More false logic

[GeneBalthrop]

Quote (david @ Feb. 28 2010,16:50)

Quote David, Who else is called  “the Savior.” Only God and Jesus are called “THE Savior.” And who else is a Savior that owns us as His own people? Who else is called “the Savior”?  Please go read my “title confusion trick–savior” thread.   Secondly, I had thought that your argument was: 1. Jesus is called Savior.  Jehovah is called Savior.  Hence, they're the same being. Apparently, your argument is: They're both called “savior” AND they are both said to own us. Apparently, them being called “savior” PROVES NOTHING IN ITSELF! This was my argument all along.  Thank you for confirming my argument.   The fact that both are called “lord” or “king” or “savior” etc proves nothing IN ITSELF if many others are also called by the same word, (unless you are willing to concede that they are also part of the same group). Just as sharp has his rule, I'm going to call the above “David's logic rule.”  I think it's quite evident.  But some have difficulty with it.  I really don't see how it can't be obvious and evident.

David………I read that Post it was very good and accurate.

Peace and love to yu and yours………………….gene

[david]

Thanks Gene.

Thinker?

[KangarooJack]

Quote (david @ Feb. 28 2010,16:50)

Quote David, Who else is called  “the Savior.” Only God and Jesus are called “THE Savior.” And who else is a Savior that owns us as His own people? Who else is called “the Savior”?  Please go read my “title confusion trick–savior” thread.   Secondly, I had thought that your argument was: 1. Jesus is called Savior.  Jehovah is called Savior.  Hence, they're the same being. Apparently, your argument is: They're both called “savior” AND they are both said to own us. Apparently, them being called “savior” PROVES NOTHING IN ITSELF! This was my argument all along.  Thank you for confirming my argument.   The fact that both are called “lord” or “king” or “savior” etc proves nothing IN ITSELF if many others are also called by the same word, (unless you are willing to concede that they are also part of the same group). Just as sharp has his rule, I'm going to call the above “David's logic rule.”  I think it's quite evident.  But some have difficulty with it.  I really don't see how it can't be obvious and evident.

David,

The Hebrew term “deliverer” or “savior” (yaw-shah) is NEVER applied to men in the old testament the way that the term “savior” (“soter”) is applied to Jesus Christ in the new testament. In the old testament the true “savior” was God because He delivered His people outside the party that was oppressed.

Moses was not the true deliverer. He included himself among the oppressed whom the Lord delivered (Numbers 20:16). Jude 5 says that it was JESUS who saved them out of Egypt:

5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ESV

Jesus was the “TRUE” Savior who delivered the people!

Therefore, Jesus like God is also the true “Savior” because He delivers His people outside the party that is oppressed unlike His old testament counterparts.

Whatever Christ's old testament counterpart was to old covenant Israel Jesus is the GENUINE or TRUE thing to God's new covenant people. I hope you don't think that Jesus was Himself oppressed by sin like His people.

I read your source on the “Title Trick Savior” thread and I think it sucks big time. The author thinks with a carnal mind and has no spiritual understanding of anything.

btw, I never said that Jesus and God were one “being.” You are putting words into my mouth. I have said that they are one “substance” or “subsistence” (Hebrews 1:3):

3who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might — through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest Young's Literal Translation

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
You quote
“5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ESV”

Was it coincidence you chose the ESV for this quote or did it suit your conclusion??

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Major Premise: Only God can deliver outside the party of the oppressed
Minor premise: Jesus delivers outside the party of the oppressed
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is God

Major premise: All true saviors deliver outside the party of the oppressed
Minor premise: None of Christ's old covenant counterparts were outside the party of the oppressed
Conclusion: Therefore, Christ's old covenant counterparts were not true saviors

Is such pathetic logic the basis of your faith?

Philosophers preferring their own conclusions to what is written bemuse themselves.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 02 2010,07:33)

Hi TT, Major Premise: Only God can deliver outside the party of the oppressed Minor premise: Jesus delivers outside the party of the oppressed Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is God Major premise: All true saviors deliver outside the party of the oppressed Minor premise: None of Christ's old covenant counterparts were outside the party of the oppressed Conclusion: Therefore, Christ's old covenant counterparts were not true saviors Is such pathetic logic the basis of your faith? Philosophers preferring their own conclusions to what is written bemuse themselves.

Nick,

Don't forget Jude 5 (ESV).

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
You are so busy in your search for inference to which to add weak logic but all this distraction does not hide the elephant in the room.

There is no trinity taught in scripture.

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Nick Hassan @ Mar. 02 2010,07:51)

Hi TT, You are so busy in your search for inference to which to add weak logic but all this distraction does not hide the elephant in the room. There is no trinity taught in scripture.

Nick,

A sound exegesis of scripture from you would be helpful.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
Sound exegesis is useless for you if you serve a strange unbiblical god.

[Elizabeth]

Why is it that the most educated, have the least understanding?
Did Paul know something we don't know?

1Cr 1:26 ¶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:  
1Cr 1:27   But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;  

Why do you think that is? because the “wise” have to prove they are “wise”.

Georg

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (Elizabeth @ Mar. 01 2010,19:55)

Why is it that the most educated, have the least understanding? Did Paul know something we don't know? 1Cr 1:26 ¶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:   1Cr 1:27   But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;   Why do you think that is? because the “wise” have to prove they are “wise”. Georg

Georg

What are you saying? That you are not very educated?

Notice it says “that not many wise men AFTER THE FLESH….are called”!

Your argument sometimes does reflect exactly what you are assuming of others.

Remmember 2/3s of the NT was written by a man who was the most educated of his day!

Blessings WJ

[terraricca]

WJ

it was Paul, and he look at is education in the world as mud to compere it to the knowledge he received from God

[KangarooJack]

Quote (Elizabeth @ Mar. 02 2010,11:55)

Why is it that the most educated, have the least understanding? Did Paul know something we don't know? 1Cr 1:26 ¶ For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:   1Cr 1:27   But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;   Why do you think that is? because the “wise” have to prove they are “wise”. Georg

Georg,

By your logic educated anti-trinitarians would also be fools because they are educated. WJ is correct. It is the wise “according to the flesh” that God brings to nothing. There is no greater asset to the Church then educated spiritual men.

WJ is correct again in saying that God employed a highly educated man to write 2/3 of the new testament. Paul was “according to the flesh” before his conversion. But afterwards God put his education to good use.

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 03 2010,07:20)

WJ it was Paul, and he look at is education in the world as mud to compere it to the knowledge he received from God

t,

You have it wrong as usual. Paul said that he counted his education as rubbish in comparison to knowing CHRIST.

thinker

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
You cannot know the anointed one of God if he is to you GOD, part of as nonbiblical trinity.
Join with Paul and abhor this babylonian idol.

[NickHassan]

Hi TT,
You should seek rebirth from above and then transformation of your mind from worldly philosophy and logic to alignment with the Word of God, like Paul did.

[david]

Quote (david @ Feb. 28 2010,16:42)

Quote (david @ Feb. 26 2010,10:04) Quote Major premise: God alone is the Testator Minor premise: Jesus is the Testator Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is God –thinker Major premise: The People made the Calf Minor premise: Aaron made the Calf Conclusion: Therefore, Aaron is the People Quote Second, you did not construct a valid syllogism. The noun “the people” is not in your minor premise. Our wording is identical.  Did you construct a valid syllogism? Thinker. You continue to say my logic is not correct. But you ignored this post, and refuse to explain what the difference is between what I said and what you said. You say that the noun “people” is not in my minor premise.  Well the noun “god” is not in yours, unless you say Jesus is God, but that's what you're trying to prove, and using circular reasoning inside of a syllogism seems ironic and just wrong.

Thinker, you seem to be ignoring this post and the previous one which addressed the same thing. Why?

[terraricca]

Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 03 2010,08:01)

Quote (terraricca @ Mar. 03 2010,07:20) WJ it was Paul, and he look at is education in the world as mud to compere it to the knowledge he received from God t, You have it wrong as usual. Paul said that he counted his education as rubbish in comparison to knowing CHRIST. thinker

TT
what s the difference??
i guess you don't believe in god ,you believe in your own god a men made one ,one you can handle better,you would be is master

[KangarooJack]

Quote (david @ Mar. 03 2010,09:29)

Quote (david @ Feb. 28 2010,16:42) Quote (david @ Feb. 26 2010,10:04) Quote Major premise: God alone is the Testator Minor premise: Jesus is the Testator Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is God –thinker Major premise: The People made the Calf Minor premise: Aaron made the Calf Conclusion: Therefore, Aaron is the People Quote Second, you did not construct a valid syllogism. The noun “the people” is not in your minor premise. Our wording is identical.  Did you construct a valid syllogism? Thinker. You continue to say my logic is not correct. But you ignored this post, and refuse to explain what the difference is between what I said and what you said. You say that the noun “people” is not in my minor premise.  Well the noun “god” is not in yours, unless you say Jesus is God, but that's what you're trying to prove, and using circular reasoning inside of a syllogism seems ironic and just wrong. Thinker, you seem to be ignoring this post and the previous one which addressed the same thing.  Why?

David,

I missed your post. The noun “Testator” is in both premises. It is a valid syllogism if both premises have an identical noun:

Major premise: All men are mortal
Minor premise: Socrates is a man
Conclusion: Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Major premise: God alone is the Testator
Minor premise: Jesus is the Testator
Conclusion: Therefore, Jesus is God.

The major premise has two nouns and any one of them must be in the minor premise.

thinker

[david]

Quote (thethinker @ Mar. 02 2010,07:07)

Quote (david @ Feb. 28 2010,16:50) Quote David, Who else is called  “the Savior.” Only God and Jesus are called “THE Savior.” And who else is a Savior that owns us as His own people? Who else is called “the Savior”?  Please go read my “title confusion trick–savior” thread.   Secondly, I had thought that your argument was: 1. Jesus is called Savior.  Jehovah is called Savior.  Hence, they're the “same substance.” (corrected from “same being.) Apparently, your argument is: They're both called “savior” AND they are both said to own us. Apparently, them being called “savior” PROVES NOTHING IN ITSELF! This was my argument all along.  Thank you for confirming my argument.   The fact that both are called “lord” or “king” or “savior” etc proves nothing IN ITSELF if many others are also called by the same word, (unless you are willing to concede that they are also part of the same group). Just as sharp has his rule, I'm going to call the above “David's logic rule.”  I think it's quite evident.  But some have difficulty with it.  I really don't see how it can't be obvious and evident. David, The Hebrew term “deliverer” or “savior” (yaw-shah) is NEVER applied to men in the old testament the way that the term “savior” (“soter”) is applied to Jesus Christ in the new testament. In the old testament the true “savior” was God because He delivered His people outside the party that was oppressed. Moses was not the true deliverer. He included himself among the oppressed whom the Lord delivered (Numbers 20:16). Jude 5 says that it was JESUS who saved them out of Egypt: 5Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. ESV Jesus was the “TRUE” Savior who delivered the people! Therefore, Jesus like God is also the true “Savior” because He delivers His people outside the party that is oppressed unlike His old testament counterparts. Whatever Christ's old testament counterpart was to old covenant Israel Jesus is the GENUINE or TRUE thing to God's new covenant people. I hope you don't think that Jesus was Himself oppressed by sin like His people. I read your source on the “Title Trick Savior” thread and I think it sucks big time. The author thinks with a carnal mind and has no spiritual understanding of anything. btw, I never said that Jesus and God were one “being.” You are putting words into my mouth. I have said that they are one “substance” or “subsistence” (Hebrews 1:3): 3who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might — through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest Young's Literal Translation thinker

Thinker, you once again confirm my argument.

“Apparently, them being called “savior” PROVES NOTHING IN ITSELF! This was my argument all along.  Thank you for confirming my argument.”

All along, I thought your argument was that:
Jesus is called Savior.  Jehovah is called Savior.  Hence, they're the “same substance.”

But, now I see that your argument is ACTUALLY:
They are both called “savior” AND they are both said to “own people,” AND God “delivered His people outside the party that was oppressed.”

SO, I guess BEING CALLED “SAVIOR” IN ITSELF MEANS NOTHING.
It is circular reasoning to suggest that both being called Savior means they are the same being if you then say that it only means that because they are both God. (That is what you are trying to prove.)

Further, if we have to get so exact in what is meant by “savior” and specifically HOW they saved for it to apply, then your reasoning falls apart even further.  Did they both save in the exact same way?  No, we are told that Jehovah saved us “THROUGH” HIS SON.  Jehovah was often spoke of as the Savior of Israel.  
Jesus and Jehovah were saviors in different ways, just as those others that were called “saviors” were saviors in vastly different ways.

Hence, your logic is false.

[Author]

Posts