Jesus - Islam Perspective

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Do you not find that the least bit curious? >>>[/quote]I might find it curious if I found it to be true. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]The life and death message IS that clear. That’s why there are over 300 local churches from dozens of traditions all working together in Detroit right now. THE tradition is essentially agreed upon by all though we do hold significant non fatal differences.
[/quote]

Trib, the above is noting but An Appeal to Widespread Belief. It’s a fallacious argument form and it does not constitute substantive rebuttal. It’s akin to saying that because millions of Muslims believe their Word, that they are right and that constitutes evidence for “truth”.

If you do not want to address their claims, which on the face appear logical and reasonable, don’t. We know you guys think you’re right. Tell us why if you so choose.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Do you not find that the least bit curious? >>>[/quote]I might find it curious if I found it to be true. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]The life and death message IS that clear. That’s why there are over 300 local churches from dozens of traditions all working together in Detroit right now. THE tradition is essentially agreed upon by all though we do hold significant non fatal differences.
[/quote]

Hey they wrote this for you, sound familiar to me, though… I have heard something simlilar, but I just can’t put my finger on it…
“In the Quran, God directs Muslims to call readers of the Bible back to that true faith.”

Come out of your Christian whoredom, return to the true faith…

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Thebodyguard seems to have a lot of questions on Christianity for someone that does not actually believe in it. I think maybe he has some deeper searching for truth happening rather than trying to cause problems. I applaud that. So here are some verses to dispute what Islam says about Jesus not being God.

Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,â?? which is translated, â??God with us”

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, â??My Lord and my God"

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

There’s a start

[/quote]

Hahaha, well, I didn’t expect you to give up that easily. However, when I was an unbeliever I questioned several different religions because I was interested. As a believer, I’m not intrigued by the thinking of any othe religions anymore. Could just be me though. Anyway, here is a rebuttal for the actual scriptures that the article addresses:

Acts 3:13 is taken completely out of context. Read Acts 3:12-16 where Jesus is referred to as the “Holy and Righteous One” and the disciples say they heel through their faith in Jesus’ name

Mark 10:18 is a rhetorical question. By saying “no one is good but God alone” he is acknowledging that the man is referring to him as God. Matthew 19:17 says the same thing

Matthew 23:1-9 is a chastisement against the Pharisees. I don’t see where they draw any connection

1 Corinthians 8:6- Paul clearly acknowledges the Father and Jesus as God and Lord
Colossians 1:15- Again Paul says Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” calling him the firstborn (translation heir to the Father and co-ruler)

John 14:28- Jesus refers to the Father as greater because Jesus is confined at the time by his earthly body while the Father remains on the throne in heaven. It’s funny that if you read just a few verses up John 14:6 Jesus declares “I am the the way, the truth, and the life no one comes to the Father except through me”

John 17:3- Jesus considers himself equal with God the Father

That’s all I have time for right now

Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?

[quote]BBriere wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Thebodyguard seems to have a lot of questions on Christianity for someone that does not actually believe in it. I think maybe he has some deeper searching for truth happening rather than trying to cause problems. I applaud that. So here are some verses to dispute what Islam says about Jesus not being God.

Matthew 1:23 “Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,Ã?¢?? which is translated, Ã?¢??God with us”

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us

John 20:28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, �¢??My Lord and my God"

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace

There’s a start

[/quote]

Hahaha, well, I didn’t expect you to give up that easily. However, when I was an unbeliever I questioned several different religions because I was interested. As a believer, I’m not intrigued by the thinking of any othe religions anymore. Could just be me though. Anyway, here is a rebuttal for the actual scriptures that the article addresses:

Acts 3:13 is taken completely out of context. Read Acts 3:12-16 where Jesus is referred to as the “Holy and Righteous One” and the disciples say they heel through their faith in Jesus’ name

Mark 10:18 is a rhetorical question. By saying “no one is good but God alone” he is acknowledging that the man is referring to him as God. Matthew 19:17 says the same thing

Matthew 23:1-9 is a chastisement against the Pharisees. I don’t see where they draw any connection

1 Corinthians 8:6- Paul clearly acknowledges the Father and Jesus as God and Lord
Colossians 1:15- Again Paul says Jesus is the “image of the invisible God” calling him the firstborn (translation heir to the Father and co-ruler)

John 14:28- Jesus refers to the Father as greater because Jesus is confined at the time by his earthly body while the Father remains on the throne in heaven. It’s funny that if you read just a few verses up John 14:6 Jesus declares “I am the the way, the truth, and the life no one comes to the Father except through me”

John 17:3- Jesus considers himself equal with God the Father

That’s all I have time for right now

[/quote]

Listen carefully; I respect your right to belief and I’m not challenging that. There is no need for your rhetorical comments such as the prior comment along with this “when I was a non-believer”. Stop it. It’s weak.

Next, if you’re going to take the trouble to reply, I think you need to do better than “…is taken completely out of context”. Argue, demonstrate and/or provide reference to support your reading. Do not merely make an argument by dismissal. I cannot seriously consider your claims after “Read Acts 3:12-16 where Jesus is referred to as the “Holy and Righteous One” and the disciples say they heel (sic) through their faith in Jesus’ name” because this does not rebut the apparent ambiguity of Jesus and the Father. If you’re claiming the title “Holy and Righteous One” is one of God’s names, provide reference for that claim. If you’re not claiming that, I’m not sure where you’re going with it.

I’m not here to give up. I’m not here to “win”. I’m here to have a reasoned intellectual discussion of the topic.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
However, when I was an unbeliever[/quote]

Nice try at adding credibility to an otherwise flawed argument.

[quote]forbes wrote:
Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?[/quote]

Well, you’re “begging the question” Forbes and that’s a fallacious argument. Further, it is not the premise of the referenced Islam claim. The referenced Islamic claims are based upon scripture, and not the rhetorical question of the power of God to incarnate in man. I said from the outset that rebuttal should be confined to the referenced scriptural references, since that is the basis for their claims.

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]BBriere wrote:
However, when I was an unbeliever[/quote]

Nice try at adding credibility to an otherwise flawed argument.[/quote]

It’s a fallacious argument construct called “Statement of Conversion”. The writer is attempting to imply that he has now learned about the subject, that he knows better, and that his alleged knowledge (in this case, simply his personal beliefs), now constitutes authority.

[quote]forbes wrote:
Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?[/quote]

But to answer your question, I’d respond by saying “why”? Why do it? Doesn’t the question itself root back to the very nature of anthropomorphism? Why would the Almighty have any need to incarnate to flesh? Why do we demand that it indeed happened? Why would the Almighty require the mediation of the alleged sinful nature of a mere man - flesh and blood? And why would He just not proclaim such clearly, repeatedly and unambiguously? Again, you may think I have a bias (I don’t, other than a decision I’ve made prior), but I’m reading the referenced argument with an open heart. It appears well-reasoned, logical and references scripture.

But I’ll repeat; these are not the arguing points. The arguing points are the scripture.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I didn’t finish reading this, but it appears logical and compelling. Any Christians care to directly debunk the claims and conclusions? If there will be a reference to the “triunal” God please provide reference for the same. [/quote]

Ain’t no thousands of people going to die for testifying just a man died on a cross.[/quote]

Why not?

To find a few thousand deluded people cannot possibly be that hard?

[/quote]

Do it. Die on a cross and see how many people will die when they testify that you (just a man) died on a cross.

Bodyguard,

For clarification, much of the argument against Christianity and other religions found in Submission Islam centers around idolotry, or the worship of anything other than God (e.g. Jesus Christ) or any artifact given a holy context (e.g. Christ figures, rosary beads, etc).

At least, that’s the definition I’ve been taught from friends who practice Submission (a slightly different variation of Islam; less fundamentalist and more “modern” in some senses than Sunni and Shi’ite forms).

The corollary is that–and I am not 100% sure–if a faith does not have idolotry, it is an acceptable faith. Yes, this means that even Sunni/Shi’ite sects of Islam are not accepted by Submission Islam.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
That reasoning is flawed. That the divinity of Jesus was later created is a common criticism.[/quote]

Common, not correct. Read the early Church Fathers, read the Bible (after all those guys walked with Jesus, so it would be kind of important to use their written testimony as a primary source), read the doctrines of the early councils (and later as they either establish a Tradition, or reaffirm a doctrine from a earlier council). People get commonly confused on how councils work, they are not editing or adding or taking away the traditions of the the Church, they are teaching them in away that establishes them (you can tell that they were established and not created or changed because the writings of the Christians showed no protest to the establishing of these truths). Yes, there were some people in the Church (the first thing to pop into my head is Arius) who were influenced by pagan philosophers in a negative manner, like the gnostic, who did not believe in the divinity of the Jesus. However, these people were discredited, as well the people (laymen) would have and sometimes did when these people tried to teach false things. The early Christians had a tendency to take things into their own hands with false teachers, disturbance from them would have been noted. It wasn’t when these things were decreed.

[quote]
It bears examination. To argue that it is so “because we say so” relies upon a fallacious argument construct.[/quote]

Sure let’s have an examination, you start it and I will follow.

On what fallacious argument, it is Tradition, the Bible is part of our Tradition. If Jesus is not divine then it is all vain, the past 2000 years have been in vain. Now, that itself does not prove Jesus’ divinity. But, I question in what way you wish that we prove Christ’s divinity. If you want scientific proof, well that is impossible, Jesus isn’t here on earth (except in the Eucharist) and even if he was, you can’t do scientific tests on the spirit.

[quote]
In fact, your reply replies upon a number of fallacious arguments. It would appear that you have faith in the Church, not the scripture.[/quote]

I have faith in Scriptures because of the Church (not the other way around). Even the Bible tells us that we receive the faith through what we hear preached by the Church.

[quote]
Or, where the scripture is ambiguous or inconsistent, you want to have faith that your Church’s interpretation is correct. Sounds to me a lot like faith in man, and not God.[/quote]

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here, so if I misunderstand something please correct me. We know that the Scriptures are hard to understand without a guide (this comes from the Bible), and sola Scriptura is heresy (man-made, as itself isn’t in the Bible). My faith is not that I want my Church to be correct, my faith is what the Church preaches (Mt 16:19, gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church…not the Bible).

No, I have very little faith in man, if you haven’t noticed through history my Church has been one of the most corrupt institutes in the world, and St. Peter one of the most flimsiest of the Apostles (he did deny Jesus three times, even though he was warned by Jesus. I mean really Peter you think you can hold your water when the person you know is God tells you what is going to happen). The Church didn’t have a great start in human terms, however I have faith in G-d (which holds the Church true) that he will keep his word (Mt. 16:19, Hell will not prevail).

[quote]
If the charge is that the divinity of Jesus was an invention of man, then it is perfectly reasonable to look to the scripture raised, and to debate the interpretations.[/quote]

This is a little difficult for me to explain (because my brain isn’t completely wrapped around it), but the Word of God is to be preached, the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the truth, not the Bible. The Church holds up the Bible as truth (not the Bible holds up the Church as truth), because of her inherent qualities (that the Holy Ghost guides the Church in preaching the truth, and Jesus’ covenant with the Church). So, to take the Scriptures alone without the Church is like taking the Koran and dismissing what Islam preaches about the Koran. See what I am trying to get at?

It is fine to debate interpretations (a little pointless in some people’s eyes), but ultimately we have to humble ourselves to what the Bible says itself, the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth. Ultimate giving way goes to the teaching/preaching of the Magisterium of the Church. The Church says Jesus is G-d, the Magisterium of the Church wrote and canonized the Bible, so…I’d suspect (and believe because the Church itself teaches it) that when they wrote the Bible they wholly meant those verses to be harmoniousness with the teaching that Jesus is the second person of the Triune G-d, because the Holy Ghost divinely inspired them, and the Holy Ghost cannot be deceived.

[quote]

As far as I can recall, there was no Catholic Church when the scripture was written. And I am unaware of Islam’s rejection of the Bible or Jesus so your argument that they can’t look to the scripture is a poor one. Like the Jews (among others), they reject the divinity of Christ. [/quote]

Actually, the name “Catholic” came around 110 A.D. (before the canonization of the Bible around 400 A.D.) by the Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (I believe one of the five Sees before the Great Schism) as a nickname for the one Church of believers that was universal or for everyone.

Islam rejects the Bible, because the ‘people of the book’ (book=Bible) have corrupted the scriptures, although they still believe that we’re brothers and to be treated as at least as second class citizens instead of slaves and war booty as long as we abide by their rules. As well, they believe Jesus was the greatest prophet (Mo was the last of the great prophets), will come again, as Christians believe, on the day Second Coming to judge the living and the dead, but that he didn’t die on the Cross, but it was an imposter on the cross.

Although, they do hold Mary as the highest woman (she was sinless and a virgin!) created and highest regarded woman in Islam. Which is nice of them to hold Jesus’ mother in such high regard.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I didn’t finish reading this, but it appears logical and compelling. Any Christians care to directly debunk the claims and conclusions? If there will be a reference to the “triunal” God please provide reference for the same. [/quote]

Ain’t no thousands of people going to die for testifying just a man died on a cross.[/quote]

Can you expand on this and provide a reference?[/quote]

Well, what I didn’t add was Islam holds that it wasn’t Jesus on the cross it was an imposter, and what I was talking about was that there were executions of early Christians for testifying that Jesus was G-d and he died on a cross (St. Peter, Paul, James, &c.), and I don’t think someone who knew better would lie about it to the point that they were executed for their testimony. I mean people lie about what they know so they won’t face death, not many people lie (especially large amounts of people) about what they know so they will face death.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
God’s message to man should speak for itself. [/quote]

Who says? [/quote]

I’ll play along.

The almighty wants to deliver his message to his children who are in need of his law. Although there is scriptural evidence for such clarity, such as the ten commandments - thou shalt not kill - can it be any clearer than that - but when it comes time for the message of the divine Jesus, God is suddenly confusing, contradictory and needs man (the Church) to later clarify the confusing, contradictory messages, in order to make a coherent consistent message.
[/quote]

You forget that G-d gave power to Moses to teach Israel, you also forget all the Judges G-d gave to Israel.

Yes, because you’re forgetting Oral Tradition. I mean it’s in the Bible (there is a verse in Acts of the Apostles which quotes Jesus saying something that isn’t in the Gospel).

[quote]
Will the standard response be something along the lines of “God is mysterious, it is not for us to know his ways, only to obey” or some permutation thereof?

God: Thou shalt not kill!

Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]

No, it’s because G-d has given us people through history, Moses, Joshua, St. Peter, &c. to preach us the truth. Oral Tradition, brother.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?[/quote]

But to answer your question, I’d respond by saying “why”? Why do it? Doesn’t the question itself root back to the very nature of anthropomorphism?[/quote]

To save us.

No need, just his plan.

Because it did.

Because of humans fallen nature to twist scripture (it’s in scripture).

He did, if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see. However, because of our fallen nature we have a tendency to twist scripture to our benefit, not to the truth.

Not to sound like Tirib, but faith is not based on reason, our reason becomes sound because of what we stand on. Faith is what we receive by what we hear, not by what we reason.

[quote]
But I’ll repeat; these are not the arguing points. The arguing points are the scripture. [/quote]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
That reasoning is flawed. That the divinity of Jesus was later created is a common criticism.[/quote]

Common, not correct. Read the early Church Fathers, read the Bible (after all those guys walked with Jesus, so it would be kind of important to use their written testimony as a primary source), read the doctrines of the early councils (and later as they either establish a Tradition, or reaffirm a doctrine from a earlier council). People get commonly confused on how councils work, they are not editing or adding or taking away the traditions of the the Church, they are teaching them in away that establishes them (you can tell that they were established and not created or changed because the writings of the Christians showed no protest to the establishing of these truths). Yes, there were some people in the Church (the first thing to pop into my head is Arius) who were influenced by pagan philosophers in a negative manner, like the gnostic, who did not believe in the divinity of the Jesus. However, these people were discredited, as well the people (laymen) would have and sometimes did when these people tried to teach false things. The early Christians had a tendency to take things into their own hands with false teachers, disturbance from them would have been noted. It wasn’t when these things were decreed.

[quote]
It bears examination. To argue that it is so “because we say so” relies upon a fallacious argument construct.[/quote]

Sure let’s have an examination, you start it and I will follow.

On what fallacious argument, it is Tradition, the Bible is part of our Tradition. If Jesus is not divine then it is all vain, the past 2000 years have been in vain. Now, that itself does not prove Jesus’ divinity. But, I question in what way you wish that we prove Christ’s divinity. If you want scientific proof, well that is impossible, Jesus isn’t here on earth (except in the Eucharist) and even if he was, you can’t do scientific tests on the spirit.

[quote]
In fact, your reply replies upon a number of fallacious arguments. It would appear that you have faith in the Church, not the scripture.[/quote]

I have faith in Scriptures because of the Church (not the other way around). Even the Bible tells us that we receive the faith through what we hear preached by the Church.

[quote]
Or, where the scripture is ambiguous or inconsistent, you want to have faith that your Church’s interpretation is correct. Sounds to me a lot like faith in man, and not God.[/quote]

I’m not quite sure what you’re saying here, so if I misunderstand something please correct me. We know that the Scriptures are hard to understand without a guide (this comes from the Bible), and sola Scriptura is heresy (man-made, as itself isn’t in the Bible). My faith is not that I want my Church to be correct, my faith is what the Church preaches (Mt 16:19, gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church…not the Bible).

No, I have very little faith in man, if you haven’t noticed through history my Church has been one of the most corrupt institutes in the world, and St. Peter one of the most flimsiest of the Apostles (he did deny Jesus three times, even though he was warned by Jesus. I mean really Peter you think you can hold your water when the person you know is God tells you what is going to happen). The Church didn’t have a great start in human terms, however I have faith in G-d (which holds the Church true) that he will keep his word (Mt. 16:19, Hell will not prevail).

[quote]
If the charge is that the divinity of Jesus was an invention of man, then it is perfectly reasonable to look to the scripture raised, and to debate the interpretations.[/quote]

This is a little difficult for me to explain (because my brain isn’t completely wrapped around it), but the Word of God is to be preached, the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of the truth, not the Bible. The Church holds up the Bible as truth (not the Bible holds up the Church as truth), because of her inherent qualities (that the Holy Ghost guides the Church in preaching the truth, and Jesus’ covenant with the Church). So, to take the Scriptures alone without the Church is like taking the Koran and dismissing what Islam preaches about the Koran. See what I am trying to get at?

It is fine to debate interpretations (a little pointless in some people’s eyes), but ultimately we have to humble ourselves to what the Bible says itself, the Church is the Pillar and Bulwark of truth. Ultimate giving way goes to the teaching/preaching of the Magisterium of the Church. The Church says Jesus is G-d, the Magisterium of the Church wrote and canonized the Bible, so…I’d suspect (and believe because the Church itself teaches it) that when they wrote the Bible they wholly meant those verses to be harmoniousness with the teaching that Jesus is the second person of the Triune G-d, because the Holy Ghost divinely inspired them, and the Holy Ghost cannot be deceived.

[quote]

As far as I can recall, there was no Catholic Church when the scripture was written. And I am unaware of Islam’s rejection of the Bible or Jesus so your argument that they can’t look to the scripture is a poor one. Like the Jews (among others), they reject the divinity of Christ. [/quote]

Actually, the name “Catholic” came around 110 A.D. (before the canonization of the Bible around 400 A.D.) by the Bishop Ignatius of Antioch (I believe one of the five Sees before the Great Schism) as a nickname for the one Church of believers that was universal or for everyone.

Islam rejects the Bible, because the ‘people of the book’ (book=Bible) have corrupted the scriptures, although they still believe that we’re brothers and to be treated as at least as second class citizens instead of slaves and war booty as long as we abide by their rules. As well, they believe Jesus was the greatest prophet (Mo was the last of the great prophets), will come again, as Christians believe, on the day Second Coming to judge the living and the dead, but that he didn’t die on the Cross, but it was an imposter on the cross.

Although, they do hold Mary as the highest woman (she was sinless and a virgin!) created and highest regarded woman in Islam. Which is nice of them to hold Jesus’ mother in such high regard.[/quote]

I don’t really care for the quote/reply by sentence discourse because after the 1st time it becomes very difficult to keep a flow and it’s more trouble than it’s worth. I will simply say that I respect your convictions and that I disagree. In one breath, you admit the corruption of your Church, and in the next you place your faith in that Church. I simply do not agree and it’s the same circular emotional appeal that sucks people into all sorts of crazy beliefs - including cults (surely we do not have to respect ALL beliefs right? :slight_smile: )

My post is simple. I think the reference made some interesting arguments against the divinity of Jesus. They are not alone in their beliefs. I wanted to see discourse on the scripture, because the scripture should speak for itself. When Jesus himself seems to draw a distinction between he and the Father, I think it bears examination. To surrender examination of that legitimate discourse to a later council and an admittedly corrupt institution is “curious” thinking to me. You’re trying to reason to me that scripture was written by man, inspired by God, at a time when the Catholic Church did not exist, and that the Catholic Church later became the sole authority for the interpretation of those scriptures. I reject that argument.

About the only thing I think we agree on is that if Jesus was merely a prophet, a Son of God (not an inclusive term used only in reference to Jesus), then yes, 2000 years of dogma has been in vain.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
Whats so difficult in believing that God can indwell human flesh? Cannot the Creator of the Universe do that?[/quote]

But to answer your question, I’d respond by saying “why”? Why do it? Doesn’t the question itself root back to the very nature of anthropomorphism?[/quote]

To save us.

No need, just his plan.

Because it did.

Because of humans fallen nature to twist scripture (it’s in scripture).

He did, if you have ears to hear, and eyes to see. However, because of our fallen nature we have a tendency to twist scripture to our benefit, not to the truth.

Not to sound like Tirib, but faith is not based on reason, our reason becomes sound because of what we stand on. Faith is what we receive by what we hear, not by what we reason.

No disrespect Chris, but every single reply of yours constituted various forms of fallacious arguments. Sincerely, I was hoping for more. Increasingly, it seems to me that religion is not a matter of “faith” in God, but rather “faith in man” and institutions. And your Church in particular has a corrupt record dating back to the beginning. I have “faith” that something greater than me exists. I do not have faith in doctrines that suggest very strongly that they were created by man and, when you challenge those doctrines, the default position unfailingly requires you to have faith in men. If I’m going to have faith in men, I might as well include Joseph Smith and his claims. Heck, I might want to consider the likes of Jim Jones too. If the Word is indeed the inerrant word of God, it does not require massage by your Church, or any Church.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Do you not find that the least bit curious? >>>[/quote]I might find it curious if I found it to be true. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]The life and death message IS that clear. That’s why there are over 300 local churches from dozens of traditions all working together in Detroit right now. THE tradition is essentially agreed upon by all though we do hold significant non fatal differences.
[/quote]

Trib, the above is noting but An Appeal to Widespread Belief. It’s a fallacious argument form and it does not constitute substantive rebuttal. It’s akin to saying that because millions of Muslims believe their Word, that they are right and that constitutes evidence for “truth”.

If you do not want to address their claims, which on the face appear logical and reasonable, don’t. We know you guys think you’re right. Tell us why if you so choose. [/quote]You missed my point. I’ve had the deity of Christ debate one million times including the big trinity thread here. It’s boring any more, no offense.

My point was that millions and millions of orthodox protestants represented by mountains of sound and reverent scholarship all see a very clear message where you claimed there wasn’t one. Could they all logically be wrong? Yep. They’re not though. I won’t willingly give up home advantage by going into your building of autonomous logic to debate. You win there. My job as a believer is to testify of the alone soundness of God’s building of saving faith. The only building where logic functions properly. (yes, I realize the limitations of the building analogy)

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< Do you not find that the least bit curious? >>>[/quote]I might find it curious if I found it to be true. [quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:Is it unreasonable to expect that the scriptures concerning the life and times of Jesus be similarly clear?[/quote]The life and death message IS that clear. That’s why there are over 300 local churches from dozens of traditions all working together in Detroit right now. THE tradition is essentially agreed upon by all though we do hold significant non fatal differences.
[/quote]

Trib, the above is noting but An Appeal to Widespread Belief. It’s a fallacious argument form and it does not constitute substantive rebuttal. It’s akin to saying that because millions of Muslims believe their Word, that they are right and that constitutes evidence for “truth”.

If you do not want to address their claims, which on the face appear logical and reasonable, don’t. We know you guys think you’re right. Tell us why if you so choose. [/quote]You missed my point. I’ve had the deity of Christ debate one million times including the big trinity thread here. It’s boring any more, no offense.

My point was that millions and millions of orthodox protestants represented by mountains of sound and reverent scholarship all see a very clear message where you claimed there wasn’t one. Could they all logically be wrong? Yep. They’re not though. I won’t willingly give up home advantage by going into your building of autonomous logic to debate. You win there. My job as a believer is to testify of the alone soundness of God’s building of saving faith. The only building where logic functions properly. (yes, I realize the limitations of the building analogy)
[/quote]

Trib, I think by now you know I respect your belief, and your passion. I also understand not wanting to wade again into all-too (for you) familiar waters. But you DID reply, and you just replied again by reiterating an utterly fallacious argument. If that is the best you’re willing to manage, then understand that every other faith has as much claim to truth as yours. And given that the various faiths conflict on some very key points, we can safely conclude they are either all wrong, or only one is right. If only one is right, you have no more claim to truth than any other if you’re only willing to venture an “appeal to widespread belief” argument. If you do not wish to engage substantively, don’t :slight_smile: I understand your reticence.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:<<< then understand that every other faith has as much claim to truth as yours. >>>[/quote]I have said a thousand times that in the arena of autonomous sinful human logic absolutely ANY belief or none whatsoever is just as possible and impossible as any other.