- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hello Asana…
You wrote:
Quote Then you are like the Jews that just the mere mention that God would be pleased with a Human sacrifice keeps them from accepting Jesus as Messiah I realize that Mike will have a different response to this statement of yours… but when I read what you wrote here, something occured to me which I thought was important enough to bring up.
For me… this statement by you points to the crucial need to undertand how we use (and maybe untintentially misuse) language that can cause confusion among the listeners.
This reminds me of the issue of the word “slavery” or the word “fag” in my past discussions. These words… for certain audiences… have a built in definition or inflammatory meaning that might not have been intended by the person using the word.
For example, if I say that I hate Fags… most people in America might assume that I am saying that I hate homosexuals. But if I'm an Englishman, then I could very well have meant that I hate cigarattes.
The same is true about slavery as the word is used in the Old Testament versus our American experience with slavery during the 17th and 18th centuries. The word “slavery” is being used differently in both cases.
So this now brings us to the word or phrase: “Human sacrifice”.
What in the heck does that phrase mean to people hearing it? The most common image that comes to mind when we say “human sacrifice” is of the old Aztec practice of sacrificing a person… killing him and disemboweling him and cutting his heart out on some kind of alter… to appease the gods.
To our modern ears, the phrase “human sacrifice” has heavy emotional bias to it and sounds (and is) barbaric if we assume the words mean like the Aztec practices. (or in some satanic rituals).
But is it linguistically and logically correct to assume that what happened to Jesus on the cross is an example of “human sacrifice”?
Consider this: If a person sacrifices their lives to save another (like the military or the police)… are they practicing in “human sacrifice”? OF COURSE NOT!!! That is absurd.
So what did happen on the cross? Well… Jesus… (like the military and the police so to speak)… sacrificed himself to save others… to save us from spiritual death… to offer salvation.
And so, just as it is absurd to suggest that a peson who lays their life down for others is guilty of “human sacrifice”… so it is equally absurd for the Jews to suggest that God was engaging in human sacrifice when Jesus voluntarily laid his life down for us.
Respectfully
FrancisQuote (francis @ April 20 2012,16:31) Quote Christians say Jesus died on the cross the Quran does not disagree with the belief of the Christian it disagrees with the information itself. There is no debate that Jesus was believed to be killed or Crucified the Quran is saying that I understand your belief but it didn't happen he was not killed or crucified but it appeared to be so. And yet you won't supply any evidence for even that much.
Asana… how can anyone respond to this kind of reasoning on your part?
How would you prove that you are real if I were to claim that you are not real, but that you only believe that you are real? Or how about if I claim that this earth is not real, but that people only believe this earth is real? Or about this forum?
What if I claimed that Mohammed only believed that he heard from God, but that he really didn't hear from God?
I'm sure you would try to drum up some evidence to prove that you are real… that this earth is real… and that this forum is real. So why not do the same with your claim that everyone in history only believes that Jesus died, but that he really didn't die on the cross?
You're above belief about Jesus not dying on the cross is conveniently stated in such a manner that it can't be tested or verified by anyone… not even by you. Nor could it be verified or demonstrated by Mohammed at the time he made such statements about Jesus not dying on the cross.
Since you bring up Isaiah… I will also bring him up.
God himself said: “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).
1 Peter 3:15 (Amp) says: ” Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.”
This appears to be what separates Christianity from Islam. Christians want to give a logical defense for our beliefs so that non believers can test Christianity's claims. Christians want to reason with non-believers so that Christianity can be tested and discussed on a rational basis. God Himself is logic and rationality… and wants to reason with us.
But when it comes to Islam… and when I ask for evidence for your claim that Jesus didn't really die on the cross… you give none. Your only response appears to make it impossible for any rational person to find out if you claim has any basis in truth or facts.
Always Respectfully and your friend…
Francis:)
Hi Francis.I have provided BD with a video of just how ridiculous the islamic claim is and all BD does is ignore it.
B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)Quote (francis @ April 19 2012,23:31) I am going to assume that your desire to not respond to anything else I've written, is tantamount to you agreeing with the rest of my prior post.
I'm going to assume that is an incorrect assumption on your part, Francis. I know it always was when you assumed the same thing in our debate.Other than that, you are doing a fine job with this discussion.
peace,
mikeQuote
Francis
I am going to assume that your desire to not respond to anything else I've written, is tantamount to you agreeing with the rest of my prior post.mikeboll64
I'm going to assume that is an incorrect assumption on your part, Francis. I know it always was when you assumed the same thing in our debate.Other than that, you are doing a fine job with this discussion.
peace,
mike
??? With all due respect Mike, I think you are engaging in revisionists history.The circumstances and reasons for my not going on any further in our debate were completely different than what happened with Asana not going on any further in this thread. So in my opinion, you are guilty of violating the Law of Identity. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Asana simply decided to not answer my questions without giving any objective reason. He never even made an attempt to answer any of my other questions and observations and objections.
But in our debate, I never not answered any of your objections, observations, and questions right up to my last post.
There were two reasons I had given as to why I wouldn't go any further with you:
1)… You had repeatedly and steadfastly refused to deal with the word “elohim” in an intellectualy honest manner in our debate.
Whereas you kept telling myself and everyone on the forum that you do want truth, you showed no such desire for truth when it came to the word “elohim”.
My last words to you were the following:
Quote To me, this is the sticking point between us at this juncture of our debate. You say one thing, but your actions and deeds say something entirely different to me. If you are sincerely interested in truth as you keep wanting to assert, then let's deal with the “elohim” issue before we move on. Moving on for no other purpose than to “move things forward” is a repudiation of any expressed desire FOR truth. As I kept telling you in the last stages of our debate, “it is silly… a sham… to move forward when you are debating a position that you don't personally believe in. If you are not interested in evidence about “elohim”… then you are not going to be interested in evidence about anything else you don't believe in. And so the whole thing is a waste of time. Isn't that true?
What was your response? To keep retreating back to the very same position that I had identified to you as the sticking point between us at that particular junction in our debate!! Which was to once again, repeatedly say that you were willing to accept the definition for “elohim” (the definitions I had been pointing out)… for the purpose of moving our debate forward.
But as I kept telling you over and over… I wasn't interested in you SIMPLY ACCEPTING the definitions of elohim I was using for our debate, for the sole purpose of moving things along. To do so, to move forward and defend a position which you personally did not believe in (definitions for “elohim”)… that to me is an obvious intellectual sham!!!
What else could it be?
I wanted you to accept the definitions for “elohim” because they were true… and NOT because you were simply accepting them for no other reason than to move things along.
This showed to me that you were not interested in truth at all. Which made our debate a sham if we were to continue.
Here are your last words:
Quote Listen, this is the last I will say on the subject. I have agreed to accept “God” as ONE MEANING of the word during this debate. I will also accept “rulers”, “judges”, “divine ones”, “angels”, “god”, “gods”, “goddess”, “goddesses”, “godlike one”, and “works or special possesions of God” as bonafide MEANINGS of the words “el”, “eloah” and “elohim” during this debate. And I will definitely accept “vice regent of God”, (as in Moses, Deborah and Jesus), as a bonafide MEANING of the word during this debate. What the hay, I'll also accept the word “oak” as a bonafide MEANING of the word, since many Bibles translate the word “el” that way in Isaiah 57:5. If me accepting YOUR terms and YOUR definitions for the purpose of moving forward with this debate is not enough to satisfy you………..then quit. I'm done dealing with this point. Either accept my concession, or don't.
Can't you objectively see that yours was not a “concession” to truth? Your “concession” was nothing but a matter of convenience on your part. It had nothing to do with truth.
Your so called “concession” was the EXACT sticking point between us that I had identified all along. And that was the reason why I wouldn't go any further… because our debate had turned into a sham when you showed that weren't interested in the truth.
Once again…Your sole purpose to accept the definitions of “elohim” I had been using was for the sole purpose of moving forward… a matter of convenience… and NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRUTH!!
That is an intellectual sham and that is why I didn't want to be a part of our debate any longer. You were not interested in truth.
2)… And just in case I was being unreasonable, I even appealed to the other members of the forum to ask if I was being unreasonable:
Quote pss TO ANYONE INTERESTED: I don't mind getting feedback from others as to whether or not I'm being unreasonable. If the consensus is that I'm being reasonable, then I will stand with what I've written.
If the consensus is that I'm being a bit unreasonable to not want to move forward until Mike deals with “elohim”… then I will move forward.
The consensus was that I was not being unreasonable in wanting to hold you to the highest standard of truth.
And so for those two reasons, I stopped writing.
To say that our ending in our debate is the same as what happened with Asana and I on this thread… shows a remarkable lack of understanding and comprehension on your part.
But then that might be excusable since you might have been “too close” (personally involved) in our debate for you to be entirely objective in trying to compare what happened between you and I… vesus what happened in here between Asana and I.
What is not excusable (in my humble opinion) is for you to take personal advantage of your role here on this forum as a moderator (I assume you are a moderator)… to write “francis runs!” on the iB Code.
You may have been disappointed… you may have disagreed with my reasons for not continuing our debate… but that doesn't mean you should take your frustration out in such a manner. As a Christian… I would never have done that to
you.Respectfully
FrancisFrancis,
I didn't mention you leaving our debate at all, nor did I even allude to that. I was pointing out that just because your opponent doesn't address each of the mind-numbing amount of things you write in a single post is not to say he therefore agrees with the points he didn't have the time or patience to address. That's all I was saying.
And btw, my IB code says “mikeboll64 runs”.
Quote Francis, I didn't mention you leaving our debate at all, nor did I even allude to that. I was pointing out that just because your opponent doesn't address each of the mind-numbing amount of things you write in a single post is not to say he therefore agrees with the points he didn't have the time or patience to address. That's all I was saying.
And btw, my IB code says “mikeboll64 runs”.
Alright Mike… fair enough. I must have then misunderstood what you wrote. Thanks for clearing that up.
My only response then would be about Asana. My dealings with him… and a quick glance at many of his posts… it indicates to me that he has never been shy about addressing each of the “mind-numbing amount of things” his opponent brings up… whoever they might be.
Indeed… one of the things I've always admired about Asana is that he appears to have the time and patience to write a huge volume of posts… many of them very long.
Respectfully
FrancisQuote (francis @ April 21 2012,11:25) Asana……….appears to have the time and patience to write a huge volume of posts… many of them very long.
Agreed. Some people enjoy that type of discussion. I myself enjoy “quick and to the point” discussions.I see no sense in using 1000 words to say what can be summed up in 20 words.
Note: I'm NOT judging you or Asana – just stating MY preference.
On a side note, I wonder if it is just human nature to address the (perceived) negative thing I said while ignoring the postive kudos I gave you?
peace to you and your wife, Francis
Quote (francis @ April 20 2012,16:31) Asana wrote the following… Quote Francis I only need to respond to the most provocative statement
Christians say Jesus died on the cross the Quran does not disagree with the belief of the Christian it disagrees with
the information itself. There is no debate that Jesus was believed to be killed or Crucified the Quran is saying that I understand your belief but it didn't happen he was not killed or crucified but it appeared to be so.Didn't Isaiah say seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear? This is proof of that.
And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)Hello Asana…
Quote I only need to respond to the most provocative statement If you only wish to respond to the most “provocative” statement, that is your privilege. But I am going to assume that your desire to not respond to anything else I've written, is tantamount to you agreeing with the rest of my prior post.
Quote Christians say Jesus died on the cross the Quran does not disagree with the belief of the Christian it disagrees with the information itself. There is no debate that Jesus was believed to be killed or Crucified the Quran is saying that I understand your belief but it didn't happen he was not killed or crucified but it appeared to be so. And yet you won't supply any evidence for even that much.
Asana… how can anyone respond to this kind of reasoning on your part?
How would you prove that you are real if I were to claim that you are not real, but that you only believe that you are real? Or how about if I claim that this earth is not real, but that people only believe this earth is real? Or about this forum?
What if I claimed that Mohammed only believed that he heard from God, but that he really didn't hear from God?
I'm sure you would try to drum up some evidence to prove that you are real… that this earth is real… and that this forum is real. So why not do the same with your claim that everyone in history only believes that Jesus died, but that he really didn't die on the cross?
You're above belief about Jesus not dying on the cross is conveniently stated in such a manner that it can't be tested or verified by anyone… not even by you. Nor could it be verified or demonstrated by Mohammed at the time he made such statements about Jesus not dying on the cross.
Since you bring up Isaiah… I will also bring him up.
God himself said: “Come, let us reason together” (Isaiah 1:18).
1 Peter 3:15 (Amp) says: ” Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully.”
This appears to be what separates Christianity from Islam. Christians want to give a logical defense for our beliefs so that non believers can test Christianity's claims. Christians want to reason with non-believers so that Christianity can be tested and discussed on a rational basis. God Himself is logic and rationality… and wants to reason with us.
But when it comes to Islam… and when I ask for evidence for your claim that Jesus didn't really die on the cross… you give none. Your only response appears to make it impossible for any rational person to find out if you claim has any basis in truth or facts.
Quote Didn't Isaiah say seeing they do not see and hearing they do not hear? This is proof of that. So can't I use Isaiah and say the same thing about you and Mohammed? “Seeing, the Muslims do not see and hearing, the Muslims don't hear”?Or how about this: “Seeing, Asana does not see and hearing, Asana doesn't hear”?
What is the difference between me saying this about Muslims and you saying this about Christians?
You are not making any rational sense to me. Isaiah himself reports that God wants to reason with us. The quote you bring up from Isaiah is talking about people WHO REFUSE TO REASON WITH GOD OR TO REASON AT ALL.
The fact remains, I brought evidence to support my beliefs.. you have not done so for your beliefs. You've adopted the very same “I say” attitude which you've complained that Christians have done about their beliefs!!!!!
Quote And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)Can't you see the logical pickle you've put yourself in? Can't you see the logical corner you've painted yourself in?
You cite a verse from the Quran which is nothing more than a claim or an assertion that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. You've given no evidence whatsoever to show that this verse is true or valid.
You just ASSERT it to be true. The Quran is simply ASSERTING it to be true that Jesus didn't really die on the cross. You point to a verse in the Quran and say… AHAAA!! This proves that Jesus didn't really die on the cross.
You are essentially saying that you don't need evidence or need to engage in any rational discussion about what and why you believe that Jesus didn't really die on the cross.
In logic, this is a TAUTOLOGY.
And if you are using a Quran verse to support the same Quran verse… that is to say, if you use a Quran verse to support or prove itself… then this is also arguing in circles… it is BEGGING THE QUESTION.
Always Respectfully and your friend…
Francis:)
You cannot provide evidence that Jesus died on the Cross you can only speculate so your entire post was an attempt to appear to be using logic or reason but tell me then where is your PROOF?Where is your EVIDENCE that Jesus was killed or Crucified?
Quote (francis @ April 20 2012,17:19) Hello Asana… You wrote:
Quote Then you are like the Jews that just the mere mention that God would be pleased with a Human sacrifice keeps them from accepting Jesus as Messiah I realize that Mike will have a different response to this statement of yours… but when I read what you wrote here, something occured to me which I thought was important enough to bring up.
For me… this statement by you points to the crucial need to undertand how we use (and maybe untintentially misuse) language that can cause confusion among the listeners.
This reminds me of the issue of the word “slavery” or the word “fag” in my past discussions. These words… for certain audiences… have a built in definition or inflammatory meaning that might not have been intended by the person using the word.
For example, if I say that I hate Fags… most people in America might assume that I am saying that I hate homosexuals. But if I'm an Englishman, then I could very well have meant that I hate cigarattes.
The same is true about slavery as the word is used in the Old Testament versus our American experience with slavery during the 17th and 18th centuries. The word “slavery” is being used differently in both cases.
So this now brings us to the word or phrase: “Human sacrifice”.
What in the heck does that phrase mean to people hearing it? The most common image that comes to mind when we say “human sacrifice” is of the old Aztec practice of sacrificing a person… killing him and disemboweling him and cutting his heart out on some kind of alter… to appease the gods.
To our modern ears, the phrase “human sacrifice” has heavy emotional bias to it and sounds (and is) barbaric if we assume the words mean like the Aztec practices. (or in some satanic rituals).
But is it linguistically and logically correct to assume that what happened to Jesus on the cross is an example of “human sacrifice”?
Consider this: If a person sacrifices their lives to save another (like the military or the police)… are they practicing in “human sacrifice”? OF COURSE NOT!!! That is absurd.
So what did happen on the cross? Well… Jesus… (like the military and the police so to speak)… sacrificed himself to save others… to save us from spiritual death… to offer salvation.
And so, just as it is absurd to suggest that a peson who lays their life down for others is guilty of “human sacrifice”… so it is equally absurd for the Jews to suggest that God was engaging in human sacrifice when Jesus voluntarily laid his life down for us.
Respectfully
Francis
Oy, so you are saying Jesus sacrificed himself and notthat God sacrificed him or told him in any way to allow such a sacrifice right?Asana wrote:
Quote You cannot provide evidence that Jesus died on the Cross you can only speculate so your entire post was an attempt to appear to be using logic or reason but tell me then where is your PROOF? Where is your EVIDENCE that Jesus was killed or Crucified?
Hello Asana…
Way back in the latter part of 2010, i went into incredible detail explaining and pointing out to you, all the historical evidence there is to show that Jesus died on the cross. I spent a whole lot of hours and effort in gathering all the evidence you had requested… and my posts were long and very thorough.
Here are some of the comments by others in this forum who understood and appreciated the work I put into my posts as I gathered evidence for you:
—> SimplyForgiven: “Awesome Post =)”
—> Ed J: “Excellent work; and Good!”
—> shimmer: “Francis, those are really long post's. Well done. Welcome to Heaven net, God bless you.”
—> TimothyVI: “Whew! nobody can accuse Francis of not being thorough. Good post.”
—> davidbfun: “Yes Tim I agree that Francis' post was quite thorough and his closing statement is one that I was thinking about too”
But in spite of my best efforts… I saw that no matter how much evidence I brought to the table to support a postive case for my contention that Jesus died on the cross, it wasn't going to impress you in the least. And so there is no way that I am going to repeat all the hours and time and energy I spent away from my wife going over the evidence once again… if it is not going to do anything.
If you are at all interested in looking again at what I had written in 2010, you'll find our exchanges in the following location of this forum:
Forum » Faith » Doctrinal Disagreements » Are you happy that “jesus died for you”?
I think the starting point of our discussion about evidence for Jesus' death on the cross, is on page 16 of that particular thread.
One of the comments I made to you in 2010, still applies today unfortunately. I had said:
Quote Here is the problem I'm having with this statement of yours above… your belief is based completely on your theology and is not supported by
historical facts.No mainstream historian uses the Quran as an historical document to shed light on the events surrounding Jesus during the 1st Century because the Quran was written between 610 CE and 632 CE… about 600 years AFTER Jesus.
As a reliable historical document, the Quran doesn't shed any light about Jesus which the historian can use. You're belief that Jesus did not die by crucifixion is a total, complete faith position and it does not rest on any historical facts.
The truth is that virtually all critical scholars/historians who have studied the history of Jesus agree that it is a fact that Jesus DIED by crucifixion. These critical scholars/historians cover the range from the atheist and the ultra liberals who do not believe that Jesus was resurrected… all the way to the evangelicals who do believe that Jesus was Resurrected (based on the facts). It is a near unanimous agreement among critical
scholars/historians who have spent years studying this issue, that Jesus died by crucifixion.This is a remarkable testimony to the strength of the overwhelming evidence for Jesus' death by crucifixion.
So right away, we can see that you're disagreement is not with me or with anyone else in here… but you're disagreement is entirely with the historians!!
For your support, it appears that all you can bring up is a book written about 600 years after the events of Jesus… and your Muslim brothers and believers. The support I use are virtually all the critical scholars/historians… most of whom are not evangelical at all… but very mainstream… and thus have no bias.
So why should we think that you're belief that Jesus did not die by crucifixion, is more reasonable and more rational than my belief that Jesus did die by crucifixion?
I then ended with the following comment:
Quote I have presented a lot of evidence for my positive case… and yet you have not presented any evidence for your position nor presented a positive case for your belief that Jesus was not crucified. That is a real problem Asana. Whereas you keep asking me for evidence… and then say that I haven't presented any real evidence or proof after I lay it all out in detail in my posts… you on the other hand, have not presented ANY evidence whatsoever for your belief that Jesus' death was nothing but a delusion sent by God… and that it never actually happened.
And so that is why I finally asked you this question…
Quote Why should Christians in here invest a huge amount of their time and effort in debating scriptures and Suras with you when you can't give an “apologia”… a logical defense for your belief that Muhammad was correct about Jesus' non- crucifixion and Jesus not dying? That question is as valid today as it was in 2010.
However… I will try one more time to engage you and challenge you to prove that I am wrong and that you are correct about Jesus' death. This time, I am going to try a different line of reasoning and approach since all the work I did in 2010 never made an impression on you.
So here it goes:
You have quoted the following verse from the Quran… and twice you gave a slightly different translation… but here is what you wrote:
1)… And their saying: Surely we have killed the messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. ( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)
2)… That they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- ( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)
Okay… so my evidence that Jesus died on the cross are all the people in Chapter #4, verse #157 who boasted and claimed that they killed Jesus.
Now, since the Quran was written 600 years after Jesus' time on earth… then that means that Mohammed must have seen written records or had evidence in front of him which testified to the fact that there were all these people who were boasting that they killed Jesus. Otherwise, how would Mohammed known about all that boasting since he lived
600 years after the fact?So my evidence for Jesus' death are all those written records that Mohammed was looking at or knew about, for him to claim that they were all deluded.
So now that I presented my evidence…. which was to use the same verse from the Quran to show that people were actually and really boasting about Jesus' death… it is now your turn to PROVE with evidence, that these actual people were deluded.
If you can't prove with any evidence whatsoever that these actual people that the Quran talks about… were actually deluded… then I've proven that Jesus' Crucifixion actually happened as these real people boasted about and claimed.
So you see Asana… you, Mohammed and I all agree that there were actual people… real people who boasted and claimed that Jesus was killed… that they actually and really killed Jesus.
We agree on that point. The difference is that you say all these people were deluded. So it is your burden of proof to show us… with evidence… the kind of evidence you were asking me for… that these real, actual people, were all deluded.
And you can't use An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157 as proof that these real, actual people were deluded… because that would argue in circles… it would be a classic example of Begging the Question.
Yours in Christ
FrancisHello Asana…
Quote Oy, so you are saying Jesus sacrificed himself and not that God sacrificed him or told him in any way to allow such a sacrifice right? Unfortunately, it looks like we are still not able to communicate enough so that we understand each other. I will take the blame since I realize that I'm not all that bright.
First of all, Jesus Himself clearly and unambiguously said in John 10:18 about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again”.
It doesn't get any more clear than that.
Even Wikipedia says: “Christians have traditionally understood Jesus' death on the cross to be a knowing and willing sacrifice (given that he did not mount a defense in his trials) which was undertaken as an “agent of God” to atone for humanity's sin and make salvation possible.”
Now as far as your question goes:
Quote … so you are saying Jesus sacrificed himself and not that God sacrificed him or told him in any way to allow such a sacrifice right? We have to understand that from my perspective… from the traditional Christianity's perspective… we understand that Jesus is God Incarnate… and that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.
To help you to understand the Trinitarian perspective, it would be useful to lay down a quick summary of what the Trinity is and the relationship between God the Father, and God the son… since you are asking about both of them in your question.
You're first mistake… from the Trinitarian perspective… is that you use the word “God” without telling us which Person of the Godhead you are referring to. I understand that you don't believe in the Trinity, and so that is probably the reason why you don't identity which Person of God you mean when you ask your above question.
Anyway… when I look at your question… I understand it in the following manner (the Triniatrian perspective):
Jesus… as the Son of God, and being the 2nd person of the Trinity… is God. And the person of the Trinity known as the Father… He is God also. He is called God the Father. And He is the same God as the Son is. And the 3rd person of the Trinity known as the Holy Spirit… He is God as well. He is the same God as the Father is and the Son is.
One God… 3 persons. The Trinity. By definition, God is perfect and therefore there is no disagreements or arguments between the 3 persons of the Godhead. God the Father… God the son… and God the Holy Spirit are always in complete harmony in all things. If there was no complete and total harmony between the 3 persons of God, then God couldn't be perfect.
So then… God the Father and God the Son totally agreed and wished for exactly the same thing concering Jesus' self sacrifice on the cross… which is that God the Son sacrificed Himself to God the Father and thereby fulfilled all the requirements of the Law. God the Son (Jesus) did this out of love for the Father and for all those the Father has given Him (John 6:37-40).
God the Father never forced God the Son (Jesus) to lay down his life. Both voluntarily and agreed to it because of God's love for humanity.
So when God the Father agreed with God the Son (Jesus) that He would voluntarily lay down his life, God the Father is making a sacrifice. By completely agreeing with God the Son, the Father is okaying and willingly allowing His Son to be sacrificed.
Anyway… I'm not theologian and never claimed to be. But that is how I understand your question and my response to it.
I hope that helps somewhat.
Yours in Christ
FrancisQuote (francis @ April 23 2012,11:26) Now, since the Quran was written 600 years after Jesus' time on earth… then that means that Mohammed must have seen written records or had evidence in front of him which testified to the fact that there were all these people who were boasting that they killed Jesus. Otherwise, how would Mohammed known about all that boasting since he lived 600 years after the fact? So my evidence for Jesus' death are all those written records that Mohammed was looking at or knew about, for him to claim that they were all deluded.
So now that I presented my evidence…. which was to use the same verse from the Quran to show that people were actually and really boasting about Jesus' death… it is now your turn to PROVE with evidence, that these actual people were deluded.
Nice one, Francis.Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,16:15) We have to understand that from my perspective… from the traditional Christianity's perspective… we understand that Jesus is God Incarnate… and that Jesus is the 2nd person of the Trinity.
“Traditional” maybe. But then, what do God and Jesus both say about men's traditions? Certainly not all of us believe that the Son OF God is the very God he is the Son OF. Even your own Wikipedia quote says, which was undertaken as an “agent of God” .Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,16:15) By definition, God is perfect and therefore there is no disagreements or arguments between the 3 persons of the Godhead. God the Father… God the son… and God the Holy Spirit are always in complete harmony in all things. If there was no complete and total harmony between the 3 persons of God, then God couldn't be perfect.
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.How can “complete harmony” result in two completely different wills within one being?
Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,16:15) So then… God the Father and God the Son totally agreed and wished for exactly the same thing concering Jesus' self sacrifice on the cross…
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,16:15) First of all, Jesus Himself clearly and unambiguously said in John 10:18 about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again”. God the Father never forced God the Son (Jesus) to lay down his life. Both voluntarily and agreed to it because of God's love for humanity.
Francis, why did you cut out the last line of the scripture you posted? Here are the last words of 10:18……….This command I received from my Father.The bolded word refers to an ORDER given by a superior. When a master gives a servant an order, the servant can either fulfill that command willingly or with a bad attitude. Jesus did it willingly, but nevertheless, it was still a command from our God and his God. (Because after all, John 20:17 makes clear that the God of Jesus is the same God as our God. So if OUR God consist of the Father, Son, and Spirit, then so does JESUS' God. And that would mean that not only does God Most High have a God of His own, but that Jesus is a part of HIS OWN God.
)Francis, you need to remember that Jesus was, and still is, a SERVANT of his God. His God is greater than him, and knows things he doesn't know. And if your defense is to say that Jesus was weaker in his flesh state, then you'll also have to concede that he wasn't truly “God Incarnate” as you claimed.
peace,
mikeHello Mike…
Quote Francis wrote: By definition, God is perfect and therefore there is no disagreements or arguments between the 3 persons of the Godhead. God the Father… God the son… and God the Holy Spirit are always in complete harmony in all things. If there was no complete and total harmony between the 3 persons of God, then God couldn't be perfect.
Mike responded with:
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.How can “complete harmony” result in two completely different wills within one being?
Once again… from my perspective… and from traditional Christianity's perspective… God the Father and God the Son… the Godhead… are in complete harmony… because God is perfect and never in disharmony.
But since we believe that Jesus was fully human and fully divine (God Incarnate)… then his human will (soul) would necessarly be different than God the Father's will because one is fully human and the other is fully Divine. But as I noted above, Jesus had a body/soul which was fully human… and He also had a spirit inside of his human body (as we all have a spirit) which was fully Divine… and since the Divine part of Jesus is God (God the Son)… which is equal with God the Father… then the Divine part of Jesus would in fact be in complete harmony with God the Father since both are God and perfect.
In case that was confusing, let me put it this way: just as we all have a soul and a spirit (which are not equal with each other)… so did Jesus have a soul and a spirit when He was fully human and fully Divine. But whereas Jesus' spirit was Divine… our spirits are not.
Just to clarify… I believe that the soul part of us is actually part of our human body that allows for thinking, etc. But inside of our human body resides a Spirit. Our Spirit interacts with our Soul, but in my understanding… the soul and the Spirit are not the same. Our soul is not spiritual in nature… but our Spirit is.
I'm not a theologian, so please understand that I could be wrong. But that is how I understand our makeup as humans… and Jesus' makeup as God Incarnate.
Quote Francis wrote: So then… God the Father and God the Son totally agreed and wished for exactly the same thing concering Jesus' self sacrifice on the cross…
Mike responded with:
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”God the Son's spirit is Divine just as God the Father is Divine. That part of Jesus… the fully Divine part… was in full and total agreement with each other.
But once again… from my perspective… and from traditional Christianity's perspective… Jesus.. when He left heaven to become lower than angles for our sake… he voluntarily limited to some degree His qualities as God… like His omniscience, omnipotence, etc.
So Jesus… as God Incarnate… fully God and fully human… when He came to earth, He was limited (by choice) in what He knew and could do on His own power… so He could fully participate as a human and go through what we go through.
The human part of Jesus is what we hear when Jesus prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”
This how I understand the Incarnation of Christ.
Quote Francis wrote: First of all, Jesus Himself clearly and unambiguously said in John 10:18 about His life: “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again”.
God the Father never forced God the Son (Jesus) to lay down his life. Both voluntarily and agreed to it because of God's love for humanity.
Mike responded with:
Francis, why did you cut out the last line of the scripture you posted? Here are the last words of 10:18……….This command I received from my Father.
The bolded word refers to an ORDER given by a superior. When a master gives a servant an order, the servant can either fulfill that command willingly or with a bad attitude. Jesus did it willingly, but nevertheless, it was still a command from our God and his God.
I have no problems with that. The fully human part of Jesus was a servant and as a servant… He voluntarily agreed to submit to the command of God his Father. So I'm not sure what your point was.
Anyway… once again, this how I understand the Incarnation of Christ
Quote Mike wrote: (Because after all, John 20:17 makes clear that the God of Jesus is the same God as our God. So if OUR God consist of the Father, Son, and Spirit, then so does JESUS' God. And that would mean that not only does God Most High have a God of His own, but that Jesus is a part of HIS OWN God.)
As I understand your statement… my answer is that the Father and the Son (and the Holy Spirit) are one God.
Since Jesus… as God Incarnate… is both fully human and fully Divine… then Jesus' God (which would actually be the God of Jesus' fully human part of him) would be the same as God since God is Triune in nature.
God Most High is one God, who is Triune in nature.
Whereas our God consists of the Father, Son, and the Spirit… it doesn't logically follow that each person of the Trinity is themselves triune in nature. The Father is a distinct person from the Son and both of them are distinct persons from the Spirit… but the 3 make up God…. one God… the God Most High.
Again, this how I understand the Incarnation of Christ.
Quote Mike wrote: Francis, you need to remember that Jesus was, and still is, a SERVANT of his God. His God is greater than him, and knows things he doesn't know. And if your defense is to say that Jesus was weaker in his flesh state, then you'll also have to concede that he wasn't truly “God Incarnate” as you claimed.
peace,
mike1)… Jesus didn't know things because when he came to earth as God Incarnate, and He became fully human… He voluntarily limited his Divine nature in some respects so that his fully human nature didn't know certain things. God was always greater than Jesus' fully human nature… but God was never greater than Jesus' fully divine nature.
2)… My defense is to say that Jesus was weaker (or not divine) in his flesh state… but it doesn't then logically follow that I must concede that Jesus wasn't truly God Incarnate.
Jesus human nature may be weaker than God… but not his fully divine nature.
My understanding of the Incar
nation of Christ can be summed up nicely by Wikipedia which says: “The Incarnation represents the belief that Jesus, who is the non-created second hypostasis of the triune God, took on a human body and nature and became both man and God.It has always been part of the Triune doctrine and understanding that Jesus, as God Incarnate here on earth… was both fully man and fully God.
Therefore, I don't need to concede your point at all.
Got to go. I know we will probably never agree… but thanks for your insight and input.
Yours in Christ
FrancisQuote (francis @ April 23 2012,11:26) Now, since the Quran was written 600 years after Jesus' time on earth… then that means that Mohammed must have seen written records or had evidence in front of him which testified to the fact that there were all these people who were boasting that they killed Jesus. Otherwise, how would Mohammed known about all that boasting since he lived 600 years after the fact? So my evidence for Jesus' death are all those written records that Mohammed was looking at or knew about, for him to claim that they were all deluded.
So now that I presented my evidence…. which was to use the same verse from the Quran to show that people were actually and really boasting about Jesus' death… it is now your turn to PROVE with evidence, that these actual people were deluded.
From mikeboll64
Quote Nice one, Francis. Thanks Mike.
Quote (francis @ April 24 2012,09:15) Hello Asana… You're first mistake… from the Trinitarian perspective… is that you use the word “God” without telling us which Person of the Godhead you are referring to.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis,“The Godhead” is not made up of 'persons', but
instead is a unifying Spirit able to engender offspring.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)Quote (francis @ April 24 2012,16:13) Hello Mike… …and since the Divine part of Jesus is God (God the Son)… which is equal with God the Father… then the Divine part of Jesus would in fact be in complete harmony with God the Father since both are God and perfect. …
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis,When we're partakers of the divine nature, does that then make us God?
“Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises:
that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having
escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.” (2 Peter 1:4)God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)Quote (francis @ April 24 2012,16:13) Hello Mike… That part of Jesus… the fully Divine part… was in full and total agreement with each other.
Yours in Christ
Francis
Hi Francis,What does this mean?
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
