Why... ?

[Tawhano]

They are not meant for the thinking mature experienced adult.

They are not meant for the unbeliever. Your arguments are the arguments of atheist who do not believe in God.

 

[CShephard53]

What feelings am I going by that you aren't?
What facts am I ignoring that you aren't?

Ah, you might want to provide some evidence when you accuse me of being ignorant and subjective. Otherwise people see it as a personal attack, and it's opinion, unbacked.

No one can even produce an original manuscript of ANY book included in the Catholic Canon.

Hilarious claim unless you're talking about the Apocrypha only...

No one can produce ANY evidence that Moses or any one person wrote the Pentateuch.

Opinion, unbacked.
Not true. There's plenty of textual evidence. For example, when Moses was on the mountain getting all the laws- he was alone. And I'm pretty sure even in that culture it would have been next to impossible for him to be up there as short a time as he was and remember everything. That's just one of many arguments I could use- and it's evidence unless you can debunk it.

No one can produce ANY evidence that ANY of the attributed authors of the New Testament wrote all of the books they are given credit for writing.

Luke. Acts. John. Revelation. You have nothing but claims here.

There is absolutely no way Jesus said all the things attributed to him in the Gospels.

Denial with no evidence gets you nowhere.

I am sure they are paraphrases, and capture what the authors "heard", but as we all know, we don't always hear what someone is telling us.

You are sure, yet you can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt. You want to know how I can say that? Because if it could be, the world would know as Christianity is of huge importance in many people's lives. It'd be in the news, too.

Besides, Jesus (Y'shua) would have spoken a Galilean dialect of Aramaic (as he is quoted from the cross, or in other verses like where he specifically said don't call your brother RACA).

Your point? He was in a Greco-Roman culture. What makes you assume that He would have only spoken in Aramaic, hmm?

Not fantasy, but enchantment. Enchantment is the belief that that which is unknown must be magical or mystical.

And Christians are enchanted? Opinion, unbacked.

Reality and history teaches us that EVERYTHING that was once miraculous or magical becomes science or trickery eventually.

Opinion, unbacked.

No one converses with the dead.

Not even the God you claim to serve? Opinion, unbacked.

No one levitates themselves or anyone else.

Not even the God you claim to serve? Opinion, unbacked.

No one saws a person in half or makes them disappear, later to show them perfectly normal.

Illusion, doesn't matter.

Elephants or tigers don't appear out of thin air, balls and cards don't just disappear or appear.

Not even by the Creator? Opinion, unbacked.

No one can "read" your mind.

Not even the God you claim to serve? Opinion, unbacked.

These are all tricks, illusions and cons.

Not all of them.

Did Jesus walk on non frozen water... not a chance.

Opinion, unbacked.

Did Jesus turn water into wine... not a chance.

Opinion, unbacked. And later on you assume that He did. Contradiction much?

Did Jesus somehow remove disease or injury from sick or injured bodies... not one chance out of a bazillion.

Opinion, unbacked.

Did Jesus multiply the amount of bread and fishes the boy gave him to feed over 5000 people... you got to be kidding me.

Opinion, unbacked. And I'll add that you have testimonies against your claims.

Miracles are not testimony to God's greatness. Miracles are testimony to man's ignorance and self deprecation.

Opinion, unbacked.

Every one of the above "miracles" are best interpreted as how we interpret reality, rather than reality itself.

Opinion, unbacked.

For what possible purpose would Jesus change the most precious water into wine? What holy message does that teach us? "Take the easy way out"?

Showing people who He is (stated in John 20:30-31 and as a theme throughout the Gospels- seeing leads to believing)? For what possible purpose do you need to continue to make assumptions that have no backing?

Why would God alter Jesus' body chemistry to make him able to not break the surface tension of the Sea of Galilee? How? These stories are children's stories. They are not meant for the thinking mature experienced adult. You learn these in Sunday School, not in sermons.

So you're saying we aren't thinking mature adults, then? And your last statement is proven untrue a hundred times over. Go to church sometime.

Can you imagine the reaction from any one not already indoctrinated in these stories who hears for the first time that God had to spit in the dirt and press the mud into a man's eyes in order to heal him? The reaction would be: either not a very powerful God, or Apparently mud is good for the eyes. Now that's a God that uses science, manipulates physical reality, and doesn't resort to magic. Either way, the "miracles" lose their enchantment.

Opinion, unbacked.

 

[Ormly]

One can't persuade the unpersuadable; the one who doesn't want to be persuaded. You are just allowing him to waste your time.

 

[CShephard53]

My objective is not to convince the person I'm debating, my objective is to present the facts to the audience- the main one being that my opponent does not have evidence for his claims and therefore has unbacked claims. He is simply proving the premise of this thread- that the Bible can't be viewed accurately and subjectively at the same time.

But if you want to discuss that in greater detail with me, send me a pm, Ormly. I'd like for the thread to not get more off topic than it already has.

 

[Ormly]

My objective is not to convince the person I'm debating, my objective is to present the facts to the audience- the main one being that my opponent does not have evidence for his claims and therefore has unbacked claims. He is simply proving the premise of this thread- that the Bible can't be viewed accurately and subjectively at the same time.

But if you want to discuss that in greater detail with me, send me a pm, Ormly. I'd like for the thread to not get more off topic than it already has.

No sir. For a twenty year old, you are doing just fine with your rebuttals....... I might even learn something..

 

[KCDAD]

Tawhano;40001830
They are not meant for the unbeliever. Your arguments are the arguments of atheist who do not believe in God.

Nice name calling. You want to label me as an atheist?

jawsmetroid;40002344Ah, you might want to provide some evidence when you accuse me of being ignorant and subjective. Otherwise people see it as a personal attack, and it's opinion, unbacked.

I didn't accuse of being either ignorant or subjective in that post. Feeling a litte defensive?

Hilarious claim unless you're talking about the Apocrypha only...

Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm

Yes?

Opinion, unbacked.
Not true. There's plenty of textual evidence. For example, when Moses was on the mountain getting all the laws- he was alone. And I'm pretty sure even in that culture it would have been next to impossible for him to be up there as short a time as he was and remember everything. That's just one of many arguments I could use- and it's evidence unless you can debunk it.

You want to verify Biblical accounts with the Bible itself? How convenient. The same can be said of ANY religious text. (I thought you or someone else stated that in that culture they were trained to memorize long detailed stories?)

Luke. Acts. John. Revelation. You have nothing but claims here.

Which John do you think wrote Revelation? Certainly not the Apostle.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"It is of unknown authorship; although traditionally attributed to Jesus' disciple John, its language is so different from the Gospel of John and that of the three letters attributed to John in the New Testament, that most serious scholars doubt it was written by the apostle."
http://www.countercurrents.org/culture-leupp190704.htm
[/FONT]

Denial with no evidence gets you nowhere.

You don't understand. There is no evidence to indicate Jesus actually said those things, in Greel or any other language. The onus would be one a supporting proof, not refuting proof,

You are sure, yet you can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt. You want to know how I can say that? Because if it could be, the world would know as Christianity is of huge importance in many people's lives. It'd be in the news, too.

Again... there is no reason to believe they are otherwise.

Your point? He was in a Greco-Roman culture. What makes you assume that He would have only spoken in Aramaic, hmm?

I don't presume that. He probably spoke Hebrew as well. He may have known some Greek, too, as it was the lingua franca of the time and location along with Latin. However, when talking to one;s own people, one ALWAYS reverts to native tongue to communicate.

And Christians are enchanted? Opinion, unbacked.

That's not even close to what I said. There belief system is full of enchantment ideas.

Opinion, unbacked.

Not even the God you claim to serve? Opinion, unbacked.

Puh-leese. The dead are dead.

Not even the God you claim to serve? Opinion, unbacked.

Puh-leese

Illusion, doesn't matter.

Not even by the Creator? Opinion, unbacked.

Not even the God you claim to serve? Opinion, unbacked.

Not all of them.

Opinion, unbacked.

Opinion, unbacked. And later on you assume that He did. Contradiction much?

Opinion, unbacked.

Opinion, unbacked. And I'll add that you have testimonies against your claims.


Opinion, unbacked.


Opinion, unbacked.

Showing people who He is (stated in John 20:30-31 and as a theme throughout the Gospels- seeing leads to believing)? For what possible purpose do you need to continue to make assumptions that have no backing?

So you're saying we aren't thinking mature adults, then? And your last statement is proven untrue a hundred times over. Go to church sometime.

Opinion, unbacked.

More later

 

[Tawhano]

Nice name calling. You want to label me as an atheist?

You labeled me before with absolutely no information to indicate what you labeled me was even remotely true so knock yourself out. It isn’t name calling you just finished saying you don’t believe in miracles or that Jesus did anything written in the bible, I am afraid that makes you an unbeliever. You don’t believe hence unbeliever.

Are you able to explain just what makes you a Christian if you don’t believe? Do you believe Jesus is God? I’m not even going to ask you what evidence you have that Jesus didn’t do the miracles because I already know your answer.

 

[CShephard53]

I didn't accuse of being either ignorant or subjective in that post. Feeling a litte defensive?

You asked:

What feelings am I going by that you aren't?

You accuse me of going by feelings instead of fact, or of being subjective.

What facts am I ignoring that you aren't?

You accuse me of ignoring facts.

There is nothing defensive about it. If I was being defensive, I'd defend myself rather than note how much your comments lose you credibility.

Some manuscript texts date to the early second and third centuries, with the time between the original autographs and our earliest existing fragment being a remarkably short 40-60 years.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-manuscripts.htm

Yes?

You said there were none.

No one can even produce an original manuscript of ANY book included in the Catholic Canon.

Which is it?

You said no one can produce. We have about 5,000 whole manuscripts of works in the NT, and about 19,000 more fragments (Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel both state this in Evidence That Demands A Verdict, and Case for Christ). We have enough to know exactly what the originals say with a .002% margin for error (Lee Strobel, Case for Christ). If you want to make claims that are disproven, then go for it. It doesn't hurt me.

Oh, and if you want to say that a later dated manuscript proves anything, you only show how much you didn't read your sources.

You want to verify Biblical accounts with the Bible itself? How convenient. The same can be said of ANY religious text. (I thought you or someone else stated that in that culture they were trained to memorize long detailed stories?)

We're talking about authorship, not verifying biblical accounts. Strawman.

Which John do you think wrote Revelation? Certainly not the Apostle.
[FONT=&quot]"It is of unknown authorship; although traditionally attributed to Jesus' disciple John, its language is so different from the Gospel of John and that of the three letters attributed to John in the New Testament, that most serious scholars doubt it was written by the apostle."
http://www.countercurrents.org/culture-leupp190704.htm[/FONT]

Well, first off the article is written by for a biased source. Second:

Let me bust out my textbook on that one:


Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.



I quote:
"The author calls himself John (1:1) and says he was on the island of Patmos as a result of being a "companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance" that are common to those who are in Jesus (1:9). Patmos is a small island of the coast of Asia Minor in the Aegean Sea. It was a barren, rocky place. John was exiled there, no doubt to die. There is very strong early testimony (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus) that this John was John the Apostle, who also wrote the Gospel and three letters. There is some ancient dissent to this, but it was usually for dogmatic reasons. Dionysius of Alexandria, for example, later followed by Eusebius, disliked the book's teaching on the millennium (a view that he did not share), so he argued against its apostolic origin.
"Much of contemporary scholarship also rejects the apostolic origin of Revelation. But this negative position rests on internal grounds, claiming that the theology of the book and the Greek used are so different from the Gospel's that the same person could not have written both. Since most of these modern scholars do not accept the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, it is hard to see the force of their argument, but even granting the differences, they are not as great as some contemporary scholars make them out to be. Those far closer to the situation historically, and who spoke Greek as their native language had no problem with acknowledging John the apostle as the author of both the Gospel and the Book of Revelation."
Footnote on second paragraph:

"For a good discussion of this, see Donald Gutherie, New Testament Introduction (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1964), 929-85; D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 465-86; I. T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 343-93"








Also, the only credits the author of the article you quote gets is that he's an author and a professor at Tufts University. The authors of the textbook:
Walter A. Elwell:

• Has a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh
• Is emeritus professor of biblical and theological studies at Wheaton College
• Is the editor of numerous biblical reference books

And Robert W. Yarbrough:

• Has a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen
• Is an associate professor of New Testament at Trinity International University
• Is the coeditor of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series

You don't understand. There is no evidence to indicate Jesus actually said those things, in Greel or any other language. The onus would be one a supporting proof, not refuting proof,

Opinion, unbacked.

Again... there is no reason to believe they are otherwise.

Opinion, unbacked.

I don't presume that. He probably spoke Hebrew as well. He may have known some Greek, too, as it was the lingua franca of the time and location along with Latin. However, when talking to one;s own people, one ALWAYS reverts to native tongue to communicate.

Opinion, unbacked.

That's not even close to what I said. There belief system is full of enchantment ideas.

Again: opinion, unbacked.

This shows nothing.

Puh-leese. The dead are dead.

This shows nothing.

Puh-leese

This shows nothing.

More later

Fun.

 

[KCDAD]

You labeled me before with absolutely no information to indicate what you labeled me was even remotely true so knock yourself out. It isn’t name calling you just finished saying you don’t believe in miracles or that Jesus did anything written in the bible, I am afraid that makes you an unbeliever. You don’t believe hence unbeliever.

Are you able to explain just what makes you a Christian if you don’t believe? Do you believe Jesus is God? I’m not even going to ask you what evidence you have that Jesus didn’t do the miracles because I already know your answer.

I don't believe in nonsense. That makes me rational. I don't believe in a God that doesn't follow his own laws, that makes me consistent. I don't believe in cultural superstitions, that makes me enlightened.

What's that make you?

 

[KCDAD]

You asked:

You accuse me of going by feelings instead of fact, or of being subjective.

You accuse me of ignoring facts.

There is nothing defensive about it. If I was being defensive, I'd defend myself rather than note how much your comments lose you credibility.


You said there were none.

Which is it?

You said no one can produce. We have about 5,000 whole manuscripts of works in the NT, and about 19,000 more fragments (Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel both state this in Evidence That Demands A Verdict, and Case for Christ). We have enough to know exactly what the originals say with a .002% margin for error (Lee Strobel, Case for Christ). If you want to make claims that are disproven, then go for it. It doesn't hurt me.

Oh, and if you want to say that a later dated manuscript proves anything, you only show how much you didn't read your sources.


We're talking about authorship, not verifying biblical accounts. Strawman.






Well, first off the article is written by for a biased source. Second:

Let me bust out my textbook on that one:


Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. 2. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.



I quote:
"The author calls himself John (1:1) and says he was on the island of Patmos as a result of being a "companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance" that are common to those who are in Jesus (1:9). Patmos is a small island of the coast of Asia Minor in the Aegean Sea. It was a barren, rocky place. John was exiled there, no doubt to die. There is very strong early testimony (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Hippolytus) that this John was John the Apostle, who also wrote the Gospel and three letters. There is some ancient dissent to this, but it was usually for dogmatic reasons. Dionysius of Alexandria, for example, later followed by Eusebius, disliked the book's teaching on the millennium (a view that he did not share), so he argued against its apostolic origin.
"Much of contemporary scholarship also rejects the apostolic origin of Revelation. But this negative position rests on internal grounds, claiming that the theology of the book and the Greek used are so different from the Gospel's that the same person could not have written both. Since most of these modern scholars do not accept the Johannine authorship of the Gospel, it is hard to see the force of their argument, but even granting the differences, they are not as great as some contemporary scholars make them out to be. Those far closer to the situation historically, and who spoke Greek as their native language had no problem with acknowledging John the apostle as the author of both the Gospel and the Book of Revelation."
Footnote on second paragraph:

"For a good discussion of this, see Donald Gutherie, New Testament Introduction (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1964), 929-85; D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992), 465-86; I. T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1967), 343-93"








Also, the only credits the author of the article you quote gets is that he's an author and a professor at Tufts University. The authors of the textbook:
Walter A. Elwell:

• Has a Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh
• Is emeritus professor of biblical and theological studies at Wheaton College
• Is the editor of numerous biblical reference books

And Robert W. Yarbrough:

• Has a Ph.D. from the University of Aberdeen
• Is an associate professor of New Testament at Trinity International University
• Is the coeditor of the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament series

Opinion, unbacked.


Opinion, unbacked.


Opinion, unbacked.



Again: opinion, unbacked.

This shows nothing.



This shows nothing.


This shows nothing.

Fun.

I said there were no ORIGINAL texts... only copies. There are no original texts. I stand by it. Do you happen to know how many changes were made to the "official" Canon with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Do you happen to know how many "new" Gospels and testimonies were found in the past century that were never discussed or included in the 4th century Canon?

As for your contention that copies prove the original; that is not evidence. It is presumption.


Yes I am expressing my opinion. Can you show any evidence that Jesus or the fisherman spoke any language other than their local tongue? Where would these uneducated peasants have learned these other languages? I am using the good sense God gave us to think with. You are parroting 5th century bureaucratic dogma that makes no sense in our time, with our knowledge.

You probably know that Jews still read the Torah in Hebrew, and their native languages, not Greek. When Jesus read the Isaiah prophesy in the synagogue, you "know" he read it in Hebrew or Aramaic... right? (even though it is recorded in Greek in the Gospel)

 

[CShephard53]

I said there were no ORIGINAL texts... only copies. There are no original texts.

You may have meant that, but what you said was:

No one can even produce an original manuscript of ANY book included in the Catholic Canon.

Produce, last time I checked, has a couple meanings. Produce as in what's in a grocery store, produce as in come up with, or produce as in make. You said 'no one can even produce' indicating that you were trying to give emphasis indicating the last meaning I put. You need to make things a bit clearer before they're misinterpreted.

I stand by it. Do you happen to know how many changes were made to the "official" Canon with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Do you happen to have any evidence for your claim?

Do you happen to know how many "new" Gospels and testimonies were found in the past century that were never discussed or included in the 4th century Canon?

Do you know why they were not included?

As for your contention that copies prove the original; that is not evidence. It is presumption.

Contention? It's not contention, it's a claim that is backed. If you write 'God is cool' on a piece of paper and copy it 5 times, and have 19 fragments, how do you not have a piece of paper that still says 'God is cool'? That's basically what you're saying, only worse.

Yes I am expressing my opinion. Can you show any evidence that Jesus or the fisherman spoke any language other than their local tongue?

Jesus speaks with Pilate, who was Roman. He would have spoken Greek. And it's recorded in all four Gospels that Pilate was speaking to the people- which means all four must have spoken Greek. Jesus converses with Pilate, which meant He also spoke Greek. And yeah, He also spoke Aramaic. And He talks with Jews. So either He spoke to them in Greek, or He used Hebrew and it was recorded in Greek. Any way you slice it, Jesus and His disciples were at least bilingual, if not multilingual.

Where would these uneducated peasants have learned these other languages?

Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was a doctor, Paul was a Pharisee. Uneducated for the majority, perhaps. But certainly not in every case.

I am using the good sense God gave us to think with. You are parroting 5th century bureaucratic dogma that makes no sense in our time, with our knowledge.

That's hilarious, really. What are we discussing? Currently the New Testament. When was it written? Far before the fifth century, by 400 years. You want to try to take things completely out of context?

You probably know that Jews still read the Torah in Hebrew, and their native languages, not Greek. When Jesus read the Isaiah prophesy in the synagogue, you "know" he read it in Hebrew or Aramaic... right? (even though it is recorded in Greek in the Gospel)

You just said yourself that Jesus' disciples are bilingual. Why do I even need to make an argument if you're going to do it for me?

 

[Tawhano]

I don't believe in nonsense. That makes me rational.

I don’t believe in nonsense either; especially the nonsense you brought to this one sided debate. A rational person when making his point about something provides reasons behind his views; you do not. You provide ridicule of your opponents views because you have no rational reason to believe the way you do.

I don't believe in a God that doesn't follow his own laws, that makes me consistent.

I also believe in a God that follows his own laws and in fact demonstrated this on several occasions. You have failed to provide one bit of rational debate to demonstrate where I indicated that God doesn’t follow his own laws. You irrational response is emotional based and not fact based. This is true for the majority of your responses.

I don't believe in cultural superstitions, that makes me enlightened.

No it makes you narrow minded. You discount things you can’t understand and make absolutely no attempt to listen to the arguments presented to you explaining the things you emotionally branded "cultural superstitions".

What's that make you?

Rational.

Here are the simple questions I asked you before that you conveniently ignored that don’t require any source of evidence (the kind you evidently prefer) to answer. Just give me your own opinion. Are you able to explain just what makes you a Christian if you don’t believe? Do you believe Jesus is God?

 

[KCDAD]

I don’t believe in nonsense either; especially the nonsense you brought to this one sided debate. A rational person when making his point about something provides reasons behind his views; you do not. You provide ridicule of your opponents views because you have no rational reason to believe the way you do.

I also believe in a God that follows his own laws and in fact demonstrated this on several occasions. You have failed to provide one bit of rational debate to demonstrate where I indicated that God doesn’t follow his own laws. You irrational response is emotional based and not fact based. This is true for the majority of your responses.

No it makes you narrow minded. You discount things you can’t understand and make absolutely no attempt to listen to the arguments presented to you explaining the things you emotionally branded "cultural superstitions".

Rational.

Here are the simple questions I asked you before that you conveniently ignored that don’t require any source of evidence (the kind you evidently prefer) to answer. Just give me your own opinion. Are you able to explain just what makes you a Christian if you don’t believe? Do you believe Jesus is God?

Want to explain how Jesus could walk on water and still be following God's laws of surface tension, gravity, and buoyancy?
Any of the so called miracles that include bushes burning but not being consumed, turning snakes in to sticks and vice versa, changing the chemical make up of water into wine: H2O ---> C2H6O.
These are "illegal" activities even for a deity.

You would have Jesus be a law breaker, or worse, scofflaw.

But you see, I do understand them. I know exactly what the author meant when he wrote Jesus turned water into wine. I know exactly what he meant when he said Jesus walked on the water or was born of a virgin... it isn't magic. It is wonder.

When you open your mind to the real wonder of God, you will see there is no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles.

 

[KCDAD]

Of course Jesus is God.

 

[Ormly]

http://foru.ms/t6275359-was-jesus-god.html[SIZE=+0][/SIZE]

 

[Tawhano]

You would have Jesus be a law breaker, or worse, scofflaw.

Where did I have Jesus break a law? Please quote where I said Jesus is violating the laws. You made the same false accusation about God breaking the laws and refused to provide evidence there as well.

When you open your mind to the real wonder of God, you will see there is no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles.

Here is yet another emotional appeal with absolutely no substantial grounding for evidence. You have not demonstrated that you have an open mind so don’t entertain the idea that you have any credibility to counsel me to have an open mind.

Of course Jesus is God.

So explain how that works in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world. How can a man be a god? How did Jesus get to be a god? What is a god to you? From our discussions so far it seems a god to you is simply a man who is confined to the perceptions of what science has uncovered so far. I am genuinely interested in your theology about your god.

 

[KCDAD]

Where did I have Jesus break a law? Please quote where I said Jesus is violating the laws. You made the same false accusation about God breaking the laws and refused to provide evidence there as well.

Here is yet another emotional appeal with absolutely no substantial grounding for evidence. You have not demonstrated that you have an open mind so don’t entertain the idea that you have any credibility to counsel me to have an open mind.

So explain how that works in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world. How can a man be a god? How did Jesus get to be a god? What is a god to you? From our discussions so far it seems a god to you is simply a man who is confined to the perceptions of what science has uncovered so far. I am genuinely interested in your theology about your god.

Sabbath laws? gleaning grain from the fields on the Sabbath
Physical laws? walking on water, changing chemical make up of elements ( alchemy)
Moral laws? allowing unclean women to touch him
Legal law? refusing to answer to the authorities

 

[KCDAD]

So explain how that works in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world. How can a man be a god? How did Jesus get to be a god? What is a god to you? From our discussions so far it seems a god to you is simply a man who is confined to the perceptions of what science has uncovered so far. I am genuinely interested in your theology about your god.

Those are very good questions. The New Testament gives us at least 4 different explanations as to how "Jesus (got) to be a god".
1. Matthew 1:18 at birth (Hebraic)
2. Mark 1:10 at the baptism (Apostolic)
3. Luke 1:35 at conception (Greek)
4. John 1:14 since the beginning, and manifested in Jesus at conception (Gnostic)
5. Paul in Roman 1:4 at the resurrection (Christian-defeating death)
6. Paul to the Corinthians 1Cor 5 :19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (some time in Jesus' ministry- after puberty) (Christian - redemption)


God is not a man at all. God has no hands or eyes but OUR hands and eyes. God is not a being with free will or choice. God is, as Paul Tillich described, not a being but the ground of all being, existence itself; life, reality, truth... whichever absolute you wish to ascribe to all things.

 

[Tawhano]

Sabbath laws? gleaning grain from the fields on the Sabbath
Physical laws? walking on water, changing chemical make up of elements ( alchemy)
Moral laws? allowing unclean women to touch him
Legal law? refusing to answer to the authorities

The question is where did I say Jesus broke the law. You have no idea if I believe the bible accounts literally or not so why can’t you just answer the question truthfully that you made it up and ascribed it to me.

Those are very good questions. The New Testament gives us at least 4 different explanations as to how "Jesus (got) to be a god".

So why didn’t you answer them?

1. Matthew 1:18 at birth (Hebraic)

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Being found with child means she is still pregnant and hasn’t delivered the baby yet. Nowhere in this verse does it say Jesus was God. So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world that a ghost impregnated a woman.

2. Mark 1:10 at the baptism (Apostolic)

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

The Spirit descended on the folks in the upper room too; are they gods? So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world how the Spirit manifested itself to the people “like a dove”.

3. Luke 1:35 at conception (Greek)

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Why is this different than your number one non-answer? So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world how a ghost impregnated a woman.

4. John 1:14 since the beginning, and manifested in Jesus at conception (Gnostic)

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Where are you getting the conception part here? There is no mentioning of conception. So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world that the life in Jesus existed “in the beginning” before he was born.

5. Paul in Roman 1:4 at the resurrection (Christian-defeating death)

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

This isn’t saying Jesus became God at his resurrection; it is saying the resurrection was a sign that he was the Son of God. So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world how a dead man can rise from the dead after being embalm in funeral clothes for several days.

6. Paul to the Corinthians 1Cor 5 :19 God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (some time in Jesus' ministry- after puberty) (Christian - redemption)

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

I am assuming that you meant 2 Corinthians. So how did you get that this verse was saying Jesus became God “some time in Jesus' ministry- after puberty”? So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world that Jesus (a man) had a God inside him when you believe demons can’t reside in a man.

All you have demonstrated with your quotes from scripture is that you have very little understanding of their meanings and the stuff you included in parentheses has little or nothing to do with the verse. So are you going to answer my questions or not?

God is not a man at all. God has no hands or eyes but OUR hands and eyes. God is not a being with free will or choice. God is, as Paul Tillich described, not a being but the ground of all being, existence itself; life, reality, truth... whichever absolute you wish to ascribe to all things.

So Jesus is God because God is everything? God doesn’t really exist but is a concept in which we measure our pain?

 

[KCDAD]

Tawhano;40034078The question is where did I say Jesus broke the law. You have no idea if I believe the bible accounts literally or not so why can’t you just answer the question truthfully that you made it up and ascribed it to me.

So why didn’t you answer them?

Semantic little devil, aintcha? Whether you wrote those words or not there are the specific examples of God (Jesus) breaking his own laws. That makes God a lawbreaker... by definition.

Matthew 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

Being found with child means she is still pregnant and hasn’t delivered the baby yet. Nowhere in this verse does it say Jesus was God. So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world that a ghost impregnated a woman.

A man can not be born without a sperm permeating an ovum. Not in parthenogenesis, not in vitro, not anywhere except in an ignorant person's imagination. A far as I know, ghosts don't have male DNA.

Mark 1:10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

The Spirit descended on the folks in the upper room too; are they gods? So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world how the Spirit manifested itself to the people “like a dove”.

Pentecost? It was tongues of fire, not a bird.
The baptism is the first mention by Mark that was Jesus was somehow different than others. The earlier part of the chapter is going on about John the Baptist, leading to this initial point of Jesus' ministry as the Son of God, declared so by the voice of God at the banks of the River Jordan.

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Why is this different than your number one non-answer? So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world how a ghost impregnated a woman.

Oh, You actually believe a ghost impregnated her? I don't. I am sure that either Joseph was the biological father or some other ... perhaps some Roman, or other Gentile who raped Mary.

John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

Where are you getting the conception part here? There is no mentioning of conception. So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world that the life in Jesus existed “in the beginning” before he was born.

Where is there life? Only in living things. Jesus was not alive until he was conceived.

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

This isn’t saying Jesus became God at his resurrection; it is saying the resurrection was a sign that he was the Son of God. So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world how a dead man can rise from the dead after being embalm in funeral clothes for several days.

No, it is saying his Son-ness is is declared, proven, evidenced (whatever word you prefer) by the resurrection... not by his existing since the beginning of time, not by his immaculate conception, not by the baptism and the declaration by the voice of God, not by his ministry and not by his death.... but by the resurrection!

Hmmmm. as to you non-magical question... I guess a dead man couldn't. Could he?

2 Corinthians 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

I am assuming that you meant 2 Corinthians. So how did you get that this verse was saying Jesus became God “some time in Jesus' ministry- after puberty”? So explain to me in your “no need for these tricks and sleight of hand explanations of magic and miracles” world that Jesus (a man) had a God inside him when you believe demons can’t reside in a man.

The reconciliation comes in Jesus ministry which doesn't begin until after puberty. (Remember he tells his mother, my time has not yet come... his ministry begins after the temptation in the wilderrness)

You still think God is a thing... we know that two things can not occupy the same space and time. God is not a thing... neither a man nor a ghost. (If you change your thinking just a little,,, substitute "Truth" for "God", (or Love, Mercy, Wisdom... ) you get... "Truth was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself"... hey! That's possible.. truth could be in someone even if a ghost couldn't!

All you have demonstrated with your quotes from scripture is that you have very little understanding of their meanings and the stuff you included in parentheses has little or nothing to do with the verse. So are you going to answer my questions or not?

Uh huh...

So Jesus is God because God is everything? God doesn’t really exist but is a concept in which we measure our pain?

Orwell would be proud. Double speak is very difficult to respond to with anything other than a chuckle and a wag of the head.

BTW... concepts do exist.