Divinity of Jesus

Peg has the right to participate in this Forum just like I do or anyone who wants to study the Bible.It might be helpful to draw some distinctions between what Peg as a pupil of Charles Russell's Jehovah's Witnesses believes, and what I have expounded above.The Holy Spirit to the Jehovah's Witnesses is not a Person, is not God, and certainly is not Christ in His pneumatic form, in their theology. The Holy Spirit is only a force.I also don't believe that they would believe in any kind of indwelling of Jesus within His disciples. There emphasis is on an objective God and not at all an indwelling one.The verse "the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) I think, is used by them to deny the physical resurrection of Christ.Is this fair to say Peg?Since they deny the Triune God (Father - Son - Holy Spirit) any thought that the Father and the Son as the Divine "WE" could come to dwell in man would be rejected by the Jehovah's Witnesses.The Apostle John though, wishing to convey emphatically that this Spirit is Jesus Himself in another form, records how Jesus breathed into the disciples after His resurrection and said "Receive the Holy Spirit" (John 20:22)I think the symbolism here is that He is breathing Himself into His disciples after His resurrection. Cewrtainly He is conveying that His life is now entering into them.It is quite similar to the scene of God breathing into the nostrils of the first man Adam, the breath of life that man might become a living soul (Genesis 2:7).Here in John 20 the thought is then that the resurrection of Jesus Christ counts as a new beginning for man. Specifically for Christ's believers.And the Apostle Peter emphasizes that the believers have been regenerated through the resurrection of Christ from the dead, a new beginning in life for those redeemed by Christ: Witness Lee & Watchman Nee teach regenerationEntering into the realm of this resurrected Christ constitutes man a new creation: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Haaaa come one Brian, did you really say that ?You never heard of the 1985 Habermas vs Flew debate on the ressurection of Jesus Christ ? Where 4 out of 5 judges ruled in favor of Habermas, and the other ruled it a draw ?Even one of the judges said that the arguments advanced by Habermas could lead a reasonable person to believe in the ressurection of Jesus Christ.Applying Occam's Razor to the explanations of the evidence, and you quickly come up with the fact that Jesus's ressurection is proved beyond reasonable doubt. This is in part linked with this quote by GK Chesterton:

quote:

---

The believers in miracles accept them (rightly or wrongly) because they have evidence for them. The disbelievers in miracles deny them (rightly or wrongly) because they have a doctrine against them

---

Yes, and even while I was an evangelical Christian, I could see it for complete nonsense. You can see the debate, beginning here:My 5-year-old could argue better than Flew of course, whatever you say, doc. Every now and again you show glimmers of free thought, but then you present a quote like this to show just how powerful self-delusion can be. If you want to believe in the resurrection, try using faith, and not bullshit.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

you are entitled to your opinion as much as the next person.However, i must defend myself here...I have never denied the divinity of Jesus. 'The word was divine' says John 1:1Sure, i dont believe he is Jehovah, but that does not mean I do not believe he is of divine origin.It seems you have some serious misgivings against JW's...perhaps you could start a thread about them and I can discuss it with you there?

I appreciate discussions on this forum with spiritual people who i converse with and even those who are not...it beats watching television lol. Im not sure exactly what you mean by the 'physical resurrection'
We certainly do believe that Jesus was resurrected, but the body he died in, was not. God gave Jesus a new spiritual body...as 1Corinthians15:44-50 says "It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body...45It is even so written: "The first man Adam became a living soul." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46Nevertheless, the first is, not that which is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterward that which is spiritual"Its also evidenced by the fact that when he appeared to the disciples, they did not recognize him. this is where the term 'Doubting Thomas' comes from...Thomas refused to believe that it was Jesus and so Jesus had to prove it to him by showing the nail wounds.So Jesus was certainly resurrected, but it seems the bible indicates that he was resurrected as a spirit rather then a physical being.

It’s the logical conclusion, Gzus Sleve how gullible are you?I can only assume that you are not familiar with this ‘debate’, it was a shambles, a shameless piece of Christian propaganda.Tell you what, why don’t YOU look at the ‘evidence’ and come to YOUR own conclusions?I think the only thing I’ve seen that’s more embarrassing than this is Lee Strobel’s ‘Case for Christ’.

Think my cat could too.In his defence though, he did seem well into his dotage, he could harldy string two words together. Also, a debate isn't always the best way to test people's knowledge of a subject, some people do much better when they have time to sit and construct a reply.Habermas' case is the same as any other Christian propagandist, totally circular.

You may think you are John but you aren't. You have too much hate in you, and you even have a go at people without even knowing what their faith teaches. You may address me as 'Your Eminence' if you don't mind.

Anthony Flew was what ? 62 years old, and 20 years away from his turning to Deism. Still at the top of his campaign against the concept of God.By the time of the debate, he had published the majority of his books and articles about the philosophy of religion, including publishing on a Hume approach to miracles. I'll watch the debate on youtube, (thx for the link cavediver, I won't have to buy the manuscript of the debate hh). If you have a link 'debunking' the christian propaganda in the debate, I would like to have it also. (I mean, you have the right to call BS on all this, but doing only that won't really convince me)But I find it rather difficult to believe that Habermas uses the same crap every time he debates on this subject, but almost every time comes up on the winning side ... its gotta be a christian conspiracy

You cannot even see the problem with your argument here!The wee book of fairytales tells you if someone doesn't believe the fairytales then that is just proof that the fairytales are true. can't you see the problem here? You do know that Paul is now not credited with authorship of about half of the 13? Another Christian lie Jay. When will you wake up? Paul didn't persecute anyone, it's just another lie to convince the gullible. It would more than likely be a waste of my valuable time anyway.

Of course, if you knew the greek roots of the word 'faith' you would know that it is supposed to be evidenced based ...I'm trying to discuss here, and you and Brian seem only to call BS without backing it up. My comment was accurate, since the gospels are eye-witness accounts, and so if you use Occam's razor between taking the accounts as accurate, or invoking some 'maybe' and 'what if' scenarios; you realize that it is not in your favor, but in mine

That would depend on who he was debating and what the parameters of the debate were.Why don't you forget Habermas and Flew, we could bat names back and forth between us all year and acheieve nothing.What about if I ask you one question a day for a week, which will give you time to construct an answer, and we will discover how convincing tha arguments are?

Ah, but they weren't. The Gospels are all anonymous, Sunday School stuff Sleve.Even at a very basic level, mark didn't know Jesus, Luke certainly didn't, and John is far too late.Over and above this though, the FACT is, the Gospels are all anonymous works.

Maybe they are anonymous, but it is irrelevant to the fact that they are eyewitness accounts or not ...You got 4 different versions of Jesus's life, and all of them intertwist at many points but yet they stay accurate and don't contradict themselves. By this fact, you have either two options:1- Whoever the authors were, they were eyewitness accounts or getting their information from eyewitnesses.2- One or multiple authors decided to make 4 different versions of the life of Jesus, and consulted themselves to make sure they tell the same made-up stories and be sure they do not contradict each other.3- Many other options similar to no2 can be thought about. But yet again, Occam's Razor will always favor option no1 if there is no valid reason to think the contrary.

Well it is not irrelevant. First hand accounts carry more credence than third, fourth, or even tenth hand accounts.Also, take Luke for example, Luke was a companion of Paul, and we know Jesus was supposed ot be dead before Paul 'met' him on the road to Damascus. Now Luke said he writes from eyewitness accounts, so how do you know he is telling the truth?How do you know if Luke wrote anything that is in the Gospel of Luke that we have? You do know that its unlikely that the Gospel of Mtthew we have is not the same one in early circulation?How many times has the gLuke been edited? Just because the author said he interviewed eyewitnesses it doesn't mean he did. Well, they do contradict in a great many places. Well, since your premise is incorrect your options are nullified.All anonymous works, written decades or more after Jesus was supposed to have lived.I dare say you will wish to go into the contradictions, no probs, but I am out for the rest of the day. My local football team's first ever european fixture tonight and I'm off to meet my mates for tea and scones before the game.See you tomorrow.