Divinity of Jesus

To Iamjoseph, I don't mean to impose here, and I certainly don't want to interupt your thread, so I will not address this post, at this time. Simply to say, I would like to invite you over to Autunman's new thread 'Eden 2', maybe you can do both the same time, so that when it does come up in the discussion, you can present some of these very unique perspectives, about Christianity. I would be happy to respond to some of them, free of chargeD Bertot

Autunman, in Jaywills defense, (not that a person of his calibur, needs it), there are comments on here by others that are bare baseless assertions, bashing the heart of Christianity, with no real support as well. I think, this may be what Jaywill is responding to. I think he simply cannot sit by and let it pass. In fairness however, both parties are guilty of this accusation and charge you have made. This is why I invited to IamJoseph, to discuss these from a historical and logical perspective, leaving the feelins at the proverbial stoop.ThanksD Bertotps Sorry for the insertions and interruptions.

To the amazing Autunman, you have clearly not understood anything I have been saying , about Facts, belief, knoeledge or truth, inconjunction with the real world. We are not INITIALLY asking anyone to believe, accept, view, determine, that miracles and the supernatural are real from thier perspective. Proof for anything does not exist. One would think that you would have picked up on this by now. Most, not all of the exponents on this web-site would acknowledge this point. It is not necessary to demonstrate that something, is real, actual and factual. Maybe we can get past this rigid view of truth and facts, so we can have further discussion and not slow the progress of the others progress. Do you agree.?D Bertot

To AM. You missed my point once again. If I am not mistaken this web-site is dedicated to the principles of people expressing thier views and opinions, supported by what they believe to be the facts. The way of doing that (methodology) is there buisness ofcourse. For example, to Jaywill he believes the scriptures are the inspired word of God and he presents arguments from its perspective. If you do not agree with him, attack the specific argument he is making from a logical, and factual process, instead of complaining about his method. Rsepond to the individual arguments themself.This why I am continuously challenging you on the other thread to make a point or come to a conclusion about something. You have alot of factual information but never come to a point or conclusion that would invite debate, what exacally is your conclusion. For example, you might say, Because I believe the Garden and the tree are myth, this would imply that SIN, good and evil must be taken in the same way. Make a point, thats how debate works.Besides all of this. It should be obvious that there is no ABSOLUTE PROOF FOR ANYTHING. How in the world, can anyone prove anything absolutley.Remember, attack the argument not the person or thier methodology.And by the way, I might remind you that you are on the BIBLE STUDY, thread.Thanks
D Bertot

Now that constitues a valid argument. I just finished writing another post on your thread and I will certainly get back to this one in a while. It poses no problems or difficulties, trust me.D bertot

Quote from Jon And by HISTORICAL ASPECTS he means everything outside of the New Testament? And by REAL WORLD, he means his view and perception of the real world and all that is possible within existence itself. A loaded, unreasonable and unrealistic quetion at best. But for he sake of arument Ill follow him down his bunny trail. His assumption, as he puts it, is and should be based on something he has not exacally stated. Exacally what is being assumed and exacally what do mean by historical event. Specify. None, to the satisfaction of all people, so whats the point of the question. Watch me reword the question. What aspect of history could explain to everyones satisfaction , that all aspects of a persons life (say G Washington) atually happened as stated in history. Whats the point. Its a poorly worded question that isolated by itself, without taking into consideration all the information, tries to establish prejudice in the minds of hearers. however, if we take into consideration all the Historical information to include the NT, then you have a valid answer to a legitimate question. See how it works.AM writes So your whole argument is that because certain people disagreed about things and the nature of Christ, we can conclude that Jesus was not diety? Interesting way of debating. Im sure if we used the sources these people were using, we would see that it is same as the sources we have today. Your argument is that a certain class of people won the debate by force. I say they did not do it that way. the earliest manuscripts and the earliest Church fathers will attest to that. If not completly, they would certainly be a counterfactual hypthosis to your contention. They were aware of the diety of Jesus long before Constantine. Disagreement is not equivalent to falsifacation. The fact that they were debating it, indicates that they were well aware of the tradition and belief. There my friend is a great HISTORICAL ATTESTATION to Jon question. We can do this all day long.Arguments that equate themselves with historical events and the way history and natural events occur typically, are not a valid method of dismissing a thing completly, such as the diety of Christ. They fall short because they are a limited way of establishing facts, now or then.Thanks
D Bertot

Now, people will pooh, pooh this one away and say, Yeah, Well but!!
How about the fact that TIME itself, is now determined by Jesus Christ, BCE/AD, etc. Literally nearly the whole world recons 'time' by the man Jesus Christ, theres a pretty good Historical Aspect to testament, somewhat of his influence and possible Diety. No one says before Plato, before Confucious, etc. But ofcourse this has no real significance either , does it.D Bertot

[qs]Do you give Woden, Saturn, Thor, and Janus the same consideration?Your point being What, exacally?D Bertot

To Dr (not a real Dr) Jones and Autunman I will try and get to these as quickly as I can to day and your other one Eden-2 the sequel. It may take some time so dont think I have begged off, I have alot of real wold, possibily supernatural things happening today.D Bertot

A full house beats two of a kind. Sure I will give them the same veneration and status of possibly Diety, when they move up from days of the week or month, to TIME itself. Besides not even being Real, they havent even made it to the Year, Decade, Century, or Millinia, status. There small time players, Ha Ha. It was just an example that I offered, not something that I offered to involk scholarly discussion. I do believe that the time designation around God himself is no accident or coincident.D Bertot

It is unrealistic, because it he sets the rules up as unrealistic. Example if we were to use Thomas Jeffersons Bible, that removes all the miracles, would you allow it, I doubt you would even see that as a Historical document. Question, would you accept it as reliable if we use his vewrsion?Objective perception of reality (as Jon puts it)is as about as relative and subjective statement as anyone can produce. My objective perception would say that because God exists, as you do, that which becomes normal or natural is anything that is possible for him to do. It is therefore UNREALISTIC to proceed with his presumptious and classificaions.Who said I did not want to use the dictionary. From what post do you derive this statement. Please forgive the bluntness of the next this statement. The above statement is nothing more than complaining. There is nothing from a historical context that would convince you. If there were numerous examples you would say, that does not prove the miracles. He has you physical evidence in the person of Christ andleft you a group of writings, that are both historical in content and reliable as a source, you do not believe them, it is reasonable to believe you would dismiss any other evidence that could be offered. This again is why Jons request is silly and unreasonable. You your self use language that boubts Christs actual physical existence and there are others that question the historical evidence that is obvious. My statement stands. None, to the satisfaction of all or most.D Bertot

The above arguments constitute my first part of the reply to post 185, the rest will follow, when I getr enough time to dedicate myself to it. You are keeping me very busy on the other thread as well.D Bertot

AM writesYour a Diest and dont posess a Thomas Jefferson, Bible, just kidding AM, calm down this is not the UFC. I also, have my breakfast, lunch and dinner packed but its just to eat. Question does God exist outside the mind, literally. Your statement makes no sense, it makes God real and not real at the same time. Gods existence does not depend on my subjective view. He is not just that which exists in reality Autunman, he is reality.Bertot said Please finish my quote next time. You know that this is not what I was saying or implying, I was speaking strickly of God at that point. You are a much better Hebraist than philosopher. Yes, what I believe without factual information is subjecive. that which I can demonstrate, through the process of deductive reasoning applied to the real world is true , objective and real. More in a minute.D Bertot

You most certainly misunderstood me. I was simply saying that we had reached a logical impass at that point. We Must have, you never responded to that specific argument. You clearly did not read my statement when I said, "none to the satisfaction of all or most", then I gave an explanation of why. That part is surprisingly left out of your post here, maybe you could go back and insert it.If I produce a statement that says Joseph, Jesus and Mary came up out of Egypt would you believe it? Would there be any reason to doubt or would you reject it out right. You tell me That was my point in my post, if you had taken the time to quote it completely. You mean CHEW ON AND SPIT OUT, dont you.The Heb. term meshiycha {Greek/Latin: Christ} does not in and of itself denote “only begotten son of God.” You are aware of this grammatical and historical fact, right?And you are aware that the statement you just made, makes no sense to the issue. Did I say that it did? We have already done this in your first thread, what reason do I have to believe you will agree on what constitues a historical document here or accept anything that was said there. Thi question here, while dealing with historical, is of different nature due to the proposition. My postion still stands that it is an invalid question and proposition as stated, because it is illogical and unreasonable as stated.D bertot

Grizz, thanks for your response. It is always good to have new members and participants. To help you understand a bit more of the bacground about our discussion on 'Historical' and what we argued about in this category, you could read, Autunman's thread Biblical translation, Eden 1, it will give you some background. I understand what you are saying and please continue to particapate. The more the marrier, they say.D Bertotps. we get after eachother form time to time, so dont let distract you, I cant help it if all the others opinions are wrong. Ha, HaD Bertot