|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Divinity of Jesus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1972 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
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:
"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." (1 Peter 1:3) Witness Lee & Watchman Nee teach regeneration Entering into the realm of this resurrected Christ constitutes man a new creation:
"So then if anyone is in Christ, [he] is a new creation. The old things have passed away; behold they have become new." (2 Cor. 5:17) Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
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? 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
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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
John10:10 writes: JW's do not believe in the divinity of Jesus. If you do, why do you think it's OK for someone to explain to others what the Bible means when they do not believe in the divinity of Jesus and that He is Lord? 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 1:1 Sure, 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4960 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
I appreciate discussions on this forum with spiritual people who i converse with and even those who are not...
it beats watching television lol.
jaywill writes: 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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Haaaa come one Brian, did you really say that ? It’s the logical conclusion,
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. 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’.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
My 5-year-old could argue better than Flew 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Yes, I am a Christian, 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.
and you are not the Pope. You may address me as 'Your Eminence' if you don't mind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Thanks, you just provided me with some more good evidence to the claims of the Lord Jesus Christ. Your obsessed and bigoted remark leads me to believe that I must be on the right track to believe in Christ. 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?
Your attitude is very similar to that of the man who authored 13 of the 27 New Testament documents You do know that Paul is now not credited with authorship of about half of the 13?
Saul of Tarsus who being obsessed with destroying the Christian church also breathed out his vehement disbelief with threats and insults. Another Christian lie Jay. When will you wake up? Paul didn't persecute anyone, it's just another lie to convince the gullible.
You needn't go into the other question as to what you have that would be a better use of my life and time. You've already indirectly answered that question for me. It would more than likely be a waste of my valuable time anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
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 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
since the gospels are eye-witness accounts, 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4671 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4990 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
Maybe they are anonymous, but it is irrelevant to the fact that they are eyewitness accounts or not 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.
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. Well, they do contradict in a great many places.
By this fact, you have either two options: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024