Jesus' Primary Purpose

[HitchSlap]

Sirs?

You're the same posters over and over again

How much more do you want one to say before you do what you are capable of and should be doing for yourself?

Yeah, without some context, this has no meaning.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Sirs?

You're the same posters over and over again

How much more do you want one to say before you do what you are capable of and should be doing for yourself?

So do you have a point in posting in the apologetics forum, when you don't seem to have any desire to engage in apologetics?

 

[miknik5]

So do you have a point in posting in the apologetics forum, when you don't seem to have any desire to engage in apologetics?

Don't concern yourself about what I post here

When there is a discussion that requires a back and forth exchange and I have something to say other than the usual response to your blanket statement "prove it", I will contribute

Right now and here, there is nothing more to say than what I have already said

 

[Uber Genius]

Thank you. This goes back to my Trinity post about the confusion of it all.

You speak of Christ as the creator rather than a redeemer, deity or guide.. I will admit I have confusement but understand your answer is essentially that Jesus as creator is his most important function.. Thank you.

This is known as a false dilemma or either or fallacy.

When authors talk about Jesus he can have several roles, purposes, and attributes. Just as I can be described as a father, son, husband, man, a boy (earlier in life), a college professor, a business executive, a tennis coach.

To which the question, "Well which one is Uber?" Is foolish.

Worse is to feign confusion in order to not have to account for the data.

Like the Trinitarian inference, one must look at why the authors of the New Testament are using " kurios," rendered "Lord" in the Septuagint, or, "ho theos," rendered God in the Septuagint as descriptors of Jesus.

Dozens of references of God in the OT are co-opted by NT authors to describe Jesus' various roles, as well as pre-incarnate activities.

So one's confusion has no bearing on the abductive argument to the best inference.

One could be confused about the dual nature of quantum mechanics, but that has no impact on whether QM is a accurate description of the real external world.

So too your apparent confusion about NT author's representations about Jesus' nature.

More reflection and examination of the data should clear up your confusion.

 

[Khalliqa]

This is known as a false dilemma or either or fallacy.

When authors talk about Jesus he can have several roles, purposes, and attributes. Just as I can be described as a father, son, husband, man, a boy (earlier in life), a college professor, a business executive, a tennis coach.

To which the question, "Well which one is Uber?" Is foolish.

Worse is to feign confusion in order to not have to account for the data.

Like the Trinitarian inference, one must look at why the authors of the New Testament are using " kurios," rendered "Lord" in the Septuagint, or, "ho theos," rendered God in the Septuagint as descriptors of Jesus.

Dozens of references of God in the OT are co-opted by NT authors to describe Jesus' various roles, as well as pre-incarnate activities.

So one's confusion has no bearing on the abductive argument to the best inference.

One could be confused about the dual nature of quantum mechanics, but that has no impact on whether QM is a accurate description of the real external world.

So too your apparent confusion about NT author's representations about Jesus' nature.

More reflection and examination of the data should clear up your confusion.

Re-read the first post.. Thank you

 

[miknik5]

I guess, it's all dependent on that question one must ask himself

 

[Uber Genius]

Re-read the first post.. Thank you

Yes already did and others responses. In fact I addressed your first post partially in my false dilemma example.

I know that you asked for emphasis, which is fine and I was not going to respond to the false dilemma until you posted about your confusion being similar to your confusion on the Trinity. Please re-read my post.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

This is known as a false dilemma or either or fallacy.

It's really not a false dilemma, as the OP didn't seem to be saying that the primary role of Jesus was necessarily one of the three listed. It seemed to be asking open opinions. If that's the case, then there could be no false dilemma.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Is to be worshipped?
Forgive sins of humanity?
Serve as an example?

Of course many would say all three but I'm asking for you to choose the main function or role..

Because depending on the church it seems one of these will be emphasized over the other..

You can ask us to choose, but I'm not going to answer without knowing first what the underlying purpose is that you're wanting to get at.

And if churches seem to emphasize one over the other, so what? Why do you need to know?

 

[Uber Genius]

It's really not a false dilemma, as the OP didn't seem to be saying that the primary role of Jesus was necessarily one of the three listed. It seemed to be asking open opinions. If that's the case, then there could be no false dilemma.

You miss the point.

I already stated what you just said but you seem to fail to read my posts.

But when one starts asking for is it a or b or c, then says " just give me the main emphasis, it could in fact be all three or something not in the list.

But that is just a rhetorical strategy and not necessarily a fallacy as I pointed out earlier. But when one follows up and says this whole things is as confusing as the Trinity, we now see the point is Not to ask emphasis but to present the data is such a fashion as to suggest the NT authors are confused about who is or his calling.

Nice try.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You miss the point.

I already stated what you just said but you seem to fail to read my posts.

But when one starts asking for is it a or b or c, then says " just give me the main emphasis, it could in fact be all three or something not in the list.

But that is just a rhetorical strategy and not necessarily a fallacy as I pointed out earlier. But when one follows up and says this whole things is as confusing as the Trinity, we now see the point is Not to ask emphasis but to present the data is such a fashion as to suggest the NT authors are confused about who is or his calling.

Nice try.

I'm only trying to point out that this isn't an example of a false dilemma. Which I did.

I just think it's important to use terms correctly in Philosophy, if you're going to use them at all.

I'm wondering what the point of the OP is, as others are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm only trying to point out that this isn't an example of a false dilemma. Which I did.

I just think it's important to use terms correctly in Philosophy, if you're going to use them at all.

I'm wondering what the point of the OP is, as others are.

It's more like one of those posts that at first glance sounds cordial and inviting...until we realize who is asking the question(s).

"Would you like to join me for dinner?" said the spider to the fly.

 

[Khalliqa]

Le sigh..

I find theists to be particularly paranoid about many things....

My motive: clarification as to what the Christian belief about Jesus rests upon.. but I'm actually flattered you think I'm so smart that I have an agenda that has duped so many people into answering..

Please note.. I am from another mindset so I will at once display criticism.. and genuine curiosity.. the two are mutually exclusive.. No need to think the display of both means someone has ulterior motives. Though I can't imagine what that would be there doesn't seem to be a loss to you.. All you would be doing is simple clarification of Jesus' purpose on earth.. Quelle horreur! lol.. it clarifies confusing Christian values/tenets.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Le sigh..

I find theists to be particularly paranoid about many things....

My motive: clarification as to what the Christian belief about Jesus rests upon.. but I'm actually flattered you think I'm so smart that I have an agenda that has duped so many people into answering..

Please note.. I am from another mindset so I will at once display criticism.. and genuine curiosity.. the two are mutually exclusive.. No need to think the display of both means someone has ulterior motives. Though I can't imagine what that would be there doesn't seem to be a loss to you.. All you would be doing is simple clarification of Jesus' purpose on earth.. Quelle horreur! lol.. it clarifies confusing Christian values/tenets.

Ok, so now that you have responses from Christians, what do you think?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Le sigh..

I find theists to be particularly paranoid about many things....

My motive: clarification as to what the Christian belief about Jesus rests upon.. but I'm actually flattered you think I'm so smart that I have an agenda that has duped so many people into answering..

Please note.. I am from another mindset so I will at once display criticism.. and genuine curiosity.. the two are mutually exclusive.. No need to think the display of both means someone has ulterior motives. Though I can't imagine what that would be there doesn't seem to be a loss to you.. All you would be doing is simple clarification of Jesus' purpose on earth.. Quelle horreur! lol.. it clarifies confusing Christian values/tenets.

Ok. Thank you for being upfront about your intentions.

But as to the inquiry you have in the OP, I don't really find it needful if, in fact, the Bible exhibits all three purposes as a part of God's Plan. There's no need for me to choose.

 

[Khalliqa]

Ok, so now that you have responses from Christians, what do you think?

Truthfully.. much of what was said is still confusing.. Because it's relayed from the point of someone with unwavering belief and that mindset doesn't account for disbelief which means communication is very difficult.

What I have so far: That Jesus is primary for most Christians a redeemer and the highlighting of any other characteristics will vary depending on the denomination.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Truthfully.. much of what was said is still confusing.. Because it's relayed from the point of someone with unwavering belief and that mindset doesn't account for disbelief which means communication is very difficult.

What I have so far: That Jesus is primary for most Christians a redeemer and the highlighting of any other characteristics will vary depending on the denomination.

Why don't you do a historical analysis of the development of the issue rather than looking at what Christians today are comparatively saying?

 

[Uber Genius]

I'm only trying to point out that this isn't an example of a false dilemma. Which I did.

I just think it's important to use terms correctly in Philosophy, if you're going to use them at all.

I'm wondering what the point of the OP is, as others are.

So since you haven't read my earlier post I will draw you a map:

"When authors talk about Jesus he can have several roles, purposes, and attributes. Just as I can be described as a father, son, husband, man, a boy (earlier in life), a college professor, a business executive, a tennis coach.

To which the question, "Well which one is Uber?" Is foolish.

Worse is to feign confusion in order to not have to account for the data.

Like the Trinitarian inference, one must look at why the authors of the New Testament are using " kurios," rendered "Lord" in the Septuagint, or, "ho theos," rendered God in the Septuagint as descriptors of Jesus.

So the rhetorical trick is when OP asks, "which one is Jesus, a, b, or c.

Now OP softened it to "which was his emphasis" so as I said I gave him a pass on his original formula which is exactly a false dilemma.

But then saw OP feign confusion due to the various descriptions apparently conflicting. Which means he has rhetorically backtracked to ask "So really, which one is it?"

The confusion goes away as I stated in my first reply, if we recognize that we all have different roles at different times and places in our lives. "So which Uber is he, a professor, a business man, a father, a son, a tennis coach...to which the OP is feigning confusion!

No rhetorical tricks!

"A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true."

I specified in my first post that OP ended up feigning confusion because Jesus was either a or b or c. Had he not commented on the confusion his poor choice of framing the OP would have gone uncommented by me as I don't care about his poor construction but rather his good question "what was Jesus' role"

Once he referred back to his original either a or b or c "wait I'm confused." He was done.

Hope this eliminates your tendency to reduce my arguments to the ridiculous and then attack how ridiculous they appear.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What I have so far: That Jesus is primary for most Christians a redeemer and the highlighting of any other characteristics will vary depending on the denomination.

Ok...

This doesn't seem to be surprising.

My question to you is do you think there should be absolute consistency between the answers Christians give, and if so why?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So since you haven't read my earlier post I will draw you a map:

"When authors talk about Jesus he can have several roles, purposes, and attributes. Just as I can be described as a father, son, husband, man, a boy (earlier in life), a college professor, a business executive, a tennis coach.

To which the question, "Well which one is Uber?" Is foolish.

Worse is to feign confusion in order to not have to account for the data.

Like the Trinitarian inference, one must look at why the authors of the New Testament are using " kurios," rendered "Lord" in the Septuagint, or, "ho theos," rendered God in the Septuagint as descriptors of Jesus.

So the rhetorical trick is when OP asks, "which one is Jesus, a, b, or c.

Now OP softened it to "which was his emphasis" so as I said I gave him a pass on his original formula which is exactly a false dilemma.

But then saw OP feign confusion due to the various descriptions apparently conflicting. Which means he has rhetorically backtracked to ask "So really, which one is it?"

The confusion goes away as I stated in my first reply, if we recognize that we all have different roles at different times and places in our lives. "So which Uber is he, a professor, a business man, a father, a son, a tennis coach...to which the OP is feigning confusion!

No rhetorical tricks!

"A False Dilemma is a fallacy in which a person uses the following pattern of "reasoning": Either claim X is true or claim Y is true (when X and Y could both be false). Claim Y is false. Therefore claim X is true."

I specified in my first post that OP ended up feigning confusion because Jesus was either a or b or c. Had he not commented on the confusion his poor choice of framing the OP would have gone uncommented by me as I don't care about his poor construction but rather his good question "what was Jesus' role"

Once he referred back to his original either a or b or c "wait I'm confused." He was done.

Hope this eliminates your tendency to reduce my arguments to the ridiculous and then attack how ridiculous they appear.

Uber....Khalliqa is a 'she,' not a he. Just so you know.