!! That is indeed Bold!
And you're wrong about having others do the dirty deeds. It was our sins that made it necessary for Christ to incarnate and going to the cross, the issue of who nailed Him to that cross is a minor irrelevancy compared to that fact.
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View Postc) Incarnation is necessary in order to de-Incarnate (spiritual death)
The way I've been using "spiritual death" in this thread though, is not the biblical definition, instead I've been using it to denote complete destruction of the spirit. In any case, neither definition fits the situation in this case, since I've constantly argued that Jesus died physically on the cross, not spiritually.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Dan Zebiri View PostA little knowledge is a dangerous thing and siam and same hakeem demonstrate exactly that by intentionally ignoring the consistent Bible records of the words, sayings and deeds of Christ, twisting His mission and teachings into siam’s incomparably amusing and comical piece of nonsensical misrepresentations and hence, misinterpretations below.
Siam, I recall in another thread you mentioned you haven't even read the NT completely, only bits and pieces. Why are you here discussing doctrines of Christianity when you can't even take the time to familiarize yourself with the writings on which Christian doctrine are based? If it was only a case of mild curiosity I would understand, but you're constantly arguing against Christianity and coming up with the weirdest misrepresentations based on your limited and misunderstood knowledge.
You said if Christianity was more simple and clear maybe you wouldn't be so confused. I think you have it backwards. Maybe if you actually took the time necessary to familiarize yourself with the writings from which Christianity derives it's doctrines you wouldn't be so confused all the time.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 03-27-2024, 03:01 PM
|
39 responses
224 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by whag
Yesterday, 03:32 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
|
21 responses
132 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 03-21-2024, 12:15 PM | ||
Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
|
80 responses
428 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 12:33 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
|
45 responses
305 views
1 like
|
Last Post 03-17-2024, 07:19 AM | ||
Started by rogue06, 12-26-2023, 11:05 AM
|
406 responses
2,518 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Yesterday, 05:49 PM
|
Comment