1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillso you learned the trinity from Jesus, well ok, who am I to argue with that, it must be true then, how silly of me.
==============================
this is not entirely surprising Jaywalk, for it is a reflection of the vindictive God that you worship, and is evident proof that you are uninterested in actually ascertaining what the truth is, but in simply seeking to establish your own point of view, one again your ability to reason has been blinded by your prejudi now what are the seeds of doubt sown into the hearts of seekers by Watchtower indoctrination.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobie================================
so you learned the trinity from Jesus, well ok, who am I to argue with that, it must be true then, how silly of me.
so you learned the trinity from Jesus, well ok, who am I to argue with that, it must be true then, how silly of me.
=======================================
I learned that Jesus was God from Jesus.
"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20)
What did you learn from Watchtower ?
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillyou learned that Jesus was God from Jesus, but not the trinity, mmmm, how very interesting, did he not have time to explain the trinity to you? and if you never learned it from Jesus, one must of course wonder where you did learn it, i myself have never believed it, even before i became interested in Christianity, of course 'personal experiences', are terribly convenient, for they are entirely subjective and cannot be validated nor nullified.
[b]================================
so you learned the trinity from Jesus, well ok, who am I to argue with that, it must be true then, how silly of me.
=======================================
I learned that Jesus was God from Jesus.
"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you." (John 14:20)
What did you learn from Watchtower ?[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHe had time to teach me to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing.
you learned that Jesus was God from Jesus, but not the trinity, mmmm, how very interesting, did he not have time to explain the trinity to you?
Like Watchtower theologians who teach polytheism.
Originally posted by jaywillso lets get this straight, he appeared to you, told you that he was God, never had the time to explain the trinity, but fitted in time to discuss the beliefs of Jehovahs witnesses', oh Jaywill, it is to laugh!, Lol
He had time to teach me to watch out for wolves in sheep's clothing.
Like Watchtower theologians who teach polytheism.
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie=========================
so lets get this straight, he appeared to you, told you that he was God, never had the time to explain the trinity, but fitted in time to discuss the beliefs of Jehovahs witnesses', oh Jaywill, it is to laugh!, Lol
so lets get this straight, he appeared to you,
==========================
For "let's get this straight" you sure are working hard to get it crooked!
I never said Christ appeared to me in a physical sense, if that is what you are mockingly implying.
As for the rest, you seem to have no understanding of the teaching of the anointing in First John.
Go ask your Arian teachers about it. Maybe you can all have a good laugh about 1 John 2:24-27.
" ... but as His anointing teaches you concerning all things and is true and is not a lie, and even as it has taught you, abide in Him." (v.27c)
Of course your goal is to NOT abide in Him. So this also would be a big joke to the polytheists.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethinkofone, my friend, you would be as well as talking to a brick wall, infact, there would be more reasonableness from a brick wall than a trinitarian...
"This is a claim that He is to be honored, not a claim of deity."
thinkofone, my friend, you would be as well as talking to a brick wall, infact, there would be more reasonableness from a brick wall than a trinitarian, there really does seem no way to help them for indeed their bias has obscured there ability to reason.
here is a song for Epiph ...[text shortened]... kSdy0&feature=related
I apologise for the sound quality, hope you like it - regards Robbie.
Robbie, you are the one who chose to stop in the middle of our discourse and walk away without fully addressing the glaring holes in your position. If anyone is guilty of being a brick wall, that person is you, my friend.
Simply assuming claim P is true (P = Christ is a created being) does not serve as evidence that P is true. That is essentially all you have succeeded in doing throughout this thread, i.e., begging the question. You present a list of passages from scripture and declare that these passages support your claim. When it is pointed out that your evidence does not necessarily support your claim, or when you are presented with contradictory evidence, rather than defend your position, you resort to the logical fallacy of begging the question, e.g., "Christ had a beginning, get over it my friend, i mean it, its undeniable and clearly stated."
Walking away from our discourse on the basis of a logical fallacy means you have lost this argument, Robbie. If you wish to resume where you left off, however, and are willing to forgo begging the question, you are more than welcome to return and engage me on the issue of the Deity of Christ (have a discussion of the trinity elsewhere).
2 edits
Originally posted by epiphinehasYou seem to have ignored the most important part of my post:
This passage (John 5:23) does not simply state that Christ is to be honored. Consider the context. By claiming that God was his Father, Jesus was claiming equality with God; this is affirmed by the narration in John 5: "Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, maki er is honored?" The only correct answer is, "Because Christ is God."
"If Jesus was making the claim you propose, why didn't He just explicitly state it?"
The fact is that nowhere in that passage does Jesus claim to be God. What you propose is speculation on your part. Jesus doesn't explicitly state what you want to believe, so you make inferences to prop up your beliefs.
You sum things up by saying:
Therefore, it is completely legitimate to ask: "If nobody but God is worthy of the honor due to God, how then do we explain Christ's assertion that the Son should be honored just as the Father is honored?" The only correct answer is, "Because Christ is God."
Actually the only correct answer is, "Jesus didn't say, so we don't know". If you asked Jesus, perhaps He would tell you, but what you are doing is essentially providing an explanation for Jesus where He provided none. You should ask yourself if that doesn't take more than a little bit of arrogance on your part.
1 edit
Originally posted by epiphinehasactually i think i would be better off addressing the wall facing me, it is more reasonable, has no preconceptions, does not become provoked into long endless diatribe, listens to what others are saying, has no prejudice, remains silent when it has nothing to say, does not let its preconceptions thwart its powers of reason, does not utter complete lies and outright deceptive teaching like 'Jesus was claiming equality with God', yes that real ring of truth, like 'I am going my way to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am', John 14:28 and like, 'But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.' yes i can see, utter equality, etc etc etc etc etc, all in all the wall facing me is a much more appealing prospect and, so if you do not mind, i would rather talk to the wall.
[b]thinkofone, my friend, you would be as well as talking to a brick wall, infact, there would be more reasonableness from a brick wall than a trinitarian...
Robbie, you are the one who chose to stop in the middle of our discourse and walk away without fully addressing the glaring holes in your position. If anyone is guilty of being a brick wall, nd engage me on the issue of the Deity of Christ (have a discussion of the trinity elsewhere).[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut you have to believe that Christ is God Robbie otherwise you are not a Christian. Get it ? Forget what Christ said, thats not important. Do you want to end up in eternal suffering ? ..😀
actually i think i would be better off addressing the wall facing me, it is more reasonable, has no preconceptions, does not become provoked into long endless diatribe, listens to what others are saying, has no prejudice, remains silent when it has nothing to say, does not let its preconceptions thwart its powers of reason, does not utter complete li ...[text shortened]... much more appealing prospect and, so if you do not mind, i would rather talk to the wall.
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Lol maybe we shall receive a different punishment? maybe this is the torment that goes up to heaven for ever and ever my friend, we shall not perish in the lake of fire, we shall be chained to rocks and kept alive with our ears uncovered and Epiphenomena and Jaywalk will descend from heaven to read us endless versions of the trinity for ever and ever, ahhhhh the horror, i repent, where do i sign, i believe it, i believe it 😀
But you have to believe that Christ is God Robbie otherwise you are not a Christian. Get it ? Forget what Christ said, thats not important. Do you want to end up in eternal suffering ? ..😀
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLike Robbie you have found a way to completely avoid responding to my post. Yes, you have literally responded, in that you've written something in response, but you still left the valid points I made regarding how we are to honor Christ, untouched - as if you chose to ignore them altogether. With all due respect, if you don't start addressing the various points I make, then we're done. I'd rather wait until someone else comes along to defend your position (preferably someone who knows how to conduct a real debate).
You seem to have ignored the most important part of my post:
"If Jesus was making the claim you propose, why didn't He just explicitly state it?"
The fact is that nowhere in that passage does Jesus claim to be God. What you propose is speculation on your part. Jesus doesn't explicitly state what you want to believe, so you make inferences to prop up y sk yourself if that doesn't take more than a little bit of arrogance on your part.
Regardless, in the hopes that you will make every effort to respond to my posts, I'll make every effort to respond to the points you've raised here.
Jesus doesn't explicitly state what you want to believe, so you make inferences to prop up your beliefs
First off, Jesus need not explicitly state that he is God in order for it to be true. Did not Jesus say that it was God the Father's job to glorify the Son? Elsewhere it said that it is also the Holy Spirit's job to glorify the Son.
Secondly, I do not use scripture to "prop up" my beliefs, rather my beliefs about God are scripturally based, drawing from both Old and New Testaments.
BTW, the interpretation to which I ascribe asserts that Christ is both God and man, which accounts for both the passages where Christ's divinity is apparent as well as the passages where Christ's humanity is apparent. The belief that Christ is merely a heavenly creature, on the other hand, must actively downplay or distort the areas of scripture which don't agree (such is the case with the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation of the Bible, which Robbie often cites). A conflict with truth is introduced when part of scripture is dismissed in order to facilitate incomplete notions of the truth. What I seek to do here in this thread is make the case for the other half of scripture which gets suppressed by such activity. It is no wonder, then, that everyone I've debated here so far has only been capable of ignoring the various points I've made, since that is exactly how their mistaken beliefs were formed in the first place - by actively ignoring the portions of the Bible which prove Christ's divinity.
You should ask yourself if that doesn't take more than a little bit of arrogance on your part.
The Diety of Christ has been orthodox Christian belief since the time of Paul, circa 50 A. D. Throughout the ante-Nicene Church period, between 100 A. D. and 320 A. D., the accepted belief among Christians of every nation was that Christ, The Word, was both God and man. This was not a belief introduced in the fourth or fifth century by any known council, but a belief held by the earliest known church (and is still held to be orthodox by the majority of believing Christians to this very day). What is arrogant is thinking that the vast majority of Christians, from the earliest church down through the last two thousand years, were the ones who have got it all wrong, and further, basing that supposition on the ignorance of any and all countervailing evidence.
That is arrogance.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieJust go already... talk to your wall. Why are you still posting here?
actually i think i would be better off addressing the wall facing me, it is more reasonable, has no preconceptions, does not become provoked into long endless diatribe, listens to what others are saying, has no prejudice, remains silent when it has nothing to say, does not let its preconceptions thwart its powers of reason, does not utter complete li ...[text shortened]... much more appealing prospect and, so if you do not mind, i would rather talk to the wall.
Originally posted by epiphinehasBut He needs to explicitly state that he is God in order for it to be critical that we believe it.
..First off, Jesus need not explicitly state that he is God in order for it to be true. ....
And the definition of arrogance ?
Thats like you people telling the rest of the world they aint Christians.