Originally posted by knightmeisterYou have no point. You just seem to enjoy following me around and posting inane comments. Are you and your minions still sending PM's to people "warning" them about me? I swear, you're worse than a bunch of schoolgirls.
Exposing contradictions in someone's position is not slinging mud. Twice I have experienced you as running away from any debate concerning what Jesus said about the Holy Spirit , so that's substantial evidence for what I have said. I have also noticed how you quote Jesus's words with repetitive ferocity when it supports your position without any doub ...[text shortened]... istance whilst hiding yourself from the truth that you have been caught with your pants down.
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThe fact that Jesus said an awful lot about both himself , his death , the role of his blood in overcoming sin and most of all the Holy Spirit is indeed quite a pertinent point worth addressing I feel.
You have no point. You just seem to enjoy following me around and posting inane comments. Are you and your minions still sending PM's to people "warning" them about me? I swear, you're worse than a bunch of schoolgirls.
I'm surprised that you feel that Jesus's teachings are so insubstantial to you , in other contexts you seem to have little problem honouring his teachings. It's very convenient for you to make this about me when infact it's about Jesus and what he said. Do not allow yourself to be so self deceptive (and paranoid)
I personally have only ever sent one PM to another Christian about you to warn them that you were a slippery customer who would be very unlikely to hold himself to his own standards regarding consistency of argument.
So I repeat the point (and everyone here will know whether it's a solid point or not) ......my point is that you seem to like to cast doubt on Jesus's words when it suits (eg what he says about the HS) but when it suits you , you repetitively post his words confidently as if there is no room for ambiguity. That my friend is inconsistency and you need to address it.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterListen, I understand that you have a real problem dealing with the fact that Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. Since then it's been nothing but a steady stream of red herrings, distortions, false accusations, etc. Don't you think enough is enough? This thread is about exploring objections that atheists may have against the teachings of Jesus. If you don't have something to say about this topic, maybe you should just move along.
The fact that Jesus said an awful lot about both himself , his death , the role of his blood in overcoming sin and most of all the Holy Spirit is indeed quite a pertinent point worth addressing I feel.
I'm surprised that you feel that Jesus's teachings are so insubstantial to you , in other contexts you seem to have little problem honouring his here is no room for ambiguity. That my friend is inconsistency and you need to address it.
Originally posted by David CThe object of this thread was to find places where people find the teachings of Jesus unsound.
Why is the distinction "important"? If you remove the whole divinity/redemption thing from the equation, what are you left with?
Perhaps I'm reading too much into your posts, but you seem to have "Christianity" and the teachings of Jesus inextricably linked. Much of "Christianity" seems to have left the essence of the teachings of Jesus behind. While there is much about "Christianity" that is self-contradictory and illogical, the teachings of Jesus are quite sound. For example, Jesus taught salvation through righteousness. There isn't that contradiction of having been "saved from sin" yet continuing to sin.
Originally posted by thymeWhy do you believe that Jesus never claimed to be God's only Son?
It wasn't suicide. He didn't want to die: "Take this cup away from me"
Sacrifice is giving something you don't want to give, but doing it anyway.
By the way I think Shavixmir is right, Jesus never claimed to be Gods only son.
Originally posted by dizzyfingersWhy do you believe he did? Can you quote any passage in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which unequivocally states this? How exactly could Jesus be God's son anyway if you believe Jesus existed eternally (as most Christians do and as John claimed)?
Why do you believe that Jesus never claimed to be God's only Son?
Originally posted by no1marauderI didn't state that I did, only that I wondered why thyme did.
Why do you believe he did? Can you quote any passage in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) which unequivocally states this? How exactly could Jesus be God's son anyway if you believe Jesus existed eternally (as most Christians do and as John claimed)?
Why do I have to stick with the Synoptics? Don't like John 3:16?
Your last question seems more antagonistic than honest. BTW, Jesus claimed He was eternal, too.
2 edits
Originally posted by dizzyfingersYou failed to answer my question; how can an eternal entity be anything's Son? I don't recall Jesus ever claiming he was eternal i.e. had existed since the beginning of time. If he did so, the same question could be directed to him.
I didn't state that I did, only that I wondered why thyme did.
Why do I have to stick with the Synoptics? Don't like John 3:16?
Your last question seems more antagonistic than honest. BTW, Jesus claimed He was eternal, too.
The Synoptics are more reliable as stating the actual words of Jesus. Many of the passages are in more than one or in all three. This is not true for John which was written substantially later and seems to have been influenced by later theological developments and contradicts the others in certain particulars (some not so unimportant as whether the Last Supper was the Passover meal or not).
EDIT: Here is a short recitation of the reasons and facts indicating why John shouldn't be treated as "gospel". http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/john.html
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzYour definition would imply that all soldiers are suicidal. If not, please explain why not.
But he didn't prevent himself from being killed, despite being perfectly able to. In fact, one could say, he effectively put himself in harms way by being in the place where he knew he'd be arrested. Being an omniscient being, he could have just hid, or just been somewhere else. The fact that he knowingly chose to put himself in harm's way, was suicidal.
* I should say "willing soldiers" - there are some enlisted against their will.
Originally posted by no1marauderI checked out the link you referenced. It is a mixture of good and bad information, i.e., yes, John's Gospel does differ from the other gospels, but that of itself does not make it unreliable, only different. It's authorship being credited to John also seems credible and the style is obviously that of the author of the letters we know as I John, II John, & III John, and also of the Revelation. I could go on, but I won't. It seems often that people look at the same facts and reach different conclusions based on how they interpret those facts. I have found the Scriptures trustworthy overall despite some few and far between troublesome areas.
You failed to answer my question; how can an eternal entity be anything's Son? I don't recall Jesus ever claiming he was eternal i.e. had existed since the beginning of time. If he did so, the same question could be directed to him.
The Synoptics are more reliable as stating the actual words of Jesus. Many of the passages are in more than ...[text shortened]... ng why John shouldn't be treated as "gospel". http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/john.html
Regarding Jesus' own claims of His pre-existence:
John 8:58 "Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM." Here Jesus takes the name of God revealed to Moses at the burning bush and applies it to Himself.
John 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me alongside Yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was."
Also, have you ever noticed in Genesis 1:26 how God speaks saying," Let Us make man in Our image ..."? Why 'Us' and 'Our'? Jesus does the same thing when speaking to Nicodemus in John 3:11 - "Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness." Who is the 'We' and 'Our' Jesus is referring to?
The best way I understand the Father/Son terminology is in terms of authority and submission. It seems consistent with the Scriptures.
Originally posted by no1marauderThats flawed logic. It is a well known fact that the gospel writers copied from each other or from a common source, so the fact that they have passages in common only shows their copy/paste ability not how well they wrote down what Jesus actually said. We do not know how any of them found out about what Jesus said, so even though John was written later it is not a definite conclusion that he was less accurate. One should also not ignore all the other 'gospels'.
The Synoptics are more reliable as stating the actual words of Jesus. Many of the passages are in more than one or in all three. This is not true for John which was written substantially later and seems to have been influenced by later theological developments and contradicts the others in certain particulars (some not so unimportant as whether the Last Supper was the Passover meal or not).
Once you doubt the 'divine inspiration' of the gospels you should doubt a large portion of them being historically accurate. If you do believe in their divine inspiration then your argument about dates / theology is totally irrelevant as the true source of information is directly from God. If one of them had written a gospel last year it would be just as valid. The mormons are not as way off as you might think.