- This topic is empty.
- Why is the 'so-called' weaker appelative 'kurios' used by NT writers in exclusive reference to Yahshua's Father?
- Why is the 'so-called' stronger appelative 'theos' used by NT writers in exclusive reference to Yahshua?
- Why does Thomas proclaim to Yahshua that He is his Lord and God (John 20:28)?
Remember Seminarian, the goal is to harmonise scripture…..if there are non-sequiturs and contradictions in your theology, they should be adressed.
Quote |
TO say Jesus is God is to deny his Lordship which the Father gave him. |
You need to take this up with John (Joh 1:1), Thomas (Joh 20:28), Paul (Ti 2:13), Peter (2 Pet 1:1) AND the Father of Yahshua (Heb 1:8). Your problem is with them.
Quote |
Jesus said he came from God and was sent by Him |
If I sent my wife to the shop would that be good evidence against her humanity? No. Neither is the sending of the Logos credible evidence against his deity.
Quote |
Pal, nobody sends God anywhere! |
Where is this written?
Quote |
You wasted all your time writing a book here just to try to cover up the obvious. The trinity is a manmade doctrine found nowhere in scripture, however, Satan has claimed you with this lie so now you are fighting like mad to try to foist it on others. This is another sign that it is of Satan because people who made up and believed in the trinity KILLED anyone who would not accept it. This was happening up until the 1700's. So do you think that is of God? If you do you are even further gone than I thought. |
You've inadvertently invalidated your own argument. If guilt is to be attributed by association then, to be consisent, we should disregard all things communicated by men, since it is men that have committed unspeakable acts of evil against other men. Therefore you, being a man, should not be listened to – given your undeniable association with humanity…..nor should we pay attention to anything Yahshua said either, He was a man too. The legitimacy of a doctrine is not predicated on the behavior of some of it's adherents.
Can you see how defective this kind of argument is? (unfortunately, probably not)
Quote |
You know, I don't got to Catholic message boards and try to force my beliefs down their throats. I know God will reveal Himself to those who have a heart after Him. |
Not sure how this is pertinent.
Quote |
Therefore, why are you here? It is quite evident that Nick, Cubes, T8 and even myself prior to seminary know more of the Bible than you do. |
Hmmm I disagree. I think you have a demonstrably shallow understanding of even the basic scriptural concepts, relative to Epistemaniac. But that is only my opinion, you of course have the golden opportunity to prove me wrong by allowing me to test your theology. But you'll need to answer questions Seminarian. Naturally, if you do this i'll obligingly let you can test mine too – that way we can see where the truth lies.
Quote |
Your motives are the same as those who plagued the 1st century church, that is to use deception to cause strife and confusion. It's not happening here. |
It's most unfair to make a comment like this, and you are in no position to stand as judge of another's motives. It's clear to me that Epistemanic's motive is obviously not to obfuscate scripture. What would he gain by doing this? If you actually knew him, you would know that he has invested a great deal of time studying the biblical data and, after consideration, has drawn his own conclusions. He has also been careful to avoid positions which introduce blatant contradictions whenever possible too, I imagine. Unlike you Seminarian, Epistemaniac has been forthcoming with direct answers when the many questions were posed to him by you and others, he hasn't shirked any, that to me speaks volumes about his character and the soundness of his theology.
Quote |
Your wasting your time and only making yourself look all the more foolish for it. |
I agree that he is apparently wasting his time WITH YOU at present. But that is not a comment on him. As for foolishness, Epistemanic has systematically dismantled every pseudo-refutation you have thrown him. He has placed himself in a situation where he is in the minority and allowed his theology to be thoroughly interogated by those that outnumbered him. This takes character Seminarian, something you might be lacking in judging by some of the comments you have made to him in this post, and others. BTW, I think foolishness is exemplified in having enormously strong opinions on scripture but demonstrating unwillingness to, or incompetence in, defending them.
I apologise to all for the bad witness of my confrontational approach in this post. It's unfortunate, but the truth is more important than Seminarian's feelings.