- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 22 2010,13:54) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 21 2010,16:53) Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 20 2010,22:05) And the wheels on the bus go round and round… 1Jn 2:22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son.
It has already been shown what the Christian relationship between Jesus and God is using “monogenes”. So you can go ahead an find yourself in the same group of antichrists as myself
.Oh, and BTW, “The Son” above in Greek is “ho uihos” so it is definitely “THE Son”.
First of all Jesus was not greek so a greek interpretation of Jewish culture does not mean it is valid. Jesus said to John that Mary was his mother and he was her son, do you know the greek interpretaion of that?Or when God calls Israel His firstborn son do you know the greek interpretation of that.
The bottom line is that Jesus is The Christ.
Where is your source for your “greek” assumption and is it using ancient greek or modern greek.
This has nothing to do with a “Greek interpretation” of Jesus. “ho” is the Greek article used in to indicate that thew word “the” is definitely there. So “the” is not implied, it joins with “uihos” to make the phrase “The Son”.
Are there lower case and upper case letters in greek?wouldn't “the son” be the same in all cases? by the way as I showed you “son” has a host of meanings and intent but you won't acknowledge it because you have the Atheists Disease, no validation about God is possible nor is any evidence about God acceptable
*sigh*
Sometimes I think you argue for the sake of arguing. Do you just despise being wrong?
“the son”. There, in lower case. The fact is that there is a relationship there, with “the father and the son. Not “a son” but “the son”. Accompany this with Jesus being referred to as “monogenes” — which is always used of genetic offspring in the Christian bible — and you see that the writers definitely viewed Jesus as the literal son of God.
It is you who rejects this notion, and therefore, you are referred to as an antichrist. I am too, but at least I own up to it.
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 23 2010,00:38) *sigh* Sometimes I think you argue for the sake of arguing. Do you just despise being wrong?
“the son”. There, in lower case. The fact is that there is a relationship there, with “the father and the son. Not “a son” but “the son”. Accompany this with Jesus being referred to as “monogenes” — which is always used of genetic offspring in the Christian bible — and you see that the writers definitely viewed Jesus as the literal son of God.
It is you who rejects this notion, and therefore, you are referred to as an antichrist. I am too, but at least I own up to it.
There is no consistent use of these terms throughout the NT but let me just say this:How do you apply the word “Christ” to the word “Son” they are not interchangeable.
To be antiChrist one would have to not believe in The Anointed of God Jesus is the anointed of God
To be a son of God is not a genetic issue as God is a Spirit so yes an anointed person can be called “son” because of their Godly nature. I have no problem with that.
Many are called the sons of God, so I do not deny The Father or The Son but the Fact is these are terms of endearment and of a Spiritual application but in reality God is above being an actual Father to anyone in a physical sense. God is The Sovereign Creator he needs no consort or partner to create.
When you say literal son of God, what is the implication but you applying a sexual connotation
No doubt. You just cannot stand to be wrong, can you?
I have shown you the connection of Jesus to God in the Christian text. “Monogenes” is only used to refer to the genetic offspring of another. Now you may say that God has no genetic material, but the concept is the same. By using “monogenes” to refer to the relationship between God and Jesus, it is clear that Jesus was supposed to be the direct offspring of the God of Abraham.
Why else would this take place?
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
If simply calling yourself “Son of God” was as common as you make it out to be, then why would the Jews get so angry?
Now, I don't believe any of it, but the simple fact of the matter is that you do not accept Jesus in the same fashion as Christians, as he is portrayed in the Christian scriptures. That makes you an antichrist as I have already pointed out.
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 23 2010,07:42) No doubt. You just cannot stand to be wrong, can you? I have shown you the connection of Jesus to God in the Christian text. “Monogenes” is only used to refer to the genetic offspring of another. Now you may say that God has no genetic material, but the concept is the same. By using “monogenes” to refer to the relationship between God and Jesus, it is clear that Jesus was supposed to be the direct offspring of the God of Abraham.
Why else would this take place?
Joh 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
If simply calling yourself “Son of God” was as common as you make it out to be, then why would the Jews get so angry?
Now, I don't believe any of it, but the simple fact of the matter is that you do not accept Jesus in the same fashion as Christians, as he is portrayed in the Christian scriptures. That makes you an antichrist as I have already pointed out.
Kejonn,It was reserved in that sense for kings.
Besides Jesus never broke the Sabbath but you can't understand that because you have the Atheists disease.
Also the accusation was wrong because Jesus was clearly not making himself equal with God even stating “The Father is greater than I”
This is your new mantra is it, rather than give a valid argument in response, you assign the person's views to 'disease'? That is exactly what islam does with homosexuality, isn't it. No reasoning, just call it 'disease'. I suppose it is a different strategy to the one that compares Jews to farmyard animals, at least.
Stuart
Quote (kejonn @ Jan. 24 2010,00:15) Debating with bodhitharta = 
I wouldn't say that you're a brick wall but your pretty closeQuote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,15:35) This is your new mantra is it, rather than give a valid argument in response, you assign the person's views to 'disease'? That is exactly what islam does with homosexuality, isn't it. No reasoning, just call it 'disease'. I suppose it is a different strategy to the one that compares Jews to farmyard animals, at least. Stuart
Homosexuality is no different than any other urge, it is not something that must be acted on and therefore pursuing it as such is a disease just as compulsive stealing makes a person a kleptomaniac.Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,06:10) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,15:35) This is your new mantra is it, rather than give a valid argument in response, you assign the person's views to 'disease'? That is exactly what islam does with homosexuality, isn't it. No reasoning, just call it 'disease'. I suppose it is a different strategy to the one that compares Jews to farmyard animals, at least. Stuart
Homosexuality is no different than any other urge, it is not something that must be acted on and therefore pursuing it as such is a disease just as compulsive stealing makes a person a kleptomaniac.
Which, shockingly, was the mainstream view of much of the Western world until the early 1970s, religiously-inspired as it was.But to this day, christian fundamentalists and muslims stick to this inhumane attitude like pigs to mud because they have books that discriminate against gay people, and feel the need to tell lies in order to justify the long-dead ethics contained in their reactionary conservative mythologies.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,08:58) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,06:10) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,15:35) This is your new mantra is it, rather than give a valid argument in response, you assign the person's views to 'disease'? That is exactly what islam does with homosexuality, isn't it. No reasoning, just call it 'disease'. I suppose it is a different strategy to the one that compares Jews to farmyard animals, at least. Stuart
Homosexuality is no different than any other urge, it is not something that must be acted on and therefore pursuing it as such is a disease just as compulsive stealing makes a person a kleptomaniac.
Which, shockingly, was the mainstream view of much of the Western world until the early 1970s, religiously-inspired as it was.But to this day, christian fundamentalists and muslims stick to this inhumane attitude like pigs to mud because they have books that discriminate against gay people, and feel the need to tell lies in order to justify the long-dead ethics contained in their reactionary conservative mythologies.
Stuart
So were the Jews lying in the Torah when it says that God finds homosexuality to be an Abomination.Kejonn and STU
Are you prepared to state that every Jew is a child abuser who should have their children taken away from them?
Jews taught that circumcision of their children is a commandment of God, so they take their 8 day old sons and cut the flesh of their foreskins off in obedience to God. Since you believe there is no God wouldn't that mean that the Jews have been teaching that doing surgery on newborns is acceptable? Wouldn't that be child abuse?
Why did you add the 'should have their children taken away from them' bit? No I do not agree with that absurd position.
I agree that all muslim and Jewish parents, and in fact anyone of any delusion is committing an abuse of human rights if they have their infant male sons circumcised for non-medical reasons.
By number, it is overwhelmingly an abuse of children by their muslims parents.
Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,08:58) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,06:10) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,15:35) This is your new mantra is it, rather than give a valid argument in response, you assign the person's views to 'disease'? That is exactly what islam does with homosexuality, isn't it. No reasoning, just call it 'disease'. I suppose it is a different strategy to the one that compares Jews to farmyard animals, at least. Stuart
Homosexuality is no different than any other urge, it is not something that must be acted on and therefore pursuing it as such is a disease just as compulsive stealing makes a person a kleptomaniac.
Which, shockingly, was the mainstream view of much of the Western world until the early 1970s, religiously-inspired as it was.But to this day, christian fundamentalists and muslims stick to this inhumane attitude like pigs to mud because they have books that discriminate against gay people, and feel the need to tell lies in order to justify the long-dead ethics contained in their reactionary conservative mythologies.
Stuart
So were the Jews lying in the Torah when it says that God finds homosexuality to be an Abomination.
Are muslims telling any kind of truth when they compare Jews to pigs? Is it pigheaded of them to assert that pigs are not actually quite clean and intelligent animals?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,16:55) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,09:44) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,08:58) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,06:10) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 23 2010,15:35) This is your new mantra is it, rather than give a valid argument in response, you assign the person's views to 'disease'? That is exactly what islam does with homosexuality, isn't it. No reasoning, just call it 'disease'. I suppose it is a different strategy to the one that compares Jews to farmyard animals, at least. Stuart
Homosexuality is no different than any other urge, it is not something that must be acted on and therefore pursuing it as such is a disease just as compulsive stealing makes a person a kleptomaniac.
Which, shockingly, was the mainstream view of much of the Western world until the early 1970s, religiously-inspired as it was.But to this day, christian fundamentalists and muslims stick to this inhumane attitude like pigs to mud because they have books that discriminate against gay people, and feel the need to tell lies in order to justify the long-dead ethics contained in their reactionary conservative mythologies.
Stuart
So were the Jews lying in the Torah when it says that God finds homosexuality to be an Abomination.
Are muslims telling any kind of truth when they compare Jews to pigs? Is it pigheaded of them to assert that pigs are not actually quite clean and intelligent animals?Stuart
What does intelligent and dirt have to do with the comparison? It is not even a Muslim comparison it is from the Bible of those Jews that are greedy and crafty, not all Jews. That is in the bible a book about Jews written by Jews. The funny thing is you think that the righteous Jews who are obedient to God are the ones who are crafty and fraudulent.Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,16:52) Why did you add the 'should have their children taken away from them' bit? No I do not agree with that absurd position. I agree that all muslim and Jewish parents, and in fact anyone of any delusion is committing an abuse of human rights if they have their infant male sons circumcised for non-medical reasons.
By number, it is overwhelmingly an abuse of children by their muslims parents.
Stuart
So you believe that abused children should not be taken from their parents?Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 24 2010,18:04) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 24 2010,16:52) Why did you add the 'should have their children taken away from them' bit? No I do not agree with that absurd position. I agree that all muslim and Jewish parents, and in fact anyone of any delusion is committing an abuse of human rights if they have their infant male sons circumcised for non-medical reasons.
By number, it is overwhelmingly an abuse of children by their muslims parents.
Stuart
So you believe that abused children should not be taken from their parents?
Well I am happy to hear you argue that circumcised muslim children should be removed from their parents. I would disagree that it would be in the best interests of the children to do so. After all those children will be exposed to more and more anti-human nonsense if their parents do indoctrinate them in islam, so there may be even better reasons to do so later on than the abusive act of genital mutilation, which in many islamic countries is not restricted to male children.There is a population-wide shift in attitude required, one that actually allows people to accept that children and women have human rights, such as that to be left intact until they can decide for themselves whether they want to be part of this lunatic belief system and its mindless rituals, and indeed to be free to remain free of religion if they want.
Do you champion such rights too?
Stuart
Quote What does intelligent and dirt have to do with the comparison? It is not even a Muslim comparison it is from the Bible of those Jews that are greedy and crafty, not all Jews. That is in the bible a book about Jews written by Jews.
I would have to ask you that. Are you saying that it is wrong for muslims to make derogatory comparisons between what they thing are the dirty habits of pigs and Jewish people? Are you rejecting the characterisation of Jews as 'greedy an crafty'?You are the first person here to use those adjectives in this context. Where did you get them from?
Quote The funny thing is you think that the righteous Jews who are obedient to God are the ones who are crafty and fraudulent.
Where did I write that? Do you not respect the libel laws?Stuart
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 23 2010,13:07) I wouldn't say that you're a brick wall but your pretty close
If I am the brick wall, then this brick wall has at least offered valid points. You've offered none in this line thus far. Only another Muslim would agree with you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
