Divinity of Jesus

I'm afraid you're not in a position to state that someone doesn't know x by faith. Such a statement would be making the claim that the only ways to know things are by means which exclude by faith.Such a position is a philosophical position - and a faith-based philosophical position at that

I appreciate your candour regarding your faith position, but I wasn't referring to that kind of faith. I was talking about Christian faith. Your argument... ...doesn't address my statement. I'm not saying I think x is the case. I'm saying I have faith x is the case. Until such time as you possess a way of knowing for sure that biblical faith = mere thinking, absolute statements regarding biblical faith should be downgraded to tentitive statements.It is worth noting that faith can vary. Faith unto belief (that Adam and Eve were actual people) falls short of certain knowledge. Faith unto knowing (that Jesus walked the earth 2000 odd years ago) occupies the same territory as knowing that God exists - by means of this "substance" or "fuel" called faith.It is also worth nothing that a common understanding of the word faith: "blind and unevidenced belief" is not a definition of the word faith as it is utilised in the Bible. It is the biblical version I am referencing when I talk of Christian faith. Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Is Raphael a historian or was he making a claim utilising the tools a historian would? I doubt it. He (and I) can make the claim from a position of faith and be far surer that these events occurred than we could ever be were we to utilise historical tools. I understand "History" to mean what occurred in the past. One way to approach the past is to use historical tools. I don't think Raphael is using that approach. That he doesn't use those tools doesn't abuse what history is, it only ignores one particular set of tools used in the area of examining history. Another way to know what occurred in the past is being fuelled by God-given faith. I know you don't believe this but that is a different matter. It's hard to know. Whilst being aware that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, I cannot know whether a particular proclaimation of the gospel (or any part) thereof will ever contribute to a person coming to belief in God. Suffice to say that my reasons for proclaiming the gospel have nothing to do with an expectation that anyone believe what I say there and then. I'm pretty sure that what I say will be soon forgotten anyway.To be honest, I think you'd have to have a screw loose to believe a faith-based statement like "Jesus lived and performed miracles" just because you read it on an internet discussion forum. That I or Raphael can be certain that Jesus did the things recorded is of no use in the setting where historical-evidencing is required. It would be mixing up two ways of knowing things. Could you reference a paper published? This is strange given that I don't tend to argue for the existance of God. I have often conceded that being certain of something (ie: "I know x to be the case") doesn't mean it actually is the case in an absolute sense. We could all be characters in some alien kids playstation game afterall. No one could claim their certainty about anything to be absolute. I wouldn't have thought so. I would have thought there is only one history and degrees (and ways) by which to access what occurred in it. Knowing one bit for sure is but a degree. But it is a sure degree. Let's have a look To be expected if the object you are trying to define is too big to circumvent. A world of blind men would say the same thing about red. I've only heard his "voice" directly once that I know about. He didn't contradict himself that time. D'ya remember Columbo? Of course you haven't a good reason. You have no (or at least insufficient) evidence to believe he exists. This thick as two plank God isn't thick enough to ask you to believe in him without good reason. Indeed, it's only after you have been "saved" that you get to find out that God actually exists. He turns up so that you are in no doubt.(God asking you to believe in his existance without first providing you with clear and completely compelling evidence as to his existance! Now that's funny ) We can use the blind-belief definition of faith found in dictionaries or we can use the evidenced-faith definition used in the Bible. It's not so much circular reasoning as using the definition of the faith under discussion. We were talking about biblical faith weren't we? So why not use the biblical definition of faith?Note that all definitions involve "circular reasoning". The defintion of a dog is "hairy animal with 4 legs and a wagging tail, etc". A hairy animal with 4 legs and a wagging tail. etc is defined as a dog.Circular.

The section starting at 1:18 happens to be entitled "God's Wrath Against Mankind" in the NIV version.

quote:

---

Romans 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness..

---

The "come to buddy Jesus" gospel wouldn't have been the one preached then. The good news was good news in the light of the bad news.- He does demand a sacrifice. You gotta get off the throne. To be born again its you who has to die. Not your pet gerbil.- I'm not sure how "demand" and "love" work together in the same sentence. But anyway: its love God "..with all your heart soul and mind". Paying taxes would be childsplay in comparison.- .and promises that those who don't follow his commands to the letter will go to Hell. Those who didn't pick up on the mercy element would prefer paying taxes. Those who did pick up on it would realise that they are not subject to the law and are no longer obligated (in terms of gaining access to a "favorable eternal destination") to follow the law. This God demands nothing from us but our surrender.- IF God of wrath message THEN give me the gods any day.IF God of grace message THEN why Islam?

This "faithful and uninformed humanist" actually happens to be a born again Christian. It's reasonable to suppose that you missed my argument by a similarily wide mark. So let me spell it out for you..Grizz was putting the spread of Christianity down to the "Unbeatable Bargain God!!" on offer. In attempting to divert him from that course of thinking I was pointing out that God on offer actually happens to be very angry with mankind. So angry is he that he wiped them out in a flood once. So hating of their wickedness that he will condemn the majority (who happen to be charting a course down the broad road that leads to destruction as we speak) to Hell. "Buddy Jesus" is the best person to go to if it's talk of Hell you want - for no one talks about it and the fate of those who go there more than he does.God so loves the world. But God help someone who spurns what his love resulted in him doing. The truth is a double edged sword - in this case used to trim the loose edges from Grizz's point of view.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

No worries mate.

Did the pagan Gods offer an eternity in a lake of fire to the majority exposed to him?Gain is a relative term: Jesus said to the rich young ruler that he should sell up and ship out. So much for that young mans temporal gain.- One could describe sexual intercourse as spasmodic in the context of a loving husband and wifes sexual urges... or spasmodic in the context of a rape.- I'm a member of Christ and recognise nothing of the above. I will be with God no matter what I do from this day forth. I may be disciplined but wrath, anger and punishment are not mine. No more.- Do you really think people could be that gullible? I mean down at street level? One doesn't have to be a scientist to realise that the facts don't fit the hypothesis. How long do you think people would be strung along by the "bad crop this year...mustn't have been enough offering" gig?How far can intelligence "evolve" in 2000 years...- Nero was the chap who converted Christians into human torches. If there was any advertisement [i]against[i] Christianity in that period then you couldn't do better than this. Indeed, persecution seems to have been the lot of early Christianity - from Jesus' day forth.What needs examination is the spread of Christianity in spite of all of the persecution.The model of the disciples standing up in downtown Jerusalem a short number of weeks after the crucifixion of Jesus continues on to the time of Nero... and beyond.Myself? I see Christianity as a kind of virus. Persecution is a handgrenade thrown in it's midst. Christianity is splintered into little pieces - and spread over a wide area. Where it takes roots and grows...- correction: refused to comply. Those that perish are those described as refusing to love the truth. Refusal is the key- Correction: not in addition. Rather: he offers his wrath or his love via mercy. The God of choice.- Even if that means your crops will burn or your being riddled with cancer without the benefits of modern day medicine or your being dragged back to persecuting Jersusalem by Saul or your being thrown to the lions.All you have (rationally and materialistically thinking) is a promise.- A God who promises trouble in this world vs. a god who would provide for this years grain?- There are records which state themselves to cover the period immediately following Christs death and resurrection. One believes that they are a recordof that time or they don't. One's belief is a different issue though.- Which brings up the telative values of word of mouth vs. written word. Clearly, there is nothing stopping word of mouth propagating a notion more accurately than what is written and copied.- I'm 43. At age 7 I fell into a river and was rescued by my mother. I can distinctly remember being in the river and being ridden home in the perambulator of my sister (who was 5 at the time). It's like a video in my head but the details (such as my being 7 and my sister being 5) have become clearer with time.This is the first written record of that event.What does it matter when a gospel was written?- There are levels of persecution. Being thrown to lions is a little different that losing ones job. We cannot assume as you do.- Christianity grew. I agree.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I never looked at it that way before. Nice!

That's one way to postion the emphasis. Another place to position it is at the word 'why'. As in "WHY do you call me good? No one is good except God". The questioner is now faced with a challenge and the classic dilemma."Who do YOU say Jesus is..."- Jesus frequently didn't act in the way the average person would. Your "surely he would" is probably based on what you would expect the average person would do and so is, I think, a questionable tool to be applying in your evaluating things. Whether you think Jesus the Christ or whether you consider him Michael, the archangel.Jesus very often put an unusual spin on incoming comments/attacks/querys ending up in things being slingshot into different orbits. He wasn't a man given to arrowstraight responses to questions, now was he?- How subtle the shift in emphasis that swings things away from concluding as you do.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The verse clearly says what it says. What's not so clear is how it should be interpreted. One possible linguistic interpretation is the one you suppose. Another is the one Jaywill supposes. My question for you then is this;

quote:

---

"Because the Lord Himself, with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangle and with the trumpet of God, will descend ..."

---

..with the trumpet of God, indicates something that accompanies the Lord - but which is not an intrinsic, personal part of the Lord. If something can accompany the Lord - whilst not being an intrinsic part of the Lord - then why are you supposing the verse to 'clearly say' what you suppose it says? I mean, the voice of the archangel could be on a par with the trumpet of God, could it not?- The word 'like' implies a certain similarity but not sameness. Whereas Jesus words here move beyond similarity and into the realm of same-ness/identical-ness. I'm at a loss as to why you find this interesting given your Micheal=Jesus contention. Jesus actually holes your position below the waterline.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

The voice is indeed an intrinsic part of a person. And we are told it belongs to the archangel.But the connection can't be made between the Lord and the archangel (in the sense of the Lord being the source of the voice) anymore than a connection can be made between the Lord and the trumpet(ing) of God (in the sense that the Lord is the one blowing the trumpet)The text permits us to visualise the Lord marching forth, announced by another (the archangel), all to the sound of Gods trumpeteers. When there are two possible ways to interpret the passage, neither 'side' can claim the passage their own.

You seem to be missing the partial point. Neither you nor I quibble that the voice belongs to the archangel. The question is whether or not Jesus and the archangel can be connected together so that the two are rendered one - which is your suggestion.The connecting word with isn't sufficiently strong to establish your view however. Christ descending with (the heralding) voice of another (resounding in the background) is as acceptable a suggestion as is your suggestion that the voice is his.- Which is besides the point made above. Your position was that the text "clearly says" when in fact it doesn't.As for the above point. Perhaps you could suggest what is going on when Jesus differentiates himself from your notion that he is 'like' God as 'Michael' is like God. See a couple of posts ago.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Indeed - when redemption from the rightful claims of the law is the issue at hand. But the problems for Peg's tri-partite plan multiply when we consider things from the perspective of loves' desire to forgive. The nature of forgiveness is such as to require the forgiver to be the one to pay whatever the cost of the offence happens to be - themselves.In order for God to forgive, God himself has to suffer the cost attaching to our sin. Edited by iano, : No reason given.