The strangest thing of all

Participant

deleted because it was a duplicate

April 24, 2012 at 3:24 pm#294604

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,17:40)

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)

Hello Ed…

If you add the sentence right before the one you quoted from my post to Mike, it will explain what I was saying (I hope).

So here are the two sentences together from my prior post:

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.

So what I was trying to say is that the fully Divine nature of Jesus is God… just as God the Father is God. Both are God, and therefore they both are in harmony.l

Yours in Christ
Francis

April 24, 2012 at 4:49 pm#294607

Participant

Quote (francis @ April 24 2012,04:26)

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 writt
en 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
Francis

Francis

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

The Quran is revealing that it did not happen not was it believed to happen and as you stated yourself the Quran is not disputing the idea it is explaining the fact that it did not occur and God knows best.

The Bible says that People can see and not perceive and hear and not understand therefore it is certainly possible that what they saw they did not see and what they heard they did not understand.

Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

You should actually GO and Learn what that means because you are not really paying attention to what Jesus is saying here, this is the Word of God saying a definite statement “I WILL HAVE mercy and NOT SACRFICE you are believing what he didn't say you are perceiving it backwards like I WILL HAVE sacrifice and NOT MERCY.

As I said before about Jonah the people who cast him into the ocean believed him to be dead because of what they saw and heard but they did not perceive or understand how God SAVED Jonah ALIVE and he was not drowned or killed but God saved him.

Pay attention to what you know to be true and God knows Best.

God knows best

April 24, 2012 at 6:37 pm#294623

Participant

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:24)

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,17:40)

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)

Hello Ed…

So what I was trying to say is that the fully Divine nature of Jesus is God… just as God the Father is God. Both are God, and therefore they both are in harmony.l

Yours in Christ
Francis

Hi Francis,

Oh, OK; thanks for the clarification! Now will you answer this question as well?
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)

April 24, 2012 at 6:43 pm#294624

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,03:49)

Francis

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

God knows best

Hi BD,

How does your 'sin debt' get paid
if you don't believe Jesus paid it??

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

April 24, 2012 at 6:44 pm#294625

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,06:04)

Shalom BD,

What is the purpose of “The Passover” lamb?

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

BD?

April 24, 2012 at 10:43 pm#294663

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:37)

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:24)

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,17:40)

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)

Hello Ed…

So what I was trying to say is that the fully Divine nature of Jesus is God… just as God the Father is God. Both are God, and therefore they both are in harmony.l

Yours in Christ
Francis

Hi Francis,

Oh, OK; thanks for the clarification! Now will you answer this question as well?
When we're partakers of the divine nature, does that then make us God?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)

That's a very good question Ed J… but obviously we can't become God because there is only one God.

Wouldn't you agree? So, if we can't become God… then it appears that we have only a couple of choices in front of us by which we can understand what 2 Peter is talking about.

First of all… I have to do a little more research to give you a good answer… but it appears that the word “Divine” can have a few different meanings which is borne out by looking up the word on Wikipedia and online Dictionaries.

The entire time I was using the word “Divine”… I am referring to the concept of Deity… or of God. To me, I understood the word “Divine” to mean God… just as “Deity” means God to me.

Anyway… that is how I was using the word. Maybe I should have been using a different word to get across the idea that Jesus' Spirit which was dwelling in His human body (Incarnation)… that Spirit is God… Deity.

But after looking at some definitions… it appears that the word “Divine” can mean and refer to God… although it can also refer to “godlike”, etc.

With that in mind… we have to be careful to understand what Peter meant when he said “we're partakers of the divine nature”.

It's not important what we mean by those words… but it is important what Peter mean since he was the one who used those words.

I will do some more research because this is a good question… but I think you would agree with me that whatever Peter meant… he certainly was never saying that we become God when we partake of the divine nature.

Wouldn't you agree?

So my answer to your question is “no”. When we partake of the Divine nature… it does not mean that it makes us God.

Anyway… I have to leave, but I will come back with a better answer later for you.

Thanks for the question

Yours in Christ
Francis

April 24, 2012 at 11:43 pm#294670

mikeboll64

Blocked

Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,23:13)

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 was Jesus on earth “fully God”, or “limited God”? I don't see how you can say that both things apply.

Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,23:13)

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.

My point is that, even AFTER Jesus was raised and exalted to the highest position he has ever held (at the right hand OF our ONE God), he is STILL called a servant of God. (Acts 4:30, for one)

Francis, the fact that Jesus is now at the right hand of the one and only God Almighty makes it pretty darn clear that Jesus can't be that same God whose right hand he is at. (Note that Jesus isn't said to be at the right hand of THE FATHER, but at the right hand of GOD.)

Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,23:13)

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.

So Jesus' divine nature was the God of Jesus' human nature? Jesus was truly HIS OWN GOD? That's just too much, Francis.

Francis, you are correct that we will never agree on this……………UNTIL…………..you regain your memory of what the little word “OF” means. If Jesus is at the right hand OF God, then he is not God. If Jesus is the Son OF God, then he is not the God he is the Son OF. The same logic applies for:
Priest OF God
Word OF God
Anointed one OF God
Lamb OF God
Prophet OF God
Holy one OF God
Servant OF God
Etc.

Quote (francis @ April 23 2012,23:13)

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.

Therefore, I don't need to concede your point at all.

If Jesus was “not divine” in his flesh state, then Jesus was not “God” in his flesh state. You've conceded the point with your words here – whether or not you ever ADMIT you conceded it.

Take care,
mike

April 25, 2012 at 12:36 am#294689

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:43)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,03:49)

Francis

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

God knows best

Hi BD,

How does your 'sin debt' get paid
if you don't believe Jesus paid it??

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

What sin debt?

April 25, 2012 at 12:39 am#294692

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:44)

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,06:04)

Shalom BD,

What is the purpose of “The Passover” lamb?

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

BD?

Ddn't you understand that the passover had nothing to do with sin?

Exodus 12:23
For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.

How do you consider some sort of atonement?

April 25, 2012 at 12:40 am#294694

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,11:36)

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:43)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,03:49)

Francis

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

God knows best

Hi BD,

How does your 'sin debt' get paid
if you don't believe Jesus paid it??

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

What sin debt?

“The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

April 25, 2012 at 12:42 am#294696

Participant

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,09:43)

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:37)

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,02:24)

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,17:40)

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)

Hello Ed…

So what I was trying to say is that the fully Divine nature of Jesus is God… just as God the Father is God. Both are God, and therefore they both are in harmony.l

Yours in Christ
Francis

Hi Francis,

Oh, OK; thanks for the clarification! Now will you answer this question as well?
When we're partakers of the divine nature, does that then make us God?

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)

That's a very good question Ed J… but obviously we can't become God because there is only one God.

Wouldn't you agree? So, if we can't become God… then it appears that we have only a couple of choices in front of us by which we can understand what 2 Peter is talking about.

The entire time I was using the word “Divine”… I am referring to the concept of Deity… or of God. To me, I understood the word “Divine” to mean God… just as “Deity” means God to me.

But after looking at some definitions… it appears that the word “Divine” can mean and refer to God… although it can also refer to “godlike”, etc.

With that in mind… we have to be careful to understand what Peter meant when he said “we're partakers of the divine nature”.

It's not important what we mean by those words… but it is important what Peter mean since he was the one who used those words.

Wouldn't you agree?

So my answer to your question is “no”. When we partake of the Divine nature… it does not mean that it makes us God.

Anyway… I have to leave, but I will come back with a better answer later for you.

Thanks for the question

Yours in Christ
Francis

Tre is no such thing as a Divine God because the word Divine means godlike and God can never have a Divine nature, I really wish you guys study more and accuse less.

April 25, 2012 at 12:46 am#294698

Participant

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,11:40)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,11:36)

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:43)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,03:49)

Francis

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

God knows best

Hi BD,

How does your 'sin debt' get paid
if you don't believe Jesus paid it??

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

What sin debt?

“The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

So when you die your debt is paid and you will die correct?

You will not have eternal life without dying right?

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So you and I will both die, correct?

April 25, 2012 at 12:47 am#294700

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,11:39)

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:44)

Quote (Ed J @ April 24 2012,06:04)

Shalom BD,

What is the purpose of “The Passover” lamb?

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

BD?

Ddn't you understand that the passover had nothing to do with sin?

How do you consider some sort of atonement?

Hi BD,

I do NOT see an answer here, do you?
Will you please answer my question instead
of “assuming” what you believe I think it means,
and then trying to refute the assumption you made?

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

April 25, 2012 at 1:02 am#294705

Participant

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,11:46)

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,11:40)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,11:36)

Quote (Ed J @ April 25 2012,05:43)

Quote (bodhitharta @ April 25 2012,03:49)

Francis

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

God knows best

Hi BD,

How does your 'sin debt' get paid
if you don't believe Jesus paid it??

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

What sin debt?

“The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

So when you die your debt is paid and you will die correct?

You will not have eternal life without dying right?

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

So you and I will both die, correct?

Hi BD,

“he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die.
Believest thou this?” (John 11:25-26) <– Please answer

B'shem, יהוה (YÄ-hä-vā)
עד (Ed) (Joshua 22:34)

April 25, 2012 at 6:07 am#294826

Participant

Asana wrote this:

Quote

(There) is no such thing as a Divine God because the word Divine means godlike and God can never have a Divine nature, I really wish you guys study more and accuse less.

Hello Asana…

With all due respect… and with the utmost sincerity from one friend to another… I would gently encourage you to follow your own advice and study more and accuse less.

1)… First of all, I never used the phrase “Divine God”… so you are completely wrong to ACCUSE me of this. I did say “Divine nature”… but I never said “Divine God”.

2)… When I did use the phrase “Divine nature”… I was refering to Jesus in the Incarnation as Fully God and Fully man… NOT GOD.

Whereas God or God the Father does not have two natures… Jesus had two natures while here on earth because He was fully God and fully man.

So once again, you are completely wrong to ACCUSE me of saying that God had a Divine nature.

3)… Having said that, I am curious to know if you are correct to say that “God can never have a Divine nature”.

Well… does He or does He not? Are you correct on that? Can God have a nature? Can we speak intelligently about the “nature of God” or “God's nature”?

For me… the answer to that question appears to depend on what you… or anyone else… means when you use the word “nature”.

After all… we can all agree that God does have certain characeristics and attributes which are listed in the Bible… such as being compassionate, perfect, love, patient, Incorporeal, Omnipresent, Omniscient , Omnipotent, Eternal, Holy etc. You even say that God is merciful.

Well now… do these attributes/characteristics qualify as being the nature of God? If not, then what do you mean when you use the word “nature”? See?

For me… I'm not at all sure either way. What I do know… after looking around… is that this question does not seem to be fully settled because there appears to be bright people on both sides of the issue.

In fact, after reading and listening to some of the debates and discsusions on this subject… the question appears to be incredibly deep and frought with all kinds of serious philosophical implications that I have never considered before… and which makes my head spin as I try and follow the various discussions.

After all, I'm not all that bright.

—> Anyway… on the website “Judaism 101″… it says:

• “Most areas of Jewish belief are open to significant dispute, but not the nature of the Creator.”

• “There are several well-accepted beliefs about the nature of the Creator.”

• “The nature of G-d is one of the few areas of abstract Jewish belief where there are a number of clear-cut ideas about which there is little dispute or disagreement.”

So it appears that Judaism says that God does have a nature.

—> Wikipedia itself discusses “The nature of God in Western theology”

Therefore, it appears to me that you have no basis to be so confident in your claim that “God can never have a Divine nature”

Afterall… if God does have a “nature”… (and it appears that He does have one)… then what else would His nature be but Divine?

3)… While it is true that the root of the word Divine is literally “godlike”… when we look into the definition of the word as it is used today and in the past… the word “Divine” appears to have many kinds of meanings.

But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God. And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God.

For example… “Random House Webster's College Dictionary” and “Princeton's WordNet” says that Divine can be a NOUN or an ADJECTIVE, depending on how you are using the word. Indeed… as a noun, Divine is Godhead, Lord, Creator, Maker, Divine, God Almighty, Almighty, Jehovah terms referring to the Judeo-Christian God.

And it was in that sense I was using the word “Divine” when I wrote to Ed J and Mike.

Asana… you wrote and said to me… “I really wish you guys study more and accuse less”.

Well then… please tell me how the above shows that I need to study more and accuse less? How are you justified for ACCUSING me for not studying and for ACCUSING?

Anyway… I'm the first to admit that I could be wrong about all of this… because I'm the first to admit that I'm not that bright.

So maybe it would help me if you could tell me why you believe that God can never have a Divine nature.

Yours in Christ
Francis

April 25, 2012 at 7:10 am#294832

Participant

Asana wrote:

Quote

We never disagreed that it was widely believed, thought or written about that Jesus was Crucified or killed so your entire argument is based on a wrong premise.

Hello Asana…

I'm not using a wrong premise as you suggest… but instead, I'm using that very knowledge we agree on, as one of my basic premises. And so that has been my point all along.

I'm setting up my argument with the first premise being this knowledge you spoke of.

The difference between you and I is that you say these actual real people were all deluded.

Can you see that we are both USING THE SAME INFORMATION… the SAME KNOWLEDGE found in the first part of the Quran verse: An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157… which says they said (in boast), “We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”?

It is this part that I'm using for my first premise because we can both agree on that.

But the difference between us is that we come to 2 different conclusions from that information.

And why do we come to two different conclusions when in fact we are starting off with the same information and knowledge?

Because you've added something else to your argument… you've added the 2nd part of the above verse from Quran.

Whereas I have added NOTHING to the fact that actual, real people were boasting and claiming they killed Jesus… you on the other hand (and Mohammaed and the Quran as well) HAVE ADDED to that information, and said that these people were deluded.

And because you have added this claim of “delusion” to the facts we already agree on… logic demands that the burden of proof is now on you to prove… with evidence… that these actual, real people were deluded.

It's as simple as that. There is nothing complicated about the fact that the ball is in your court now.

Quote

And you have to prove with evidence… that your claim (made thousands of years after the fact)… and Mohammed's claim (made 600 years after the fact) is true. You've never done that. And with this latest post of yours, you still have not given any evidence or proven that these people were deluded.

Asana… you asked of me:

Quote

Where is your EVIDENCE that Jesus was killed or Crucified?

Not only did I give pages and pages of evidence in 2010 for you… but a couple of days ago, I also tried a different approach and gave you evidence that we both agreed upon… which is that there were many people who actually admited that they “killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah”.

But your only response so far is to say that these people were deluded. Well Asana, that is fine… but now I'm asking you where is your EVIDENCE that these people were deluded in thinking they killed Jesus?

Asana… you can't ask me for evidence for my beliefs and/or claims… and then turn around and refuse to give me evidence for your beliefs and/or claims.

Isn't that completely unfair and even hypocritical?

Quote

The Bible says that People can see and not perceive and hear and not understand therefore it is certainly possible that what they saw they did not see and what they heard they did not understand.

Matthew 9:13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Pay attention to what you know to be true and God knows Best.

Asana… all i'm asking is for you to be fair and honest by supplying the evidence and proof that people were deluded into thinking they killed Jesus. You kept asking me for evidence for my beliefs/claims… and I did the best I could.

Now I want you to give me evidence for your beliefs/claims.

What else is there to say?

Will you do that much for me, since I tried my best to give you what you asked for?

Yours in Christ
Francis

April 25, 2012 at 7:18 am#294834

Participant

Quote (francis @ April 25 2012,17:07)

Hello Asana…

But as I was saying to Ed J… when I was using the word “Divine”… I was basically interchanging it with the word “God”… so that for me: Divine=God. And a look at the different definitions for the word “Divine” shows that the word “Divine” can mean God.

Yours in Christ
Francis

Hi Francis: These listed here, ARE truly equal!

“Divine” = “Deity” = “YHVH” = “The Bible”

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)

April 25, 2012 at 8:01 am#294839

Participant

Hello Mike…

Quote

Francis had written:
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.

Mike responded with this:

So was Jesus on earth “fully God”, or “limited God”? I don't see how you can say that both things apply.

When I say that Jesus voluntarily put limits on His Divinity.. or that he voluntarily limited to some degree His qualities as God… I think the best way to convey to you what I was trying to say is to give the following example:

If I put a blindfold on… and put a cast on my leg so that I am forced to use a cane or crutch… I have limited some of my ability to be as mobile as I was before… and I have limited my ability to see like I was able to see before. But not once did I ever make myself LESS THAN a human being. And no one… including yourself, would say that when I put a blinfold on, and thereby limit my ability to see clearly… then I am making myself less human.

That is the idea I was trying to get across.

When Jesus voluntarily limited some of His qualities as God when He came to earth in His Icarnation… He in no way made Himself less than fully God.

I hope that helps.

Quote

Francis had written:
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.

Mike responded with this:

My point is that, even AFTER Jesus was raised and exalted to the highest position he has ever held (at the right hand OF our ONE God), he is STILL called a servant of God. (Acts 4:30, for one)

I distinctly remember that this was part of our past debate. And since I don't want to re-invent the wheel… I'm going to go back and find that part of our debate. So I will respond later since it is already 2:30 in the morning where I live… and I need to get some sleep.

Quote

Same response as above. I remember going over this already, a couple of years ago. So I will find it and then respond.

Quote

Francis had written:
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.

Mike responded with this:

So Jesus' divine nature was the God of Jesus' human nature? Jesus was truly HIS OWN GOD? That's just too much, Francis.

Maybe my language is not perfect… so please let me try again.

If it were true that Jesus was God Incarnate… and that Jesus was both fully God and fully man… then we would have to agree that the fully man part of Jesus… His human flesh and His human soul (thinking)… cannot be God.

Because we know that God is NOT A MAN. Correct? We can agree that God is not a man… and man is not God. Correct?

So then, if we can agree on that, then how on earth could the “Fully MAN” part of Jesus… His human flesh and His human soul… how can they be God? They can't of course.

Now then… what about His spirit… the spirit that dwells inside of His human, fleshly body? Can His spirit be God?

Of course it can be. Just like God dwelled in the Tabernacle in the OT… and yet still remained Omnipresent in the universe… so can God the Son dwell in a human body of flesh. Just think of the human body ike the Tabernacle. Neither the human body nor the Tabernacle were God… but it was where God voluntarily dwelled.

In that case… the fully man part of Jesus (his fleshly body)… which is not God, but is only a dwelling place for God the Son… would naturally be a servant of God. Jesus' fully man part would not be God, but would serve God and Obey God.

To me, this seems to be perfectly rational and makes sense of the Incarnation.

Now… in my humble opinion, you appear to try and muddy things up linguistically with your next question which was: “Jesus was truly HIS OWN GOD”?

Jesus' earthly body/soul was not truly His own God because the human body/soul can never be, and never is God in the first place. But… God was truly the God of Jesus' earthly body/soul.

You see, to me, your question is really implying that I am saying that God is His own God. But that is not what the Incarnation means. If Jesus' earthly body/soul was God, then your question makes sense… and you would be correct in exclaiming “THAT'S JUST TOO MUCH FRANCIS”

But since Jesus' earthly body/soul was not God…. then it doesn't follow that I have been saying or implying that Jesus was his own God.

I'm not great with language… and I'm not that bright… but I hope that helps to explain how I understand the Incarnation of Christ.

Quote

Francis, you are correct that we will never agree on this……………UNTIL…………..you regain your memory of what the little word “OF” means. If Jesus is at the right hand OF God, then he is not God.

I do remember that we discussed this about 2 years ago.. and so I will retrieve that portion of our debate in response later.

Until then, I kind of remember that the phrase “sitting at the right hand of God” is refering to heirachy… and not an actual physical location or essence or lower status. But I have to get some sleep, so I will pick this stuff up later.

Quote

If Jesus is the Son OF God, then he is not the God he is the Son OF. The same logic applies for:
Priest OF God
Word OF God
Anointed one OF God
Lamb OF God
Prophet OF God
Holy one OF God
Servant OF God
Etc.

Same response as above.

Quote

Francis had written:
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.

Therefore, I don't need to concede your point at all.

Mike responded with this:

If Jesus was “not divine” in his flesh state, then
Jesus was not “God” in his flesh state. You've conceded the point with your words here – whether or not you ever ADMIT you conceded it.

Of course Jesus' fleshly body/soul was not God. That is what the Incarnation is all about.

What I didn't concede was that Jesus wasn't truly God Incarnate. I've always said that Jesus was God Incarnate. And I've always said that Jesus' fleshly human body/soul was not God.

Jesus had two natures… He was Fully God and Fully man. The fully man part of Jesus was not God. The fully God part of Jesus was God. Fully God in essence.

I don't see your point at all.

Yours in Christ
Francis

April 25, 2012 at 8:04 am#294840