|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3849 days) Posts: 72 From: Los Angeles, California Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Bible Teachings or Traditions of Men? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Alter2Ego writes:
Three is a magic number. So are twelve and forty. If Jesus had had eleven disciples that followed him every day and one guy brought his cousin to the Last Supper, they'd still be called The Twelve. If God had four aspects, they'd arbitrarily shoehorn two of them together and the Trinity would be Father, Son and Miscellaneous. Why are these teachings found in pagan/false religions that never worshipped the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible? For instance there were pagan trinities at least 200 years before Jesus came to the earth as a human. In numerology, the number of items is more important than the items themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Alter2Ego writes:
English is a funny language, isn't it? In French, "of" and "from" are the same word but in English they're quite different. Readings "of' the Bible would suggest that you read the whole thing but readings "from" the Bible could mean that you read one verse forty times. Not once have I seen so much as a hint of trinity during my many readings from the Bible. By saying that you "haven't seen" any hint of the Trinity, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You could be cherry-picking what you don't see the same way you accuse the trinitarians of cherry-picking what they do see. To be honest, you do know what the hints at a Trinity are, don't you? You do see the evidence, don't you? You just don't agree with the interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
Maybe you don't realize it but to those of us who are not Christians there isn't much difference between the various brands that call themselves Christians. It's like arguing whether Bigfoot is a blonde or a brunette. Catholicism is NOT Christian although there may be some Catholics by the historical definition who are. As far as we, the majority, are concerned, if the Catholics call themselves Christians, they're Christians. The "historically true" definition is less important than the working definition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes:
You're confusing "the" description with your description. The only useful description of a Christian is "somebody who calls himself a Christian" - just like the only useful description of George is "somebody who calls himself George".
You have at EvC some true Christians but a lot of people who call themselves Christians whose actual beliefs don't fit the description. Faith writes:
Your position is the exact opposite of objective. Objectivity implies consensus. You're usuing a thoroughly subjective interpretation of the Bible in an attempt to exclude most people from the poll. You're trying to win the election by only allowing people who agree with you to vote.
But there are objective criteria that I've been trying to spell out that would inform you if you were willing to learn it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Do Muslims and Buddhists agree with Faith's standard?
Objective implies that everyone applying the standard would reach similar results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
It's relevant if the standard itself isn't objective.
Do YEC's agree with the scientific standards for carbon dating? Is that question even relevant to whether those standards are objective? NoNukes writes:
My whole point is that Faith's standard isn't objective. If everybody applies the same rules they will get the same answer but if the rules are wrong the answer will still be wrong. If a Muslim and a ringo applied Faith's standard, then given enough facts they would largely agree on who met the standard and who did not. In matters of belief, it isn't possible to have an objective standard. There's no way of testing what somebody believes. The only evidence we have is their profession of belief. Hence, the only way to tell if somebody is a "true Christian" is if he says he is. The only "required" belief in Christianity is the belief that you're a Christian.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Stile writes:
Sure. And we can apply creationist standards to get the same results that creationists are getting. I don't think it's very useful to equate internal consistency with objectivity.
I think NoNukes's point is that Faith's standard taken as is, from Faith, is an objective standard in the sense that anyone can apply Faith's standard to achieve the same results that Faith is getting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Alter2Ego writes:
Life and existence are not the same thing. Of course a dead body exists. On the other hand, if it "comes back to life", it isn't really dead.
The dictionary says one who is eternal must exist through all time. Did Jesus continue to exist as a living being during the three days that the Bible says he was dead? YES or NO?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Alter2Ego writes:
A dead body is not alive and vice versa. Sometimes the line between dead and alive is a bit fuzzy.
If a dead body exists, does that mean the person is still alive? Alter2Ego writes:
Then, by that definition there's no such thing as an eternal person.
By definition, an eternal person can never die because an eternal person must exist through all time. Alter2Ego writes:
See above. The process of dying can sometimes be reversed in its early stages but the state of death is not undoable.
During the three days that Jesus was dead, did he continue to exist as a living being? Alter2Ego writes:
No. The process of dying may have begun but was not completed. The state of death marks the point of no return in the dying process.
If someone died and then "comes back to life," is it not true that they still died... Alter2Ego writes:
See above. There's no such thing as an "eternal person". The inevitablity of death negates the possibility of eternal life.
...they could not have been eternal because if they were, they never would have died from the get-go?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Alter2Ego writes:
Even according to your own definition, the phrase "dead for three days" has no meaning. Dead is dead. There is no time limit. The only qualification is "previously alive".
The Bible clearly states at 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that Jesus was dead, and not only dead, but dead for three days. Alter2Ego writes:
You have the dictionary claiming one thing and the Bible claiming another. You can't draw a mathematically certain conclusion from that. Yes, there is some fuzziness. Either Jesus wasn't dead in the first place or he wasn't alive later. There is no option in your own definition for "dead and then alive again".
The dictionary defines death as "A person who has passed away and . . . is no longer alive." Are you still "fuzzy" about whether or not Jesus Christ was really and truly dead? Alter2Ego writes:
Your own definition says no such thing. It says "existing" through all time, not "living" through all time. Jesus existed as a living being and then as a dead being. His existence may or may not be eternal. His life was not.
The definition of "eternal" is that the individual must exist [as a living being] through all time. Was Jesus, as a living being, in existence during the three days the Bible says he was dead? Alter2Ego writes:
You're looking for logic where there is none. You might as well ask why the Big Bad Wolf disguised himself as Granny instead of just eating Little Red Riding Hood without all the rigamarole. The only "reason" is that's what the story says. If Jesus was not really dead and was instantly alive in the spirit, as some in this forum are claiming, why did he have to be resurrected from the dead after the three days? In other words, did Jehovah resurrect a living person who was already alive in the spirit? The only reason Jesus "had to be resurrected after three days" was to supposedly fulfill a prophecy. There's no theological reason for it. Edited by ringo, : Spellng.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Alter2Ego writes:
Have you stopped beating your wife? Yes or No? I asked you eight (8) questions thus far, all of which you evaded. The answers to the questions are "YES" and "NO" and "TRUE" or "FALSE" in some instances. It's dishonest to demand a yes or no answer when neither of them is correct.
Alter2Ego writes:
What's the point of asking a question like that? Of course it says what it says. Do you think I'm going to waste my time confirming a tautology? Yes, black is black. Yes, white is white. One of the questions I last asked you is simple: "The Bible clearly states at 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 that Jesus was dead, and not only dead, but dead for three days. TRUE or FALSE?" I did not ask you if you agree with the Bible. I asked you if that's what the Bible says happened. My replies are to the direction you're going. Pardon me if I'm getting ahead of you.
Alter2Ego writes:
You ask people dishonest leading questions in the hope of furthering your own argument, not to get their viewpoint. That's more akin to preaching than discussion. If you're really interested in discussing the topic, you'll give some consideration to the alternate viewpoints being presented. You have seen me at work on this forum long enough to know by now that I ask people viewpoint questions based upon what I specifically quote from the Bible or based upon dictionary definitions. Now, I pointed out that your own definitions don't support your argument. Do you have any defense?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024