If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been . . .

[Zzyzx]

.
If Jesus was who he is claimed to have been WHY didn't he say or do anything new or useful?
http://churchandstate.org.uk/2016/04/ch ... -question/

[tam]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

I am no one.

If I'm not to listen to you, then this automatically means no listening to Christ either. Given that I don't hear any mystical voice at all, then you become the only 'source' I could use for this voice. But since I'm not to listen to you, and Christ remains silent to me, well then, I guess there's no Christ for me.

All this boils down to is me stating that I do not expect people to believe me just because I say so. I don't expect people to take my word for it. Research for yourself; ask for yourself.

Says Christ, says some from the written word (anyone who hates his brother does not know God)... etc, etc.

But that statement (says Christ) is completely unjustified. I don't know if what's in the Bible actually WAS Christ's words recorded accurately. I also cannot use you as a source for whenever you report on what Christ says to you. I can't use Christ himself because I don't hear him (and my explanation for why I don't hear him is that there is no Christ to hear).

This has nothing to do with the topic. Blastcat (and now you) keep making this about me, and it is not about me. The OP asks a question, which I answered. Then I was challenged as to why different believers disagree, and I said that many are instead listening to religion, to men, to doctrines, to tradition, etc. But not to Christ, not even to what Christ is written to have said.

Then I provided evidence for that because of what IS written. Then Blastcat challenges me that perhaps Christ did somehow approve of burning heretics at the stake, even according to what is written, and I challenged him to back that up. He did not.

This thread is not about me proving to either of you that Christ lives and speaks; or that I hear Him.

(This thread is actually predicated on Christ being who He said He was.)

Look at what is written, the words attributed to Him, and verify it for yourself.

We can't. There is no Christ for me to hear, more than likely because there quite simply is no Christ.

But you can do what I said here:

Look at what is written, the words attributed to Him, and verify it for yourself.

Then SHOW IT Blastcat. Show me where I have misrepresented Christ here.

Even in the hypothetical scenario where Blastcat (or I or anyone else) can produce a quote attributed to Christ where he says something like "Burn them!", I strongly suspect you would deny it. You would retort by saying "Christ told me that that quote was not said by him" and we would be unable to verify or falsify this claim.
In other words, Bible Christ can be defeated by us, but not the Voice-Christ (as I call him) that you claim to hear. THAT Christ is completely immune to any and all attack.

I'm sorry Rik, but that is a cop-out.

That FACT of the matter here is that what I have said regarding the whole 'burn at the stake' heresy (and it is that which was the heresy, and those who did it were the actual heretics) is accurate. My 'claim' was challenged. That challenge failed.

How would you bypass His words to love one's enemies;

Hypothetically speaking, one could believe that those words were NOT Christ's after all, and that Christ said other things, such as "Burn my enemies at the stake".

Hypothetically speaking, anything in the universe and beyond is possible. But there is nothing in the world to back up this hypothetical claim; and multiple things to show false this hypothetical claim.

I test my 'beliefs' against Christ. and/or receive them from Him.

And when you report back to us (the non-believers, the people who don't hear anything) about these tests, we have no reason at all to believe you. You say your beliefs pass these tests, but why should we believe you? Earlier you said not to listen to you.

I was asked where my 'beliefs' come from. I answered.

To try to wrap your head around it, to try to get you to understand...use this analogy. Imagine you speak English and...Swahili (to pick a language I don't understand myself). I have no idea what Swahili sounds like. I know of no-one around me who speaks it. You claim to speak Swahili. When I ask for evidence that you actually are fluent, you claim to be able to go into this other room, that I can't enter, where you speak with a nebulous gentleman, whom I've never met, seen or heard, and according to you, you are able to carry on a conversation in Swahili with this man.
As far as I'm able to determine, the only two people in this building are myself and you. I see no evidence of this other gentleman who speaks Swahili. I have no idea if the sounds you make with your mouth are the language of Swahili.

I appreciate the effort you made in your analogy here. I am not really getting it, because I do give you something to verify in what is written. And I would do the same if I claimed to speak Swahili.

No, of course not. If they are going to ask someone, then they should ask Christ. That is the best option. If they are not going to ask or are unable to receive what He would tell them, then at the very least, they can see what He is written to have said.

But I have no reason to believe that the Bible contains his actual words. You're treating the Bible as an axiom.

As an axiom as to what is written in it, yes.
I am not using it as an axiom as to what is considered true in the universe.

I'm back to the two Christs. How do I get from Bible Christ to Voice-Christ, when despite YEARS of trying, I never once heard anything? I can read all about Bible Christ all day long if I want to, but quite clearly that doesn't yield results.

[/quote]


I'm not sure I have anything different to say than what I said on this thread here:

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=28577


If something is not answered there, then please feel free to ask over there on this matter.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

HI, tam,

You're a preacher, I'm a preacher.

It's just that we preach about different things.
You preach about CHRIST, and I preach about SOUND REASONING.

I think that even those who preach about Christ should ALSO use SOUND REASONING.

I hope that you agree.

Well since it appears you are not going to respond to any of the questions that I asked (even though I responded to your questions to me), I must assume you have no argument against my reasoning and accept that it is sound, at least on this topic.

You don't seem to know me very well, tam.

I actually had 39 pages of it.. thought it was just too long.
AND BORING, quite frankly. I kept a half finished copy of it on my hard drive.. but it was all repetitive and like I say.. rather boring.

I'll tell you what, though.

If I DO spot some sound reasoning from you, I WILL LET YOU KNOW RIGHT AWAY.
And if you think you have done some, feel free to send me a private message, in case I miss it.

Your claims of special revelation won't be accepted, so don't bother with those. That's not sound reasoning. Bible trying to prove Bible won't work, either.

And.. if I were you, I'd say away from talking about MORALITY anytime soon.

But don't be shy.

[tam]

[Replying to post 48 by tam]

[Replying to post 46 by tam]

HI, tam,

You're a preacher, I'm a preacher.

It's just that we preach about different things.
You preach about CHRIST, and I preach about SOUND REASONING.

I think that even those who preach about Christ should ALSO use SOUND REASONING.

I hope that you agree.

Well since it appears you are not going to respond to any of the questions that I asked (even though I responded to your questions to me), I must assume you have no argument against my reasoning and accept that it is sound, at least on this topic.

You don't seem to know me very well, tam.

I actually had 39 pages of it.. thought it was just too long.
AND BORING, quite frankly. I kept a half finished copy of it on my hard drive.. but it was all repetitive and like I say.. rather boring.

I'll tell you what, though.

If I DO spot some sound reasoning from you, I WILL LET YOU KNOW RIGHT AWAY.
And if you think you have done some, feel free to send me a private message, in case I miss it.

Your claims of special revelation won't be accepted, so don't bother with those. That's not sound reasoning. Bible trying to prove Bible won't work, either.

And.. if I were you, I'd say away from talking about MORALITY anytime soon.

But don't be shy.

39 pages when all you needed to do to was show a passage or two that showed me to be misrepresenting my Lord? That those who claimed Christ did want enemies burned at the stake were correct?


Sorry, that sounds exhausting, and still no such passage is presented.


But I'll see you around the forum on other topics, I am sure.


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

He claimed to be the door to GOD and salvation from sin (its enslavement and the legal consequences) and died for the redemption of the sinful elect. Enough for any elelct...

Thank you for the wonderful non sequitur.

I wonder what you think this adds to the discussion?

He claimed to be a DOOR? ... Sounds like a delusion to me. Or a cool rock band.
Would you CARE to elaborate?

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 53 by tam]


39 pages we shall never see...

39 pages when all you needed to do to was show a passage or two that showed me to be misrepresenting my Lord? That those who claimed Christ did want enemies burned at the stake were correct?

39 pages of refuting one weirdly wrong statement after another, tam.
To which you would respond even MORE to... I thought I'd snip all of that in the bud, as it were.

You must imagine that you get to win a debate by default and all I have to do is to prove you WRONG.

Well, by that standard, you WON!!!!!

Sorry, that sounds exhausting, and still no such passage is presented.

I'm just not in a "passaging" kinda mood.

You preach about JESUS and I preach about sound reasoning .... seems like a deal to you? Let's stick with what we KNOW, ok?

But I'll see you around the forum on other topics, I am sure.

im always around... trolls be like that.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 53 by tam]

Well since it appears you are not going to respond to any of the questions that I asked (even though I responded to your questions to me), I must assume you have no argument against my reasoning and accept that it is sound, at least on this topic.

Here's an interesting excerpt from my 39 page polemic that I like to call "TAM IS WRONG"

He also never DID something like that. Even His followers record in some of the letters in the NT that what one should do with a heretic is 'NOT INVITE THEM INTO YOUR HOME OR LISTEN TO THEM.'

That is a pretty far cry from 'burn them at the stake.'

Tam, we could play Bible tag all DAY and it wouldn't prove any of your claims. The Bible also says

Matthew 25:46
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.�

Revelation 21:8
8 "But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.�

There's a lot of crazy stuff in the Bible.. Why believe crazy stuff?
Why believe ANY of it?

[tam]

[Replying to post 56 by Blastcat]

I'm not sure how that excerpt is even on topic, Blastcat. Nothing in what you quoted comes even remotely close to Christ saying that heretics should be burned at the stake. ESPECIALLY not when you consider all that He DID teach (by his words and by his actions) on the matter. I won't repeat those things; they are in the previous exchanges.

But those who did such things (stake burning and the like) were not listening to Christ.


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 57 by tam]

Hi tam

Once again, we seem to talking PAST each other.. and that will get us precisely NOWHERE.

So, below, I ask you a question.
I will await your reply before continuing.

I'm not sure how that excerpt is even on topic, Blastcat. Nothing in what you quoted comes even remotely close to Christ saying that heretics should be burned at the stake. ESPECIALLY not when you consider all that He DID teach (by his words and by his actions) on the matter. I won't repeat those things; they are in the previous exchanges.

But those who did such things (stake burning and the like) were not listening to Christ.

You missed the point I was trying to make, tam.

It's hard to have a reasonable discussion with you because you don't seem to understand much of what I'm writing to you. That's a problem, tam. I don't think that I'm being THAT obtuse. Most other people seem to understand what I'm writing about. I can be WRONG at times, but usually, understandable. I go to LENGTHS to make myself understandable. You might be aware that some of my posts are very DETAILED AND VERY LONG.

Your replies to me all too often indicate that you missed my point and almost COMPLETELY . We really are talking PAST each other, tam. I usually try to ask VERY DIRECT and VERY CLEAR questions... And I don't seem to get very clear, very DIRECT answers. It gets really frustrating at times. I would spend all my time explaining my explanation about my explanations endlessly, and never getting to the bottom of ANYTHING...

So, as to THIS point.. how about we try to figure out just exactly I DO MEAN? I'm assuming here that you CARE to know... tell me if I'm wrong. I can explain, but at this point, I have to question your WILLINGNESS to understand what I'm talking about.

I have no choice at this juncture to ask you the rather embarrassing question:

ARE YOU WILLING TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND MY POSITION AS BEST AS YOU CAN?

I don't really want to waste my time if you don't really care to understand what I'm talking about. I will await your reply.

[tam]

[Replying to post 58 by Blastcat]

Peace to you Blastcat.


This might best be a conversation had via pm, so as not to derail the thread. But you are quite right that I often do not know what you are going on about. I tend to respond to specific questions. That is what I did on this thread. Sometimes you jump in mid-conversation, regarding some other point that I never made to begin with.


Your POINT seems to be,

"You can't prove anything is true, tam."


But every conversation does not boil down to that. It depends upon what the OP is asking, and what other questions might have been asked in the course of the thread.


The question of the OP begins "If Christ is who He said..."

So the assumption is that He is who He said.

In light of my response to the OP, someone asked why so many professed Christians believe different, even conflicting things. My response to that question is that they are not all listening to Christ. They listen to others OVER Christ. (I added the exception of misunderstanding and continued learning/growth in a subsequent post)

That is where the example of burning heretics at the stake comes in to play. (though really I should say 'so called' heretics)

If there is a fault in my reasoning on these two questions then point it out and we can discuss that. If you had a point other than 'you can't prove it is true', then I admit to having missed it.


Maybe you could just come out and state your point? Because if it takes multiple pages to make a point, Blastcat, then I will suggest to you that sometimes a point is best made simply by stating it outright.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 59 by tam]

Hi tam.

Maybe you could just come out and state your point? Because if it takes multiple pages to make a point, Blastcat, then I will suggest to you that sometimes a point is best made simply by stating it outright.

Honestly, tam.. did you not SEE the bolded question at the bottom of the post you are replying to?

I thought THAT was pretty OUTRIGHT.