agnostic vs. atheist

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The Lord Jesus Christ is the unique person of the universe, in that He is both fully God and fully man. The humanity of Christ is revealed in the Garden; in fact, if anything, the passages containing the Garden scene confirm that He was fully human. Only one fully clothed in flesh and blood would be so opposed to losing the same.

The key word, however, is "nonetheless..." or, as your version puts it "howbeit..."

Of course the passages confirm that he was fully man, but they cast serious doubt on the idea that he was fully God.

One word doesn't make a passage. Please explain why Jesus says that it is the Father's will, not his own (and an answer about the angel might be nice).

EDIT: "My version" is the American Standard which is easier to read then the King James. If you wish me to use the KJV or any other traditional translation, please say so.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You know better than to expect anything humerous from me on this subject.

But that was the point of the argument in the first place. The wording of your post is something like "That argument makes no sense because it is successful!"

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course the passages confirm that he was fully man, but they cast serious doubt on the idea that he was fully God.

One word doesn't make a passage. Please explain why Jesus says that it is the Father's will, not his own (and an answer about the angel might be nice).

It is impossible to develop an accurate theology out of any one passage, or even any three passages. Scripture must be compared with Scripture in order to encompass all points of doctrine and thus establish an orthodox view.

In more than one passage, the Lord Jesus Christ has establised His deity--- which says nothing of the Old Testament demand for the same.

Here, He cleary is acknowledging His overarching desire to have the Father's plan take place. In asking for the same to happen any other way, this is not rebellion; it is merely an acknowledgement of His humanity. More than one sacrifice took place at the cross, or in the hypostatic union.

Angels attended to the Lord Jesus Christ on another occasion, as well: after His humanity was taxed to the pinnacle of limits and He passed said test. Here, He is comforted again.

Originally posted by telerion
But that was the point of the argument in the first place. The wording of your post is something like "That argument makes no sense because it is successful!"

It is only successful dependent upon a known error, therefore, unsuccessful.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is impossible to develop an accurate theology out of any one passage, or even any three passages. Scripture must be compared with Scripture in order to encompass all points of doctrine and thus establish an orthodox view.

In more than one passage, the Lord Jesus Christ has establised His deity--- which says nothing of the Old Testament demand for th ...[text shortened]... nity was taxed to the pinnacle of limits and He passed said test. Here, He is comforted again.

While passages have to be read in context, what you have done is reach certain conclusions and then interpret all passages to conform to your pre-existing views. Christ hasn't established his deity if there are passages clearly indicating that his will is subordinate to the Father (at least he hasn't established that he is not, at most, a lesser deity). These passages do just that.

Previously you claimed that Jesus had accepted the necessity of his death as payment for all humanity's sins in eternity past. Yet here he is asking to be relieved of this task. Did he change his mind?

Why an angel would be needed to strengthen (not "comfort"😉 Jesus is something you have failed to explain. If Jesus was fully God he would hardly need such assistance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
While passages have to be read in context, what you have done is reach certain conclusions and then interpret all passages to conform to your pre-existing views. Christ hasn't established his deity if there are passages clearly indicating that his will is subordinate to the Father (at least he hasn't established that he is not, at most, a lesser deity). ...[text shortened]... ng you have failed to explain. If Jesus was fully God he would hardly need such assistance.

While passages have to be read in context, what you have done is reach certain conclusions and then interpret all passages to conform to your pre-existing views.
Quite the contrary, actually. Beginning with the basics (does God exist; has He spoken to man; what is that record, etc.), man is inevitably drawn to the truth of Scripture and the principles thereof. When we stop short and allow ourselves to become distracted by the pretty flowers along the way, we 'burn the picture for the ashes,' as it has been said.

We do ourselves a disservice to begin with pre-suppositions of any kind, just as much of a disservice as allowing ourselves to become distracted while on the path and refusing to commit to the whole journey. While doubt and questions can indeed initiate investigation, when we allow them to always be our final answer, we may as well never start. By this, I don't mean that questions aren't welcomed: they are not only encouraged, but demanded. "Ask, seek, knock.." as we have been instructed is a great rule of thumb. There is, however, the danger that in constantly asking that we somehow forget what answer we were looking for in the first place. In heaven, I'm certain there will be people who are convinced they are only dreaming.

All that being said, it is with more than an open mind that I have arrived at the conclusions I currently hold. My inquiry went beyond doubt to absolute rejection. But when I realized that my rejection had become my sacred cow, I looked again, testing my doubt against all comers. The systematic view of doctrine is where I stand as a result of that transparency.

Originally posted by no1marauder
While passages have to be read in context, what you have done is reach certain conclusions and then interpret all passages to conform to your pre-existing views. Christ hasn't established his deity if there are passages clearly indicating that his will is subordinate to the Father (at least he hasn't established that he is not, at most, a lesser deity). ...[text shortened]... ng you have failed to explain. If Jesus was fully God he would hardly need such assistance.

Why an angel would be needed to strengthen (not "comfort"😉 Jesus is something you have failed to explain. If Jesus was fully God he would hardly need such assistance.

I suppose we could argue about the semantics of the translation of the word, but whether strength or comfort, the person in receipt was the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, not the deity. This is tantamount to quibbling over Him eating, when God clearly does not need food.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Why an angel would be needed to strengthen (not "comfort"😉 Jesus is something you have failed to explain. If Jesus was fully God he would hardly need such assistance.

I suppose we could argue about the semantics of the translation of the word, but whether strength or comfort, the person in receipt was the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, not th ...[text shortened]... deity. This is tantamount to quibbling over Him eating, when God clearly does not need food.[/b]

What are you saying: that the humanity of Jesus Christ was separate and distinct from the deity Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
What are you saying: that the humanity of Jesus Christ was separate and distinct from the deity Jesus Christ?

Yes. Fully human and fully God. No loss of either, no sharing of properties.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]While passages have to be read in context, what you have done is reach certain conclusions and then interpret all passages to conform to your pre-existing views.
Quite the contrary, actually. Beginning with the basics (does God exist; has He spoken to man; what is that record, etc.), man is inevitably drawn to the truth of Scripture and the princi ...[text shortened]... mers. The systematic view of doctrine is where I stand as a result of that transparency.[/b]

So you accept the "basics" - God exists and the Bible is the record of his speaking to Man first and then if a perusal of the actual words of the Bible cast doubt on your already accepted "final answer" they are mere "distractions"?

I think your post says the same thing as my post it is in response to.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Yes. Fully human and fully God. No loss of either, no sharing of properties.

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD said:

We teach . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.


Were they wrong?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
It is only successful dependent upon a known error, therefore, unsuccessful.

And that error is . . .?

Originally posted by twhitehead
It depends on your definition of the various words: "atheist", "agnostic" and "better".
I am currently reading "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins (due to frequent references to it on this site), and he makes a fairly good argument that some forms of agnosticism are irrational positions to hold.
For example the claim "we cannot know if God exists" is ...[text shortened]... o bad. Also the claim "there is a 50/50 chance that God exists" is total nonsense.

I read that this time last year it's a great read I am sure you will enjoy. People know Dawkins as basically a professional atheist. He considers himself agnostic though to the degree to which you cannot disprove something that does not exist. But he makes that distinction. This makes an agnostic position more rational than "I know for certain there is no god". For all intents and purposes he's an atheist though--if he isn't, who is? All "atheists" are to that extent agnostic, meaning they allow for the possibility of God to exist to be as likely as the tooth fairy, santa claus etc.