Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Sun Aug 12, 2012 5:03 pm

jimvansage wrote: I believe that the following facets of my faith can be demonstrated by logical deduction

3. Jesus Christ is the Son of God

Can Jesus Christ can be shown to be the Son of God by logical deduction?

moment_of_faith · Post by **moment_of_faith** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:20 pm

Danmark wrote:
moment_of_faith wrote:
Danmark wrote:
moment_of_faith wrote: Because you have a brain and can read / understand the signs the lord laid out for all to see so we would know what season it is.

Remove Israel then maybe we have a major problem. Remove the bible then we may have a major problem, Remove China, Russia, Iran and so one and then we may have a major problem
Sorry. You're not getting off that easy, to offer some generalization. Nothing you've said is any different than what Hal Lindsay said in 1970. In essence it's is no different than any of the hundreds of Christian 'end times' predictions we have had ad naseum.

Why should anyone take YOUR prediction more seriously than any of the other failed predications? Particularly when yours is set out 88 years into the future when most of us, not to mention most of your children will be dead?

Please respond specifically or withdraw your hopelessly naive 'prediction.' Why, specifically, does your doomsday prediction have value compared to all the previous ones, we now see were worthless?

Your 'man of few words' excuse does not hold water. If you have an argument, make it. But I assure you your glib 'we have a problem' and 'understand the signs' just does not cut it. You've held yourself out as someone who can authoritatively predict the end times. You have not backed up your claim. Either prove it, or withdraw your claim.
Mine is not set out 88 years. I believe we are on the clock and time is running out. Also did Hal pick a day? IN the last 40 years have we gone away from the end times or have we got closer to it? Also Daniel tells us in the end times knowledge shall increase. This is because we will be able to see things come into better focus.

The world is set up more for end times then we have ever been at any given time.
More generalities. Hal's is one of hundreds, but at least he picked a year, 1988.

What is your pick? Can you defend it? What specifically are your arguments for your year of prediction? So far, you have made no argument, no case, nothing that could not have been said hundreds if not more than a thousand years ago. Just admit you can't do it, or produce your argument.

"I believe we are on the clock and time is running out," could have been said 2000 years ago . . . and come to think of it, it was. What have you got that is more predictive than a fortune cookie?

The difference is I don't care if you believe me or not. Can you show me where Hal said 1988? I told you i'm not here to get points. The Lord told me most would not be saved. So I understand I can't help all.

Danmark · Post by **Danmark** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:23 pm

moment_of_faith wrote: The difference is I don't care if you believe me or not. Can you show me where Hal said 1988? I told you i'm not here to get points. The Lord told me most would not be saved. So I understand I can't help all.

What I understand is that you cannot back up anything you say. You refuse even to try. So withdraw your claim about end times.

moment_of_faith · Post by **moment_of_faith** » Mon Nov 12, 2012 10:27 pm

Danmark wrote:
moment_of_faith wrote: The difference is I don't care if you believe me or not. Can you show me where Hal said 1988? I told you i'm not here to get points. The Lord told me most would not be saved. So I understand I can't help all.
What I understand is that you cannot back up anything you say. You refuse even to try. So withdraw your claim about end times.

No it's just I could give you example after example until I'm blue in the face and it would get us no where. I don't have the time to waste. Get in where you fit in. The lord gives you a choice. All I say is chose wisely

Tired of the Nonsense · Mon Nov 12, 2012 11:36 pm

Danmark wrote: Tired of, can you explain to me what MOF meant when he wrote, "We are still on point and it's the literal point"? I'd ask him, but he does not seem to be forthcoming. He hasn't yet addressed yet the issue of the dozens upon dozens of other Christian end of worlders who were wrong and why his idea is correct.

I assume that he means that everything is on schedule and going according to the plan that he believes God has provided.

moment_of_faith · Post by **moment_of_faith** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:11 pm

Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Danmark wrote: Tired of, can you explain to me what MOF meant when he wrote, "We are still on point and it's the literal point"? I'd ask him, but he does not seem to be forthcoming. He hasn't yet addressed yet the issue of the dozens upon dozens of other Christian end of worlders who were wrong and why his idea is correct.
I assume that he means that everything is on schedule and going according to the plan that he believes God has provided.

Right. We have not changed course. We are still headed for the literal view of the bible.

catalyst · Post by **catalyst** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:03 pm

moment_of_faith wrote:
Tired of the Nonsense wrote:
Danmark wrote: Tired of, can you explain to me what MOF meant when he wrote, "We are still on point and it's the literal point"? I'd ask him, but he does not seem to be forthcoming. He hasn't yet addressed yet the issue of the dozens upon dozens of other Christian end of worlders who were wrong and why his idea is correct.
I assume that he means that everything is on schedule and going according to the plan that he believes God has provided.

Right. We have not changed course. We are still headed for the literal view of the bible.

Oh dear Mr or Ms "moment"... THAT is where your troubles begin. Unless you can at the very least understand the original Hebrew or Aramaic or even getting into the NT part Greek writings, you will NEVER know what the Literary OR LITERAL view supposedly was.

*shaking head*

WHY do you reckon that Jewish Scholars have been working for over 50 years now to CORRECT things that have been lost in the MULTIPLE translations...of those MULTIPLE translations, of THEIR books alone, what YOU have ended up with and therefore ASSUME it IS THE" truth", even relating to what MUST be the "christian" starter God, given the fact that Christianity USES the Tanakh as its base?

It has taken over 50 years for just Genesis, Exodus and Leviticus are done as CLOSE to they can possibly do it. 3 BOOKS in an attempt to get it even CLOSE to "right" This is something I have tried to explain to another christian on this forum MULTIPLE times. The Jewish writings are WHOLLY untranslatable.. Wholly meaning.. you will NEVER get ALL that was intended FROM the original as the languages are too different.

Even without the REALLY dodgy but seemingly subtle elements, the Tanakh ENDS with 2 Chronicles and does FOR A REASON. Ever stopped to ponder why or is the ORIGINAL intent irrelevant to you?

Catalyst.

moment_of_faith · Post by **moment_of_faith** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:34 pm

Well I do study a little Hebrew and Greek and the bible we have is close enough. IF you can understand Jesus died for you and has everlasting salvation to any and all who ask him into their hearts then you are ok.

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:39 pm

moment_of_faith wrote: Well I do study a little Hebrew and Greek and the bible we have is close enough. IF you can understand Jesus died for you and has everlasting salvation to any and all who ask him into their hearts then you are ok.

the problem is that this completely pagan and inconsistent to the Hebrew understanding of the Messiah.

Now can you show that Jesus is actually the SON of god? Can you prove that he existed and also that he was God's child? Thats the debate here. If you cannot then why claim he is? Wouldn't that be dishonest?

moment_of_faith · Post by **moment_of_faith** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:14 pm

Nickman wrote:
moment_of_faith wrote: Well I do study a little Hebrew and Greek and the bible we have is close enough. IF you can understand Jesus died for you and has everlasting salvation to any and all who ask him into their hearts then you are ok.
the problem is that this completely pagan and inconsistent to the Hebrew understanding of the Messiah.

Now can you show that Jesus is actually the SON of god? Can you prove that he existed and also that he was God's child? Thats the debate here. If you cannot then why claim he is? Wouldn't that be dishonest?

The lord says he put it in you to know him and you are without excuse ' Romans 1:18-20" . The mere fact you are here trying to prove him wrong I would say proves he exist.

If he didn't then you wouldn't care, but he put it in you to know and you are trying to lie to yourself. Look what that scripture says. He says people who SAY they don't believe are just suppressing the truth. It says they know the truth but they just want they wicked ways so they lie to themselves and to anyone who will listen.

Romans 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.

Nickman · Post by **Nickman** » Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:52 pm

moment_of_faith wrote:
The lord says he put it in you to know him and you are without excuse ' Romans 1:18-20" . The mere fact you are here trying to prove him wrong I would say proves he exist.

And my momma said that Alligators are angry because they have all those teeth and no tooth brush.

You say that the "lord says" can you provide evidence that "the lord" said anything that you claim he did? I believe you are misquoting "the lord" for Paul's own words.

If he didn't then you wouldn't care, but he put it in you to know and you are trying to lie to yourself. Look what that scripture says. He says people who SAY they don't believe are just suppressing the truth. It says they know the truth but they just want they wicked ways so they lie to themselves and to anyone who will listen.

I am the type of person that doesn't just believe what someone claims just because they said so. I don't think you are either when it comes to most things in your life, but with the bible you have a special little idea about it that is biased.

I love how you seem to be saying that I just love wickedness. When in fact I am not wicked at all. Im actually a pretty good person and didn't leave Christianity for wickedness. I left because it wasn't true and that was demonstable to me on many levels than just one.

Romans 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness. 19 They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them.

He has never showed his anger toward me not once. I think that this verse is either wrong about him or maybe he doesn't exist or he approves of my lifestyle.

On a real note, can you show your beliefs to be true? If you have real truth then it should be able to be demonstrated in a way that we can verify. Can you show that Jesus was actually the son of god? If not then do you think it is even slightly possible that you could be wrong? Or is being wrong not an option?