• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Discussion with logic man on the nature of Jesus Christ

This is a continuation of this http://www.debatepolitics.com/relig...s-religious-historical-accounts-dealt-22.html, I didn't want to derail the thread there, but I also thought that these points logicman brought up needed to be addressed. Its the typical through a ton of scriptures that appear to support your point and hopefully some will stick, problem is, on closer examination the scriptures DO NOT support your point.

All scriptures are from the NRSV, also in the OT where YHWH is used I'll write YHWH rather than "Lord" to avoid confusion (since lord is used in the OT for others than Yahweh).

First you have the Jesus is called such and Jehovah is called such arguments. (I picked the ones that I can deal with all together, others I need to take seperately).



These all follow the same argument, A has property C and B has property C thus A must be B. The problem there is that doesn't follow at all. Kings are also called Israels Savior, does that mean those kings are Yahweh? (2 kings 13:5) (Nehemiah 9:27)

The blood of the lamb sacrificed on atonement day sancrifies Israel does that mean that the lamb is Yahweh?

The Temple is set apart as holy does that mean the Temple is Yahweh?

If Jesus is Gods only begotten son, (as the bible clearly says), and the unique annointed one of God, obviously they'd share a lot of properties, and Jesus would be representing Yahweh in many ways ... that doesn't mean the 2 are ontologically identified with each other at all.

Also look at some of those scriptures closer ... take wehre Jesus santifies us in hebrews 10:10, but lets look at 8-12

8 When he said above, “You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings” (these are offered according to the law), 9 then he added, “See, I have come to do your will.” He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10 And it is by God’s will[d] that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11 And every priest stands day after day at his service, offering again and again the same sacrifices that can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ[e] had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, “he sat down at the right hand of God,”


You see the distinciton is CLEARLY made between God (not the father, but God), and Jesus, it's GODS will, and Jesus came to do Gods will, and after that he sits at the right hand of God.

Or look at Jesus being the "sumbling stone" Here is what 1 Peter 2:6-8 says.

6 For it stands in scripture:

“See, I am laying in Zion a stone,
a cornerstone chosen and precious;
and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”

7 To you then who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe,

“The stone that the builders rejected
has become the very head of the corner,”

8 and

“A stone that makes them stumble,
and a rock that makes them fall.”

They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.


Now look at Isaiah 8:13-15


13 But YHWH of hosts, him you shall regard as holy; let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. 14 He will become a sanctuary, a stone one strikes against; for both houses of Israel he will become a rock one stumbles over—a trap and a snare for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15 And many among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken; they shall be snared and taken.


Ok fair enough, but it's not really saying the same thing, but that's because 1 Peter 2:6-8 IS'NT JUST TALKING ABOUT ISAIAH 8, It's talking about Isaiah 28:16

therefore thus says the Lord Yahweh,

"See, I am laying in Zion a foundation stone,
a tested stone,
a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation:
“One who trusts will not panic.”"


Notice the Stone isn't God, but is laid by God.

Psalms 118:21-24

I thank you that you have answered me
and have become my salvation.
22 The stone that the builders rejected
has become the chief cornerstone.
23 This is the YHWH’s doing;
it is marvelous in our eyes.
24 This is the day that the YHWH has made;
let us rejoice and be glad in it.[c]


This stone is not Yahweh, it's something Yahweh does.

See you have to look at the WHOLE scriptrue.

I can do this with all of the scriptures there, to show why you're missusing them.



It's all how you frame that quote, Yes, John the Baptist is preparing the way for yahweh, so that yahweh can send his son. Right after it refers to Jesus as the Lamb of God, and the Son of God.



All of these depend on an exegesis of Colossians 1, here's what it says. 15-20

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in[h] him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, by making peace through the blood of his cross.

Notice he is the IMAGE (eikon) of the invisible God. Like in 1 Corinthians 11:7 Man is the image of God and woman the image of Man.

ALso the firstborn of all creation ... (including him in creation), he is the first created and thus firstborn over creation. All things are created THROUGH him ... (through Christ God does many things), now when it comes to creation Paul Clafrifies what he means by all (so we don't get stuck up on "all things.") in 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 (we'll go back to that scripture later).

27 For “God[h] has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.


Exactly, so obviously when it says all, it's refering to all others. Notice here though that even though all things are subject to Jesus, Jesus is subject to God.

Jehovah’s voice is “like the roar of rushing waters” (Ezekiel 43:2). Jesus’ “voice was like the sound of rushing waters” (Revelation 1:15). Jesus must be Jehovah.



Notice what it says in Revelation 1:1

1 The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants[a] what must soon take place; he made it known by sending his angel to his servant[c] John,


So this is a revelation Jesus gets FROM GOD ... So don't get confused here, God is giving Jesus a message to pass on.

Jesus says "I am the Alpha and the Omega," yes because he has been given the authority to do so FROM God.

Notice in revelation 1:5-7

and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.

To him who loves us and freed[d] us from our sins by his blood, 6 and made[e] us to be a kingdom, priests serving[f] his God and Father, to him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.

7 Look! He is coming with the clouds;
every eye will see him,
even those who pierced him;
and on his account all the tribes of the earth will wail.

So it is to be. Amen.


It is HIS God, and HIS father.

Notice Revelation 22, who is speaking in verse 8-15

8 I, John, am the one who heard and saw these things. And when I heard and saw them, I fell down to worship at the feet of the angel who showed them to me; 9 but he said to me, “You must not do that! I am a fellow servant[e] with you and your comrades[f] the prophets, and with those who keep the words of this book. Worship God!”

10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

12 “See, I am coming soon; my reward is with me, to repay according to everyone’s work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes,[g] so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.


Its an angel, speaking for Jesus, who as we saw in Verse 1 is speaking for Yahweh.



John 5:21-22

21 Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes. 22 The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son,


The son has been given the judgement authority from God the Father. But look at what Jesus says about his judgement in verse 30

30 “I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek to do not my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Now revelation 2:18,28 ... yes, Jesus judges, but again, he qualifies in verse 28

28 even as I also received authority from my Father. To the one who conquers I will also give the morning star.

Now I can keep going, but I think I've made my point, now I'll show you some scriptures that show (FULLING IN CONTEXT) that Jesus CANNOT be Yawhen.


John's Gospel would argue otherwise.
 
The interesting thing about men who won't understand God is that they always have to destroy the Christ. It is fundamental to their cause. Many will say "I don't believe the story." Others will try to destroy the story. It is a very powerful story.

Saying that I'm trying to destroy Christ is just polemic non-sense. There is a real history here to be discussed and I'm interested in its facts.
 
The scripture isn't a book of evidence. It's a story. So your premise is sadly off right from the start.

Historical accounts contain evidence of quotations, events, etc., so your rebuttal is rejected.

You're looking for "evidence" of "right thinking" about God in the gospel That's foolish. The gospel is a narrative not a theology text. And if it were a theology text, you'd think somebody would just say "Jesus is God" rather than leave it to you to construct an elaborate argument about it, cherry picking from texts that were all written at different times and wouldn't have even been available to the first Christians (I guess they missed out).

Are you saying God did a bad job explaining that he was Jesus all along (and needed you to clear things up) or are you saying you're just smarter and more rational than those stupid non-Christians non-Trinitarians, who aren't rational enough to put the evidence together like you. The first is pure arrogance, the second pure brag. Take your pick.

Nuts. God didn't do a bad job explaining the deity of Jesus Christ. Some 1 billion believers are on board with it, although some of those wrongfully believe Jesus became God (when he was God all along).
 
Yeah, too bad John never mentions Jesus in the beginning of his first chapter, but rather this concept called the Logos.

Ahem, perhaps you missed verses 14 and 15 of that chapter.....

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15 (John testified concerning him. He cried out, saying, “This is the one I spoke about when I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’”) 16 Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
 
He did indeed claim to be God, so please save that failed argument for someone else.

Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He did Make the Claim, Why Should I Believe it?

Another day, another gloss. Lots of arguments, and cherry picking. But nowhere can doctrinal Christians quote a simple statement from Jesus are anybody else saying" "Jesus is God".

I guess God didn't do a good job clarifying this main tenet of purported Christian faith and needed help from you guys. Or I guess you guys are just smarter than the rest of us. Either way, a strange twist on the notion that gospel saves us through faith, so that no man may boast.
 
Ahem, perhaps you missed verses 14 and 15 of that chapter.....

Yep, this Logos fellow sure is divine sounding.

Too bad for you John talks about the Logos and not Jesus. Weird. Almost telling.
 
Yep, this Logos fellow sure is divine sounding.

Too bad for you John talks about the Logos and not Jesus. Weird. Almost telling.

You glossed over verses 14-16.... They specifically mention Jesus as being the one described as the Word, who is also God.
 
Another day, another gloss. Lots of arguments, and cherry picking. But nowhere can doctrinal Christians quote a simple statement from Jesus are anybody else saying" "Jesus is God".

I guess God didn't do a good job clarifying this main tenet of purported Christian faith and needed help from you guys. Or I guess you guys are just smarter than the rest of us. Either way, a strange twist on the notion that gospel saves us through faith, so that no man may boast.

I've already busted your argument in prior posts where you say Jesus never claimed to be God. So there's no saving face for you here on that argument.
 
You glossed over verses 14-16.... They specifically mention Jesus as being the one described as the Word, who is also God.

No it doesn't. John talks about the Logos. Then talks about Moses and Jesus. Then talks about the son of God being in the bosom of the father.

That's it.

You need to actually read the Greek and not Trinitarian translations. I'll try to help.

1:18 qeon
theon
G2316
n_ Acc Sg m
God

oudeis
oudeis
G3762
a_ Nom Sg m
NOT-YET-ONE
no-one

ewraken
heOraken
G3708
vi Perf Act 3 Sg Att
HAS-SEEN

pwpote
pOpote
G4455
Adv
?-AS-?-when
ever

o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE

monogenhs
monogenEs
G3439
a_ Nom Sg m
ONLY-generated
only-begotten

uios
huios
G5207
n_ Nom Sg m
SON

o
ho
G3588
t_ Nom Sg m
THE

18
wn
On
G5607
vp Pres vxx Nom Sg m
One-BEING
one-being

eis
eis
G1519
Prep
INTO

ton
ton
G3588
t_ Acc Sg m
THE

kolpon
kolpon
G2859
n_ Acc Sg m
BOSOM

tou
tou
G3588
t_ Gen Sg m
OF-THE

patros
patros
G3962
n_ Gen Sg m
FATHER

ekeinos
ekeinos
G1565
pd Nom Sg m
that-One
that-one

exhghsato
exEgEsato
G1834
vi Aor midD 3 Sg
unfolds
unfolds-him

1:19 kai
kai
G2532
Conj
AND

auth
hautE
G3778
pd Nom Sg f

patros
πατρός ,
a father
N-GMS

4134 [e]
plērēs
πλήρης
full
Adj-NFS

5485 [e]
charitos
χάριτος
of grace
N-GFS

2532 [e]
kai
καὶ
and
Conj

225 [e]
alētheias
ἀληθείας .
truth
N-GFS

Also go here and check back with us:

http://greeknewtestament.com/B43C001.htm
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The story involves a father sending a son. God the father sending his son. That's what makes it powerful.
Having God send himself makes it not only anticlimactic (God really can't die), but almost incomprehensible.
So it perplexes me why doctrinal Christians feel the necessity to supplement the story we have, summarized by John 3:16 with another story that adds nothing.

You responded to my comment, my opinion, but not to my argument.
It is fair: You posted your opinion only as well.
 
You responded to my comment, my opinion, but not to my argument.
It is fair: You posted your opinion only as well.

I think I did but you didn't want to accept the implication. It's the doctrinal Christians who are destroying the clear gospel message of hope, and supplementing it with useless and arcane theology, which only weakens the Christian witness.

The message of God's transformation love, as expressed through his willingness to let his only son die to prove it, resonates through the centuries and is told on streetcorners today. It changes people.

The obscure incoherent arguments about trinities and original sin only make Christianity appear odd and soulless. That's why traditional Christianity is on the wane. Nobody, I mean nobody, has ever been transformed by the doctrinal story about God being three persons, but different yet one, which you have to believe and profess to be "saved" even if it's impossible to understand. It's the church of the four-sided triangle. In contrast, hundreds of millions have been transformed by the simple narrative of the gospel, embodied in John 3:16.

Mind you, it's clear to me Jesus is divine, though the implications of that are profound and can't be reduced to trinities, much less some empty creed. But be that as it may, that's not the gospel narrative and that's the one that counts. Not what you or I think about God's essence.
 
Last edited:
This is so desperate. You never studied Greek have you?

At least look at the interlineated version and consider how wrong you are.

John 1 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

???? ??????? 1 Biblos Interlinear Bible

You see but you don't comprehend. Jesus is the Word (Logos) who is God and who was with God (likely the Father) in the beginning. God was with God.

So who do you say the Logos is? John says it's a "he " and that he is God.
 
Two more questions, please, to better define your position:

When did Jesus come into existence (in any form) for the first time or, like God, has he always existed?

Is Jesus God in the Old Testament?

I believe he had a spiritual existence prior to his birth, but that he is a created being.

No Jesus is not God in the OT.

Yahweh is God.
 
If you take the "I Am" statement in context, as you should also the blind man quote, it seems to me he is saying "before Abraham existed I existed." He isn't saying "I am the one who did this, or I am the one that had this happen to me." It is about existence. That's my take on it, and certainly those who suddenly wanted to stone him seemed to understand it this way.

In support of his Godship you can look at revelations. When the disciple in revelations started to bow down and worship the angel the angel said "Don't do it" because he was not God. Revelations says the lamb is worthy of worship.
In the old testament there is "Thou shall have no other gods before me." We are not to worship other gods. Even Jesus said worship God and him only.
When the rich young man called Jesus "Good" Jesus replied, "There is only one who is good." Basically implying "if you think I'm good then you must realize I am God." He didn't deny he was good. The statement was intended to challenge the man's understanding of who he actually is.

Question begging: Who is Jesus to you? You've laid out that he isn't God. Who is he? An angel messenger?

I see, I thought you were making the argument that Jesus was refering to the divine name, in saying "I AM."

But yes, Jesus was saying that he existed in some form prior to abraham.

Show me the scripture in revelation so I can respond to the actual scripture, it can get tricky because there are 3 greek words sometimes translated "worship" the most common one is proskuneu, which is used for King David, Angels and others, put show the the specific verse so I know what you're talking about.

As far as the rich man, here is the text in Mark. (simiilar wording in Luke)

17 As he was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him, and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.

Matthew

16 Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.

If he was talking about himself he would have said so, had this been understood as Jesus refering to himself as God, you don't think the rich man would have picked up on it? Obviously he didn't.

Trying to make that text be Jesus talking about himself when he says "why do you call me good, only God is good?" Is stretching it to the point of absurdity.
 
The New Testament says Jesus is God:

1. Jesus existed in the beginning (John 1:1; Philip 2:6; Rev. 19:13; Micah 5:2).
2. He was with God (John 1:1).
3. He is God, the Son (John 1:1; Rom. 9:5; Heb. 1:8, 10; I John 5:20).
4. He is God manifest in the flesh (John 20:28; I Tim. 3:16; Col. 2:9; Acts 20:28; Heb. 1:8).
5. He is God foretold (Isaiah 9:6; Psalm 45:6).
6. He is Immanuel, God with us (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23).
7. He is the true God (I John 5:20 with Titus 2:13; Romans 9:5).
8. He is the great God (Titus 2:13).
9. He is God our Savior (II Peter 1:1).
10. He existed in the form of God before His incarnation and was equal with God the Father (Philippians 2:5-7)
11. He is the only wise God (Jude 25).
12. He is omnipotent over disease. (Matthew 8:1-4; Luke 4:39)
13. He is omnipotent over demons. (Matthew 8:16-17; Luke 4:35)
14. He is omnipotent over nature. ((Matthew 8:26)
15. He is omnipotent over death. (Luke 7:14-15; John 11:25)
16. He is omniscient, knowing the hearts of the Pharisees. (Matthew 12:25; Luke 5:22; 6:8; 7:39-40)
17. He knew the thoughts of the scribes. (Matthew 9:3-4)
18. He knew the history of the Samaritan woman. (John 4:24)
19. He is omnipresent. (Matthew 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; 14:20)
20. He was worshiped as God by the angels (Hebrews 1:6); worshiped as God by the wise men (Matthew 2:2); worshiped as God by the shepherds (Luke 2:15); worshiped as God by a ruler (Matthew 9:18); worshiped as God by Thomas (John 20:28); worshiped as God by the apostles (Matthew 14:33;28:9)
21. He forgives sins. (Mark 2:5)
22. He saves (only God saves). Matthew 18:11; John 10:28).
23. He judges. (John 5:22)
24. Paul, Peter, Jude, James, and John called Him God. (Galatians 2:20; 1 Peter 3:22; Jude 25; James 2:1; I John 5:20; Revelation 1:18; 19:16)
25. He is God’s Son, who was sent to bring us eternal life. (John 3:16)
26. He arose from death in the flesh (John 20:26-28; Luke 24:39-43; I John 4:2-3).
27. One with the Father (John 10:30). - (righterreport.com)

And not only that, but Jesus ushered in the New Covenant. Only God ushers in the major covenants.

Dude, look how I dealt with the scripture, I looked it up, showed what the text says, and showed what it's saying.

This is just posting a bunch of scirptures (not showing the text) and ASSERTING (without any actual backing up) that it says what you say it says ... Now I can go through EVERY SINGLE one of those scripturse and show how they don't nearly say what you claim they say.

But you have to deal honsetly, look in the scripturs and make an argument yourself, OR actually deal with my arguments I laid down.

Fast and loose my foot. As for being ambiguous and needing interpreting, skeptics will always make those self-serving claims.

And a lot of those references were from the Gospels.

We also see Jesus claiming to be "I AM" in Mark's Gospel (chapter 6). When the disciples were afraid from seeing Jesus walking on the water, Jesus said (in the NIV translation), "Take courage! It is I." But the actual Greek is "ego eimi," I AM. So in reality it says 'Take courage, it is I AM.'

I already dealth with teh whole "I am" thing it's not referencing Yahweh AT ALL ....

Jesus existed before his incarnation spoken of in the New Testament. In fact, he is the "Angel of the Lord" ('angel' meaning 'messenger,' not a specific angel), speaking as God in the Burning Bush in the Old Testament. Read the following carefully with an open mind and you will see it.

Angel of the LORD

No ... He isn't, if you think he is make an argument here FROM SCRIPTURE ... as I have.

No. Because it starts riots. See John 8:58.

Yes Read John 8. Read the whole passage, he didn't claim to be God there, I already dealt with it ... People we're trying to kill Jesus for all sorts of reasons, not because he claimed to be Yahweh.

The weight of the scriptural evidence is strongly against you. Genuine Christianity has Christ as God Almighty, and it is indeed working well.

I showed my scriptural evidence, you havn't showed anything, other than assertion, go to my arguments and deal with them.

Copying and pasting from some website isn't making an argument.

Nuts. God didn't do a bad job explaining the deity of Jesus Christ. Some 1 billion believers are on board with it, although some of those wrongfully believe Jesus became God (when he was God all along).

God didn't claim that Jesus was God, or Yahweh, if he did it would be in the bible, it isn't, I showed how it isn't, Jesus is SUBJECT to God, he worships God, and follows Gods command, the people who claimed Jesus was God was the later Church in the late second and third century.

He did indeed claim to be God, so please save that failed argument for someone else.

Did Jesus Claim to Be God? Even if He did Make the Claim, Why Should I Believe it?

Make an arugment yourself, or deal with my arguments, if you can't defend your position don't try and defend it. I can defend my position, and I DO IT.

I've already busted your argument in prior posts where you say Jesus never claimed to be God. So there's no saving face for you here on that argument.

You haven't busted ****, you appeal to scirptures withouth quoting them or doing any exegesis, just assertions, you haven't defened your own arguments (which I busted) or dealt with mine.

You see but you don't comprehend. Jesus is the Word (Logos) who is God and who was with God (likely the Father) in the beginning. God was with God.

So who do you say the Logos is? John says it's a "he " and that he is God.

Read the OP ... There is a reason NO ONE uses John 1:1 (at least in scholarship and theology) to defend the trinity anymore.

I've spent the time to actually GO THROUGH the scriptures you posted (not quoted, not showed the text) and showed why you're wrong and show scriptures, showing the text and exegesis to show why my position is right, I didn't copy and paste from some website, I didn't type a scripture place without showing the text and just make an assertion, I showed the text and made REAL exegesis, I looked and studied the scriptures myself.

If you're a serious christian that cares about scripture you'd do the same.
 
Last edited:
It's the whole "the drop vs. the ocean" thing?

Was Jesus the drop or was he the ocean?

The Holy Trinity defines this quite clearly. They are all connected.

Arguing over whether or not Jesus was God is rather pointless because he was and wasn't, simultaneously. It's a duality riddle.

What I want to know is what happened to Jesus between birth and his 30's when he appeared in Jerusalem. There's a rather huge time gap in his life story. Most of what he has to say parallels what is said in the East. He could have gone anywhere or met anyone in that time.

Almost no scholar today thinks Jesus would have left Palestine between his birth and 30s, he grew up as a poor working glass laborer.

Arguing over whether or not Jesus is The Almighty God isn't pointless, either he was or he wasn't, scripture says he wasn't.
 
Almost no scholar today thinks Jesus would have left Palestine between his birth and 30s, he grew up as a poor working glass laborer.

Is there some record of this that I'm not aware of?

Arguing over whether or not Jesus is The Almighty God isn't pointless, either he was or he wasn't, scripture says he wasn't.

I'm skeptical about whether or not Jesus actually existed because of the striking similarity between the story and others that came even earlier in history. You can view a brief summary of that comparative history here. In particular, the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus almost exactly mirrors that of the Egyptian God Horus. There's also no story that fills in Horus' life.

If Jesus was so important then you'd think that someone either knew his life story or had him recant details of it at some point. The absence of facts between his birth and age 30 is a major discrepancy in the story.
 
Is there some record of this that I'm not aware of?

No, and that is evidence that it didn't happen, people knew who he was, (son of Joseph the Carpenter), he was known as Jesus of Nazareth, being a poor laborer in Galilee he wouldn't have had the funds or opportunity to travel much out of palestine, nor would have have had the imputus, had he traveled east he would have been one of perhaps only a handfull of Jews to have travelled that far up until then, and had he made that trip we would have heard of it, his family would have known, he would have been known for it, and would have not have been silent about it.

It would be as if someone from Idaho today traveled to Mars, mett Marcians people, came back and started preching Marcian widsom, but he was known as the dude from Idaho, and no one mentioned that he traveled to Mars, it's incomprehensible.

I'm skeptical about whether or not Jesus actually existed because of the striking similarity between the story and others that came even earlier in history. You can view a brief summary of that comparative history here. In particular, the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus almost exactly mirrors that of the Egyptian God Horus. There's also no story that fills in Horus' life.

If Jesus was so important then you'd think that someone either knew his life story or had him recant details of it at some point. The absence of facts between his birth and age 30 is a major discrepancy in the story.

Those theories have been debunked 100 years ago. Look at the actual stories, they ARN'T similar at all, and no egyptolosit or historical Jesus cholar buys that, it's also rediculous to say that a 1st cenutry Jew would invent a story based on an eyptian God from 1000+ years ago .... Horus wasn't born of a virgin, he was born of Isis, he was never ressurected, he never died ... he was a god of war and hunting .... Look at actual scholarly work, at the actual Horus myths.

The fact that we have ANYTHING on Jesus' life is incredible, do you know how many messiahs were around that we know almost NOTHING about? The people that wrote the gospels didn't know JEsus as a kid, and JEsus as a kid wan'st important to them ... why would it be?
 
Last edited:
Dude, look how I dealt with the scripture, I looked it up, showed what the text says, and showed what it's saying.

This is just posting a bunch of scirptures (not showing the text) and ASSERTING (without any actual backing up) that it says what you say it says ... Now I can go through EVERY SINGLE one of those scripturse and show how they don't nearly say what you claim they say.

But you have to deal honsetly, look in the scripturs and make an argument yourself, OR actually deal with my arguments I laid down.



I already dealth with teh whole "I am" thing it's not referencing Yahweh AT ALL ....



No ... He isn't, if you think he is make an argument here FROM SCRIPTURE ... as I have.



Yes Read John 8. Read the whole passage, he didn't claim to be God there, I already dealt with it ... People we're trying to kill Jesus for all sorts of reasons, not because he claimed to be Yahweh.



I showed my scriptural evidence, you havn't showed anything, other than assertion, go to my arguments and deal with them.

Copying and pasting from some website isn't making an argument.



God didn't claim that Jesus was God, or Yahweh, if he did it would be in the bible, it isn't, I showed how it isn't, Jesus is SUBJECT to God, he worships God, and follows Gods command, the people who claimed Jesus was God was the later Church in the late second and third century.



Make an arugment yourself, or deal with my arguments, if you can't defend your position don't try and defend it. I can defend my position, and I DO IT.



You haven't busted ****, you appeal to scirptures withouth quoting them or doing any exegesis, just assertions, you haven't defened your own arguments (which I busted) or dealt with mine.



Read the OP ... There is a reason NO ONE uses John 1:1 (at least in scholarship and theology) to defend the trinity anymore.

I've spent the time to actually GO THROUGH the scriptures you posted (not quoted, not showed the text) and showed why you're wrong and show scriptures, showing the text and exegesis to show why my position is right, I didn't copy and paste from some website, I didn't type a scripture place without showing the text and just make an assertion, I showed the text and made REAL exegesis, I looked and studied the scriptures myself.

If you're a serious christian that cares about scripture you'd do the same.

Your explanations fall short.

I've laid out plenty of evidences in prior posts to make my case. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Your explanations fall short.

I've laid out plenty of evidences in prior posts to make my case. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

How do they fall short ... show me,

I showed how your evidnece isn't actually evidence. I went through your scriptures and showed how they didn't support what you claim they did.

We can agree to disagree, but I supported my position, you haven't.
 
Back
Top Bottom