Did Jesus teach reincarnation?

Cute.

The New Testament is a great argument for the concepts it teaches. However, some points of doctrine that various groups of Christians believe are essential, are not clearly taught in the New Testament. For those concepts, the New Testament provides ambiguous and sometimes contradictory answers. I've seen you and others twist in the wind and deny that some verses are contrary to some doctrines you insist on.

On the relationship between God and Jesus, we have verses that clearly present a Father and Son relationship between the two with strong indications of the two of them being separate, and other verses that are argued to say that Jesus is God. People differ on the interpretation of those verses.

Here is what you actually said, jaywill. Message 127

In short, you talked about Paul persecuting the Christian Church without quoting a single verse. Perhaps you actually meant to make a different argument. But even given the actual question, we know that what Paul actually did was to attack Christ followers for following Christ. We are still left with the problem that your definition of blasphemy being incorrect and in fact limited to directly attacking God's divinity for the sole purpose of making this argument.

I was still wavering, at least for the purpose of this discussion. It turns out that the actual evidence that Paul believed that Jesus was God is rather thin. The actual best verse I saw quoted in the article is the argument that Paul called Jesus the Creator. I also spent some time online looking at other arguments.

In the end, I conclude that even if Paul's opinion is not conclusive, Paul is just one opinion and my own opinion does not change just because of what I can or cannot find Paul to say.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I thought I would address this question more directly. There are separate questions about whether Jesus is divine and whether he is Yahweh. In my opinion Jesus divinity is unquestioned, and Paul is clear about that. What is less clear are the details of how that divinity works. In short what is at question is not the divinity of Jesus, but the nature of the Trinity at a level of detail that I personally find unimportant and probably not resolvable to my own satisfaction.

No. It was not a productive thing to say and I should not have made the comment. I apologize for saying it.

That is what you are attempting to show. It is a matter of opinion as to whether you have been successful. I don't believe it is possible to make the showing you are attempting, so lack of success is not completely your fault. For example, some people might believe an instance of God speaking of His Son, with pride, and in the third person, is absolutely conclusive on the issue.

Correct. It "suggests" but does not prove. A reading of those verses that would indicate otherwise is to consider Paul as using an analogy between the Spirit of Jesus dwelling in his believers and the Spirit of God which raised Jesus. In particular 8:11 seems to literally express a First Person->Third Person relationship wherein God resurrected Jesus rather than Jesus resurrecting himself.

Further, I find it nearly impossible to read 8:17 which makes us God's joint heirs with Jesus as not stating a separation between Father and Son. If there is actually no separation it is despite rather than according to the text.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That explains how you resolve a textual issue in your own mind. But the evidence does not come from the text, but from an idea you have before looking at the text. However you came to your conclusion, it probably was not from reading 8:11.

I don't see how this addressed the point, which is that the most direct reading of the text actually suggests something quite different. I am not trying to convince you that Jesus is not God. I'm only suggesting that it is not completely clear what Paul's thinking on the issue is.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I am sure that is exactly the method that people use to come up with understandings that are completely different from your own. And it is impossible to tell from the text who is correct.

I never claimed that any passage of the Bible was not correct. In fact, if we assume that they are all correct, then the question becomes how do we reconcile apparent conflicts and what is our starting point for resolution. There should be a way to do a text first, doctrine second reading. If not, then your doctrine is not grounded in scripture.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I think there are some cases where we should avoid telling others that they've missed the point. The things on which all Christians should agree are fairly small in number.

Not sure what the point of your question is.

I'll admit that I am not a fan of telling people who are doing their best to follow Christ that they are not real Christians based on some doctrinal point that is not even scriptural. But policing talk? How could I do that?

If what you are saying is that you want a free hand to comment on some matter without a response, I don't think I owe you that.

It clearly does not mean God inherited. That's why the joint heirs with Jesus is problematic.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Because the text states otherwise. The text says that Christ inherits from God and we inherit jointly with Christ.

At some point it is necessary to actually give words some meeting. What is an heir and what does it mean to be joint heirs? These are terms with ordinary and quite literal meanings.

Correct. I am not better than you. But that is not the question here. I'd like to see you make a case for God inheriting from himself.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Okay. This is not a point that I addressed. I misinterpreted your question as saying God was the indirect object of inheriting and not the direct object. Even though I have no idea what you mean by inheriting God, the idea is not excluded by 8:17 which does not detail what is inherited. I suggest that it does not advance the proposition either.

I assumed you were doing so here, but apparently I erred. Isn't this your third announcement that you would get to my question?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I yield. You win.