Implications of Heresy

[achilles12604]

I have finally found a title which I think describes my religious views. I have created a usergroup to match. I accept many of the tenants of Christianity. I accept many of the core values and teachings. In fact let me just list them out.

I accept God exists.
I accept Jesus was his son and unique among men.
I accept that Jesus death atoned for sin.
I accept that Jesus performed miracles.
I accept that God inspired many of the writers of the bible.

Now begins my Heresy.

I accept that God inspired other great men of different faiths like Gandhi

I accept that salvation is a matter of the heart and faith is a byproduct or a symptom of the condition of this heart.

I accept that much of the bible can not be read literally

I accept that some of the stories of the bible are nothing more than stories, nor were they ever meant to be more than this.

I accept that people of other faiths have the potential for salvation just as any Christian would

I accept that the church has fallen far from where it originated.

I accept that the writings of Paul and the other disciples, while lead by God, are still personal interpretations and therefore subject to personal bias.

I do not accept the church taught concept of original sin.

I do not accept the sinlessness of Mary

I do not accept the concept of sainthoods

I do not accept that hell is a place for eternal torture in some fire lake

I accept (basically) some form of evolution/ID

I do not accept a young earth creation model.

I accept much of the current church as hypocritical and lazy

I accept that God reaches out to all men where ever they are through whatever beliefs they hold.

I accept that God knows just about everything, but can not know individual futures nor do I think this idea is supported well by scripture.









Now, I leave this WIDE open. I certainly will not take offense to anything written here. I want brutally honest opinions.

Who does not believe that my current beliefs allow for my own salvation (I am hell bound)?

Who believes that any of my current beliefs contradict another of my current beliefs?

Who here would not consider me a "true Christian"?

Which of my beliefs are directly contradicted by scripture?

What would Jesus say of my beliefs? What would you imagine him telling me?





Honesty people. Brutal, ugly, in my face, even to the point of suspending rule #1 for a moment, HONESTY

[Goose]

First, the concept that Jesus claimed divinity himself. It has been pointed out that John contains plenty of "I am" phrases which directly point to Jesus claiming divinity. Let's first examine this claim in light of the other 3 Gospels. Where in the other 3 Gospels do we see Jesus directly claim divinity?

I want it to go on record that you are now acknowledging that Jesus is directly making a claim to divinity in John with the "I am" quote.

I don't know of anywhere in the other three gospels where Jesus makes the claim "I AM God." But neither does John. We've already established John is simply more explicit.

However, the synoptic gospel writers do have Jesus affirming His self concept of divinity.

Mark 14:61-64 But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of the heaven. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; what do you think? And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. (ISV)

cf. Luke 22:67-71 and Matthew 26:63-65

I looked this particular evidence up on strongs to understand the orignal Hebrew. The I Am quoted in the original texts is not the same word used as "I AM" in exodus. It is however the same words as used by John the Baptist when quoting him.

I agree with you. However, you're missing the significance of what is being said by Jesus. It's not a Hebrew claim to divinity as in Exodus. Jesus is simply saying, "Yes, I am [the Christ, the Son of God]." The synoptic Gospel writers all want us to know this is interpreted to be a claim to divinity by telling us the response of the priest to Jesus answering in the affirmative to this question.

Now, as for the sitting on the right hand of power and coming from heaven, I too think this will occur, perhaps even literally. But I still don't equate Jesus with God himself. He is claiming God's power and authority. But he isn't at all even implying that Jesus IS God.

Right. And Christian doctrine regarding Jesus' divinity is not that Jesus IS God in fullest sense of the meaning, but that Jesus is God incarnate. I've explained this elsewhere in this thread.

From Daniel

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

He approaches the main power and is given power and authority. Do you think that being given power and authority is the same as BEING that same power and authority?

Daniel now, eh? You are taking us all over the map, achilles. Setting aside that this passage from Daniel describes the Son of Man as having sovereign power (like God), that all people will worship Him (like God), and that His kingdom is the indestructible and eternal one - i.e. heaven. It doesn't bode well for your case that you are now reduced to appealing to the OT book of Daniel to try and scrape together some support for your argument that is ultimately a NT issue. Daniel, a book written many years BEFORE Jesus, couldn't possibly be an eyewitness report. It is also most certainly no less an "interpretation" than John or Paul. So I do not see why you would appeal to Daniel if you reject John and Paul. Not one of your better moves I'm afraid.



-----------------------

I do not think that Christ's resurrection from the dead proves his deity. Lazarus was raised from the dead. The dead little girl was raised. Heck, I think even Peter raises someone from the dead in Acts. None of those people were God.

And non of them made any special claims about their relationship to God that needed to be vindicated either.

If the resurrection means nothing without also claiming something, then isn't it the CLAIM which decides divinity, not the resurrection?

Huh? You lost me. The resurrection vindicates the claim.

Edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique. Non of the people you've cited above had a resurrection combined with an ascension. They were more of a temporary resuscitation back to life. Were are not told expressly, but presumably they lived out their natural lives and then died again. Jesus lived on.

Elijah assended. Are you saying that assention is the sign of divinity? Or is it the combination which counts?

Neither. I'm saying Jesus' resurrection was unique in that it is the only one with an ascension.

Additional edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique in that He was the only person in the Bible to predict His own death and resurrection. And fulifill that prediction.

Predicting that you are going to be killed isn't proof of the divine. But I will humor the idea for a moment. Question: Isn't it perfectly possible that God informed Jesus about what he was going to do? If this is the case, how does it prove Jesus divinity?

This is probably an unintentional straw man. I never said predicting one's death is proof of divinity. I said Jesus' prediction of His death AND resurrection and subsequent fulfilment was UNIQUE.

You are comparing resurrections as though Jesus' was same as all the others you cited. They are clearly not the same as Jesus'.

God will raise the entire race of humanity according to some Christians. But they are not all God. Jesus resurrection does NOT prove that he was a deity.

It proves that He was not a heretic. That Jesus' claims were verified by God.

Granted. The resurrection does support Jesus teachings. But does it prove that he was himself divine? I don't think so.
'

No one is saying that the resurrection in isolation proves Jesus was divine. It's the combination of a divine self concept and His message verified BY His resurrection that makes Jesus' one of a kind. The resurrection vindicates the claims.

You seem to want to disregard any methodology for establishing authoritative books now. Are we skipping that project and back to using any book that helps us, like Daniel?

[achilles12604]

First, the concept that Jesus claimed divinity himself. It has been pointed out that John contains plenty of "I am" phrases which directly point to Jesus claiming divinity. Let's first examine this claim in light of the other 3 Gospels. Where in the other 3 Gospels do we see Jesus directly claim divinity?

I want it to go on record that you are now acknowledging that Jesus is directly making a claim to divinity in John with the "I am" quote.

I don't know of anywhere in the other three gospels where Jesus makes the claim "I AM God." But neither does John. We've already established John is simply more explicit.

However, the synoptic gospel writers do have Jesus affirming His self concept of divinity.

Mark 14:61-64 But He was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, Are you the Christ, the son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I AM! And you will see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of the heaven. Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, What further need do we have of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy; what do you think? And they all condemned Him to be guilty of death. (ISV)

cf. Luke 22:67-71 and Matthew 26:63-65

I looked this particular evidence up on strongs to understand the original Hebrew. The I Am quoted in the original texts is not the same word used as "I AM" in exodus. It is however the same words as used by John the Baptist when quoting him.

I agree with you. However, you're missing the significance of what is being said by Jesus. It's not a Hebrew claim to divinity as in Exodus. Jesus is simply saying, "Yes, I am [the Christ, the Son of God]." The synoptic Gospel writers all want us to know this is interpreted to be a claim to divinity by telling us the response of the priest to Jesus answering in the affirmative to this question.

In this case we can agree here. However, I do not equate the son of God with God himself. I will stage this as a separate idea at the end of the thread.

Now, as for the sitting on the right hand of power and coming from heaven, I too think this will occur, perhaps even literally. But I still don't equate Jesus with God himself. He is claiming God's power and authority. But he isn't at all even implying that Jesus IS God.

Right. And Christian doctrine regarding Jesus' divinity is not that Jesus IS God in fullest sense of the meaning, but that Jesus is God incarnate. I've explained this elsewhere in this thread.

From Daniel

13 "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

He approaches the main power and is given power and authority. Do you think that being given power and authority is the same as BEING that same power and authority?

Daniel now, eh? You are taking us all over the map, achilles. Setting aside that this passage from Daniel describes the Son of Man as having sovereign power (like God), that all people will worship Him (like God), and that His kingdom is the indestructible and eternal one - i.e. heaven. It doesn't bode well for your case that you are now reduced to appealing to the OT book of Daniel to try and scrape together some support for your argument that is ultimately a NT issue. Daniel, a book written many years BEFORE Jesus, couldn't possibly be an eyewitness report. It is also most certainly no less an "interpretation" than John or Paul. So I do not see why you would appeal to Daniel if you reject John and Paul. Not one of your better moves I'm afraid.

I only cited Daniel because Jesus cited Daniel. Ever wonder why he continually refers to himself as the Son of Man? I am sure you have read the footnotes where it explains this correlation. Jesus refers back to Daniel, Isaiah, and other OT books at times to clarify who he is.

Now since we were on the topic of who he was, I thought it was appropriate.

However, since you don't like it, I can easily quote Jesus regarding his relationship with the father . . .

7And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

My son. Not this is me in human flesh, listen to me. My son.

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Here is a distinct reference which makes a clear separation in the roles of Father and Son. If they have different roles regarding salvation, how can they be one in the same?

Edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique. Non of the people you've cited above had a resurrection combined with an ascension. They were more of a temporary resuscitation back to life. Were are not told expressly, but presumably they lived out their natural lives and then died again. Jesus lived on.

Elijah assended. Are you saying that assention is the sign of divinity? Or is it the combination which counts?

Neither. I'm saying Jesus' resurrection was unique in that it is the only one with an ascension.

Additional edit: Jesus' resurrection was also unique in that He was the only person in the Bible to predict His own death and resurrection. And fulifill that prediction.

Predicting that you are going to be killed isn't proof of the divine. But I will humor the idea for a moment. Question: Isn't it perfectly possible that God informed Jesus about what he was going to do? If this is the case, how does it prove Jesus divinity?

This is probably an unintentional straw man. I never said predicting one's death is proof of divinity. I said Jesus' prediction of His death AND resurrection and subsequent fulfilment was UNIQUE.

You are comparing resurrections as though Jesus' was same as all the others you cited. They are clearly not the same as Jesus'.

So we have Elijah who ascended. Paul also ascended if I remember correctly.

We have multiple people who were resurrected.

We have prophets who supposedly predicted what would happen in the future. Then we have Jesus who predicted that he would be killed by the major authorities who were already plotting his death. Which one is the greater prophecy?

So we have these things which you keep pointing to as signs of divinity. I keep providing scriptural examples of how they can not be indicative of divinity because mere men were attested as doing the same things.

I have a suggestion to make once again. GOD is GOD and if he wishes to raise someone, no matter WHO they may be, he can. Jesus is the "son of God" or unique and chosen one of God, but not God himself who was chosen to both remove sin and teach God's love and wisdom on earth.

I do not think that Christ's resurrection from the dead proves his deity. Lazarus was raised from the dead. The dead little girl was raised. Heck, I think even Peter raises someone from the dead in Acts. None of those people were God.

And non of them made any special claims about their relationship to God that needed to be vindicated either.

If the resurrection means nothing without also claiming something, then isn't it the CLAIM which decides divinity, not the resurrection?

Huh? You lost me. The resurrection vindicates the claim.

Ok . . . you said that Jesus raising from the dead proves him to be a deity.

I showed that other people also were raised from the dead, even without Jesus around. None of these people you think are a deity.

You then stated that Jesus made special claims which needed to be vindicated.

And then you make the leap that because Jesus made claims and was raised, that this proves he was a deity, but those who didn't make claims and were raised were not a deity.

Now we all know the Sesame Street song "which of these things is not like the other" so let's apply this now. What it the difference between

a) Making claims and then being raised

b) Just being raised?

My point is that it is NOT being raised which is different which leaves us with making claims must equate to a deity.

Your logic is faulty here I think.



You seem to be implying that because Jesus did ALL of these things, he was a deity, but those who only did some of them are not. We have

Raising from the dead
1) The little Girl
2) Lazarus
3) Whoever Peter raised
4) Jesus

Ascending to Heaven
1) Elijah
2) Paul
3) Jesus

Predicting
1) Every OT prophet
2) John if Revelation is accurately attributed to him
3) Michel de Nostredame
4) Stephen (right before he was killed by a stone)
5) Paul attributes the gift of Prophecy to many in his following
6) Jesus

Making Claims about a relationship with God - this one is yet to be proven. I still do not think that Jesus claimed to be God the Father. And I have listed references where he makes significant distinctions between himself and his father.



So what combo makes a God and what Combo's do not? How do you know?


Now first off, you cited Mark and then we agreed that Jesus wasn't directly claiming to be I AM but rather, was acknowledging that those accusing him were correct that he was the Christ.

Now, I do not understand something. How do you see God's Christ and God being the exact same entity? I just don't get it. If God was the Father Incarnate, wouldn't he just come out and say it? Why would he adopt a new title on earth?

My explanation . . . because Jesus was NOT God incarnate. He was God's son, the chosen one, and a separate, distinct entity from God the Father. He was Human, embued with God's spirit. But not God himself.

[Goose]

He approaches the main power and is given power and authority. Do you think that being given power and authority is the same as BEING that same power and authority?

Daniel now, eh? You are taking us all over the map, achilles. Setting aside that this passage from Daniel describes the Son of Man as having sovereign power (like God), that all people will worship Him (like God), and that His kingdom is the indestructible and eternal one - i.e. heaven. It doesn't bode well for your case that you are now reduced to appealing to the OT book of Daniel to try and scrape together some support for your argument that is ultimately a NT issue. Daniel, a book written many years BEFORE Jesus, couldn't possibly be an eyewitness report. It is also most certainly no less an "interpretation" than John or Paul. So I do not see why you would appeal to Daniel if you reject John and Paul. Not one of your better moves I'm afraid.

I only cited Daniel because Jesus cited Daniel. Ever wonder why he continually refers to himself as the Son of Man? I am sure you have read the footnotes where it explains this correlation. Jesus refers back to Daniel, Isaiah, and other OT books at times to clarify who he is.

We don't need Daniel to understand that Jesus is using the Son of Man title in reference to Himself and in a divine context. It's pretty obvious from a plain reading of the text. It appeared that you cited Daniel to support the notion that Jesus was GIVEN authority at some point and therefore not part of the authority or divine.

Now since we were on the topic of who [Jesus] was, I thought [the quote from Daniel] was appropriate.

It's odd that you would appeal to Daniel for support to establish who Jesus is, yet reject John. You've been caught employing that double standard again.

However, since you don't like it, I can easily quote Jesus regarding his relationship with the father . . .

7And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."

My son. Not this is me in human flesh, listen to me. My son.

This is a good point you have made, but it works against you not for you. Why would God call Jesus His son? Why didn't God call Jesus His special messenger or prophet or chosen one if you are correct? It's implied that Jesus is God incarnate by saying "this is my Son." A father and son are genetically connected. The son isn't just chosen. They are, in a sense, of the same flesh or substance so to speak. They are of similar substance but also separate. If Jesus was simply a man chosen at some point, being referred to as the Son of God creates much confusion.

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

Here is a distinct reference which makes a clear separation in the roles of Father and Son. If they have different roles regarding salvation, how can they be one in the same?

Why is this a problem? The Father and Son are different persons with different roles and responsibilities. It's only as a collective God-head do they comprise God in the fullest sense. The Father and Son and Holy Spirit are collectively one God but separate persons.

As a side note, when we get to the Trinity at some point, we'll find it is the best explanation for ALL the evidence.

You are comparing resurrections as though Jesus' was same as all the others you cited. They are clearly not the same as Jesus'.

So we have Elijah who ascended. Paul also ascended if I remember correctly.

We have multiple people who were resurrected.

We have prophets who supposedly predicted what would happen in the future. Then we have Jesus who predicted that he would be killed by the major authorities who were already plotting his death. Which one is the greater prophecy?

So we have these things which you keep pointing to as signs of divinity. I keep providing scriptural examples of how they can not be indicative of divinity because mere men were attested as doing the same things.

What you do NOT have is any one person doing ALL of that, with one exception Jesus.

I have a suggestion to make once again. GOD is GOD and if he wishes to raise someone, no matter WHO they may be, he can...

Of course.

...Jesus is the "son of God" ...

Yes, that's what scripture tells us repeatedly.

...or unique and chosen one of God,..

Where does Jesus describe Himself as the "unique and chosen one of God"?

...but not God himself who was chosen to both remove sin and teach God's love and wisdom on earth.

Once again, Christian doctrine is NOT that Jesus IS God in the fullest sense, but God incarnate. Where does Jesus say He "was chosen to both remove sin and teach God's love and wisdom on earth"? Or is that another inductive argument?

I do not think that Christ's resurrection from the dead proves his deity. Lazarus was raised from the dead. The dead little girl was raised. Heck, I think even Peter raises someone from the dead in Acts. None of those people were God.

And non of them made any special claims about their relationship to God that needed to be vindicated either.

If the resurrection means nothing without also claiming something, then isn't it the CLAIM which decides divinity, not the resurrection?

Huh? You lost me. The resurrection vindicates the claim.

Ok . . . you said that Jesus raising from the dead proves him to be a deity.

No. I said Jesus' resurrection vindicates His claims.

I showed that other people also were raised from the dead, even without Jesus around. None of these people you think are a deity.

That's because none claimed either subtly or blatantly to be a deity.

You then stated that Jesus made special claims which needed to be vindicated.

And then you make the leap that because Jesus made claims and was raised, that this proves he was a deity, but those who didn't make claims and were raised were not a deity.

Something like that. If the others didn't make a claim to deity whether subtle or blatant why would I conclude they were a deity even if they were resurrected? How is that a leap?

Now we all know the Sesame Street song "which of these things is not like the other" so let's apply this now. What it the difference between

a) Making claims and then being raised

b) Just being raised?

My point is that it is NOT being raised which is different which leaves us with making claims must equate to a deity.

Your logic is faulty here I think.

Here's the logic.

1. Jesus had a divine self-concept.
2. Jesus predicted His own death and Rez
3. Jesus fulfilled those predictions as proof of the validity of those claims then ascended.
4. Therefore, we can rest assured that Jesus' claims were true.

You find me any one else that has done that and I'll listen. Jesus set the bar pretty high.

You seem to be implying that because Jesus did ALL of these things, he was a deity, but those who only did some of them are not.

No that is a strawman argument. I've said Jesus' resurrection was UNIQUE and unparalleled because He did ALL those things. You are claiming Jesus' resurrection was just like every body else's. Yet your own list you've created refutes your own point.

We have

Raising from the dead
1) The little Girl
2) Lazarus
3) Whoever Peter raised
4) Jesus

Ascending to Heaven
1) Elijah
2) Paul
3) Jesus

Predicting
1) Every OT prophet
2) John if Revelation is accurately attributed to him
3) Michel de Nostredame
4) Stephen (right before he was killed by a stone)
5) Paul attributes the gift of Prophecy to many in his following
6) Jesus

And who is the ONLY person that is on all the lists? Jesus.

Making Claims about a relationship with God - this one is yet to be proven. I still do not think that Jesus claimed to be God the Father. And I have listed references where he makes significant distinctions between himself and his father.

I agree. No one is saying that Jesus claimed to BE God the father.

So what combo makes a God and what Combo's do not? How do you know?

I can only speak intelligently of what comprises the Christian God. I wouldn't trust a combo that didn't have verification of the claim, that is for sure.

Now first off, you cited Mark and then we agreed that Jesus wasn't directly claiming to be I AM but rather, was acknowledging that those accusing him were correct that he was the Christ...

...and the Son of God and that Jesus had a divine self concept.

Now, I do not understand something. How do you see God's Christ and God being the exact same entity?..

I am not saying they are "the exact same entity." You are.

...I just don't get it. If God was the Father Incarnate, wouldn't he just come out and say it? Why would he adopt a new title on earth?

Who said it was God the Father Incarnate. God incarnate is Jesus the Son of God. Having a fleshly nature is one aspect.

My explanation . . . because Jesus was NOT God incarnate. He was God's son, the chosen one, and a separate, distinct entity from God the Father. He was Human, embued with God's spirit. But not God himself.

If that is true we can ask the same question. Why didn't Jesus come right out and say all that? Why all the stuff about: being the Son of God, immaculate conceptions, accepting worship, forgiving sins, healing in His own name, and claiming to have a unique and intimate knowledge of and relationship to the Father? And again, Christian doctrine is not that Jesus was God Himself in the sense that God abandoned His post as the all-powerful creator of the universe for 30 years while in human form as Jesus.

I've also asked you before but you did not answer. When, where, how and why was Jesus chosen? Please cite your sources.

So are we done with establishing which books are authoritative and which are not now? You want to go straight into Christ's divinity with out establishing which books we will use. Let's hammer that out before we go further. We are going in circles and repeating ourselves now.

[achilles12604]

We do seem to be going in circles don't we.

We seem to have two topics going at once. . . .

1) Jesus divinity

2) What books are authoritative.

Now these two topics are linked for sure. But I may be able to dispense with one of them right now.

Jesus divinity . . . I think we are beginning to argue about the pronunciation of tomato. We both acknowledge that he was the son of God. You deny that he was the chosen one of God, but I am not sure why since I equate these two terms.

Perhaps you could explain what the difference is between these titles . . .

1) Son of God
2) Chosen one of God
3) God's personal messenger
4) Personal Ambassador for God.

I equate them. I think that the Son of God, was chosen by God, to be his personal messenger or ambassador and to deliver his message as well as cleanse the world of its sins.

I also do not think that simply because Jesus shared the same "genetic material" ( - I believe I called it God's spirit a couple pages ago) he was himself divine. I think he was given divine aspects and I think I have shown that. Heck I think YOU have shown that . . . but I do not agree that this makes him divine himself.

Incidentally, this might clear it up. I don't think the holy spirit is seperate from God the father. I think that they are essentially one in the same so my trinity is really more of a duel relationship rather than trinity relationship. And if you boil it down further, if the spirit or "genetic material" Jesus shared with God was the same thing as God the Father (which I think it is) then we really only have 1 God Spirit who shares his spirit on earth (holy spirit) and gave it in place of a new "soul" for Jesus while on earth.

What say you . . . is this little debate simply a disagreement about the definition of divine? If so, I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree and move on.

[Goose]

We do seem to be going in circles don't we.

We seem to have two topics going at once. . . .

1) Jesus divinity

2) What books are authoritative.

OK, let's hammer out (2) first as we had agrred several posts ago.

Now these two topics are linked for sure. But I may be able to dispense with one of them right now.

Jesus divinity . . . I think we are beginning to argue about the pronunciation of tomato. We both acknowledge that he was the son of God. You deny that he was the chosen one of God, but I am not sure why since I equate these two terms.

Perhaps you could explain what the difference is between these titles . . .

1) Son of God
2) Chosen one of God
3) God's personal messenger
4) Personal Ambassador for God.

Why? Where does 2, 3, and for 4 occur in context to Jesus in the NT? Is this another goose chase?

I equate them. I think that the Son of God, was chosen by God, to be his personal messenger or ambassador and to deliver his message as well as cleanse the world of its sins.

And you are welcome to think that. I'll ask one more time in the hopes that you have some scriptural support. Where is the scripture to show when, how, why, and where Jesus was chosen to be a "personal messenger" or "ambassador"? With out that all you have is a pet theory.

I also do not think that simply because Jesus shared the same "genetic material" ( - I believe I called it God's spirit a couple pages ago) he was himself divine. I think he was given divine aspects and I think I have shown that. Heck I think YOU have shown that . . . but I do not agree that this makes him divine himself.

If you are willing to concede Jesus had divine aspects, why would you conclude he wasn't divine considering:
1) His followers believed Jesus was divine
2) Jesus claimed a divine self-concept
3) Jesus proved the claim

Incidentally, this might clear it up. I don't think the holy spirit is seperate from God the father...

You are welcome to think that. However, scripture gives us the impression it is a seperate person.

...I think that they are essentially one in the same so my trinity is really more of a duel relationship rather than trinity relationship. And if you boil it down further, if the spirit or "genetic material" Jesus shared with God was the same thing as God the Father (which I think it is) then we really only have 1 God Spirit who shares his spirit on earth (holy spirit) and gave it in place of a new "soul" for Jesus while on earth.

That's an interesting theory. Any scriptural support for it?

Perhaps after we hammer out which books are authoritative we can place your Duelity theory against the Trinity. Let's see which theory has the most explanatory power, scope, and accounts for ALL the evidence. Sound good?

What say you . . . is this little debate simply a disagreement about the definition of divine? If so, I am perfectly happy to agree to disagree and move on.

Let's get our books sorted first.

[achilles12604]

Ok then . . . books


I accept Matt, Mark, Luke as both guiding, and authoritative.

I accept John as informative regarding historicity, but given the distince difference in Christology, I do not use it regarding beliefs. I would class it as informative but not authoritative.

Paul's letters I am somewhat undecided on. They were certainly authoritative for the first century churches. However, I do see Paul being required to expound upon the teachings of the Gospels. This of course made his scope broader than that of the Gospels. Now, where the evidence matches the Gospels, I have no issue. However, when his own bias or opinions are involved in his instructions (such as with traditions) I can not accept them as authoritative, especially given that today's circumstances are far different than those of the first century. So guiding, absolutely. Authoritative, I can not accept them on matters which I see in disagreement with the Gospels. On matters not addressed by the Gospels in any way, they could be authoritative but only so long as it is apparent that such beliefs were not necessitated by first century culture. I am also not willing to accept that many books of the NT were in fact written by Paul as there is good evidence that some of them were written by others using the name of Paul. Today we call this a forgery.

I don't accept 123 John as either guiding or authoritative at this time.

I also do not know what to make of Revelations as this book has not even been nailed down by the general church itself. As there is no consensus about the book, and there is very little evidence to support its historicity, I currently reject it as guiding and authoritative.

Now where do you stand on these and possibly others if you see fit to mention them?

[Goose]

Ok then . . . books


I accept Matt, Mark, Luke as both guiding, and authoritative.

I accept John as informative regarding historicity, but given the distince difference in Christology, I do not use it regarding beliefs. I would class it as informative but not authoritative.

Paul's letters I am somewhat undecided on. They were certainly authoritative for the first century churches. However, I do see Paul being required to expound upon the teachings of the Gospels. This of course made his scope broader than that of the Gospels. Now, where the evidence matches the Gospels, I have no issue. However, when his own bias or opinions are involved in his instructions (such as with traditions) I can not accept them as authoritative, especially given that today's circumstances are far different than those of the first century. So guiding, absolutely. Authoritative, I can not accept them on matters which I see in disagreement with the Gospels. On matters not addressed by the Gospels in any way, they could be authoritative but only so long as it is apparent that such beliefs were not necessitated by first century culture. I am also not willing to accept that many books of the NT were in fact written by Paul as there is good evidence that some of them were written by others using the name of Paul. Today we call this a forgery.

I don't accept 123 John as either guiding or authoritative at this time.

I also do not know what to make of Revelations as this book has not even been nailed down by the general church itself. As there is no consensus about the book, and there is very little evidence to support its historicity, I currently reject it as guiding and authoritative.

Now where do you stand on these and possibly others if you see fit to mention them?

This wasn't really what I had in mind. We've already spent ample time providing subjective personal reasons as to why we accept some books and not others. I was hoping we could get to using a somewhat more objective methodolgy like the one you agreed to in post 52.

First. Let's settle on a criteria for authority. Do you have a problem with mine? Here it is again.

To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unnecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.

I am just fine with this criteria, but I would like to add that if at all possible its events should be consistent with outside sources as well. We can count this as bonus points if you wish.

Or we can use your criteria if you prefer. I'm good either way. But since you've agreed to mine let's go with that for the sake of time, OK?

We can dispense with 123 John and Revelations for the sake of time. Let's start with John as that seems to be the book that is providing the most grief. We'll use Matthew, Mark, and Luke as the baseline by which to measure as you already accept them. If we can establish that John (and the other books we'll look at)passes the same criteria as the synoptic Gospels with a similar quality then John should be considered authoritative. Agreed?

[achilles12604]

Ok then . . . books


I accept Matt, Mark, Luke as both guiding, and authoritative.

I accept John as informative regarding historicity, but given the distince difference in Christology, I do not use it regarding beliefs. I would class it as informative but not authoritative.

Paul's letters I am somewhat undecided on. They were certainly authoritative for the first century churches. However, I do see Paul being required to expound upon the teachings of the Gospels. This of course made his scope broader than that of the Gospels. Now, where the evidence matches the Gospels, I have no issue. However, when his own bias or opinions are involved in his instructions (such as with traditions) I can not accept them as authoritative, especially given that today's circumstances are far different than those of the first century. So guiding, absolutely. Authoritative, I can not accept them on matters which I see in disagreement with the Gospels. On matters not addressed by the Gospels in any way, they could be authoritative but only so long as it is apparent that such beliefs were not necessitated by first century culture. I am also not willing to accept that many books of the NT were in fact written by Paul as there is good evidence that some of them were written by others using the name of Paul. Today we call this a forgery.

I don't accept 123 John as either guiding or authoritative at this time.

I also do not know what to make of Revelations as this book has not even been nailed down by the general church itself. As there is no consensus about the book, and there is very little evidence to support its historicity, I currently reject it as guiding and authoritative.

Now where do you stand on these and possibly others if you see fit to mention them?

This wasn't really what I had in mind. We've already spent ample time providing subjective personal reasons as to why we accept some books and not others. I was hoping we could get to using a somewhat more objective methodolgy like the one you agreed to in post 52.

First. Let's settle on a criteria for authority. Do you have a problem with mine? Here it is again.

To be considered authoritative the work must:

1. Have apostolic and first century authorship. (at least to a reasonable degree of certainty). We'll use the same methodology for establishing authorship and dating as classical scholars use for establishing the authorship and dating of secular works. If it's linked to a first century apostle or disciple it's good-to-go.

2. Have a consistent core message with the majority of other first century works in regards to faith and practice.

3. Have no obvious factual errors.

4. Have a sober and factual demeanor with out obviously bizarre, unnecessary and absurd embellishments to the supernatural.

I am just fine with this criteria, but I would like to add that if at all possible its events should be consistent with outside sources as well. We can count this as bonus points if you wish.

Or we can use your criteria if you prefer. I'm good either way. But since you've agreed to mine let's go with that for the sake of time, OK?

We can dispense with 123 John and Revelations for the sake of time. Let's start with John as that seems to be the book that is providing the most grief. We'll use Matthew Mark and Luke as the baseline by which to measure. If we can establish that John passes the same criteria as the synoptic Gospels with the same quality then John should be considered authoritative. Agreed?

Agreed.

[Goose]

Agreed.

Good. Since I'll probably be the one affirming John's authority I'll present the positive case affirming it. You'll take the negative I presume.

Give me a day to put that together.

[achilles12604]

Agreed.

Good. Since I'll probably be the one affirming John's authority I'll present the positive case affirming it. You'll take the negative I presume.

Give me a day to put that together.

And a day for a response. We can reconvene tomorrow.