You're still avoiding the fact that it is written in plain, understandable English(thank God for the NIV).
No, I am not forgetting the fact that the words are written in plain and understandable english. What YOU are failing to grasp, for whatever reason known only to yourself, is that even when written in plain, understandable english, that the literal writting of the words STILL don't have the meaning they are supposed. Use an NIV and look up the verses I gave in Acts. Here I'll look up one for you.
Acts 5:30 The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Now, before you go any further, before you post any far-fetched response or continue to side step questions like the majority of people who post in this forum you need to answer the following questions.
Is the verse written in plain and understandable english, and if it is, does that mean jesus was hung on a tree? Could someone read that verse and come to believe that Jesus was lynched (killing by hanging on or from a tree)?
What is there to meditate on when you have over 21 years of experience in the English language, including everything that goes along with it? And honestly, you haven't trampled over or knocked down anything as of yet, you're simply displaying your arrogance again.
See above, and I have demolished and trampled most of your position. Just a few more posts and you'll be fully demolished. Go back and look at the statements you made and questions that were asked based on those statements. You'll see that you FAILED to answer them or gave some warped answer that even you yourself don't believe. Here, I'll give you an example.
In John 10:30-36 he makes similar ambiguous claims, then tries to explain them away by accusing them of doing the same thing, or referring to the fact that God called all of the sons of Israel gods.
Those are your words. Here was my response to your words:
This is more misunderstanding on your part. NOWHERE in the passages you listed does he accuse them of doing what they accused him of, and nowhere in the passage does it make a reference to all the sons of Israel being Gods son. Please READ what you post before you actually post it. Here I'll even post part of a verse so you can understand what I am saying:
10:35. If he called them gods to whom the word of God was spoken
How/why do you assume this is talking about all of the sons of Israel and that they are being called gods?
Your response to that? Crickets...
You paint a deceptively logical picture my friend. Yet you fail to realize some how that learning these languages amounts to nothing when we can't even trace down all of the original scriptures. We have bits and pieces. And even if we did, we still have the issue that some people just aren't that good with linguistics. Not going to go against those verses but you must admit that there's a problem in that department.
This is a cop out and has
NOTHING to do with what I am saying. You fail to realize that we are going on
WHAT WE HAVE and not WHAT IS LOST, and even if a gazillion scriptures are lost, the ones we have still need to be read and translated. People still need to analyze the writing style of the work, study the political climate at the time teh writings were written etc. Also, you don't have "bits and pieces" because some of the writings ARE complete, so no I will not admit that there is a problem in that department, and by you not going up against those verses you sink your entire argument and rationalization that studies pertaining to the original languages are not needed.
All of that seems like personal issues and has nothing to do with me. I still see/saw that as arrogance though.. The fact that you can underestimate a person's ability to understand English, no matter how well he communicates it(which are two different things), qualifies as arrogance on your part imo.
It isn't an "issue" my friend. It is simply a low tolerence for bs, and a low tolerence for people who are somewhat intelligent but faithfully post bs. The fact is, I am underestimating a persons ability to understand english because YOU did it to Stockton, and the majority of your argument is "it is written in english therefor it is easily understood." I gave you two verses that were clearly written in english, yet you failed to address those verses. If you cannot address those verses you have no leg to stand on.
The fact still stands that you cannot refute my claim, and that this word that I google searched indeed has nothing to do with the nature of God, and is just as I described, a word. Instead, you use the dismissive approach giving a red herring type argument, furthermore reinforcing your obvious degree of arrogance, lol, so obvious that it's kind of funny now.
Why do I need to refute your claim when I posted a link with credible info that actually refutes your claim? See, you simply don't get it. If you had the ability to explain what the word actually means, its OT equivilent etc, I'd have a reason to actually entertain you. However, you don't know, and you'll simply rehash something that someone else wrote without
ANY knowledge regarding its validity. Again, READ THE LINKS I provided and one of them has a very good essay on the subject at the bottom of its page.
Here it is in case you are too lazy to click the previous link to find this link.
http://www.geocities.com/adaniels700/gospeltruths.html?1067540543700
Son, no one has given you a red herring argument, I was
NOT the one who introduced "No one is good but God" to this topic, and it is only logical that the divine nature of Jesus be introduced in this topic since he is the one who made the statements in question and due to the belief held by some that he was implying that he was not "god." Where is the red-herring?
I have answered the original poster, and he and I basically agree on the original question. Have you answered the
original question? :dead:
Firstly, I've read this information..
Sure you have.
If you haven't noticed, the internet is publicly available to everyone.. I've read very adverse opinions on these topics from all angels.
Yet you provide no critical response to the link I posted and don't even provide a logical reason as to why you say the words don't have a certain meaning.
Opinions coming from scholars a lot more learned than you are so it is only right for me to have an open mind and to not simply except every google link that you throw at me.
Yet you have provided us with no info on these scholars, have provided us with no links to anything they have written, and as I have mentioned before, have yet to actually refute what I have posted. The only thing you have said is "thats not what it means", and if you are thinking that I should be insulted by your claim that you have read or heard opinions from scholars who are more learned than myself, I have two things to tell you.
1. I am more learned than
YOU. This is a
FACT, it
CANNOT be argued, and it is proven
EVERYTIME you and I post in threads such as this one. You are hyping
the next man up but compare the two of us and see how things pan out. :dead:
2. Put me in contact with these scholars because I love learning.
[email protected] or
[email protected]
This in fact would make you a hypocrite, because you're doing the very same thing you accuse me of. I ask you a difficult question that you obviously have not the answer to, so you google up the question and throw links in my face like I've never read before and you're introducing me to fire. And again, your threshold of tolerance is a personal issue and doesn't concern me..
No, it isn't being a hypocrite. If I give you something (a link for example) rest assured that it has either been in my favorites folder for some time, or I have actually downloaded it to my offline content folder, or I have a pdf book pertaining to the topic. If I respond a couple of days later or a week later and give you something, that means I have recently come acrossed it, and researched it (and yes, research DOES include going to the local library or going through my own collection.) But when I do present something that is straight from my dome and no link provided what do you do? You side step it and avoid it like the plague, junior. See, people like you simply can't be satisfied. I give you info coming from me and you avoid it, and I give you info coming from someone else and you avoid it. What is the use of giving you anything?
Okay, let me not generalize and criticize all Christians, but only the ones who claim Jesus to be God incarnate..
:shaking my head in disbelief::ermm:
And I don't recall me asking you for John's opinion on Jesus and his origins, but to provide a quote from Jesus stating that he was God, or "the word".. Another red herring eh?
You obviously don't remember what you typed. First of all, You asked for Jesus claiming to be God, I gave you something better, but due to your ignorance, you don't understand it and say "it doesn't mean that", but provide no evidence to back your claim. Second of all, you
didn't ask for anything about jesus stating he is "the word", and here is your original statement:
Who ever said the the word = Jesus? Why can't the word simply be God's will or command? More "indirect" evidence.. Unless I'm wrong and Jesus claimed to be the word also.. I've been under the impression that Christians assume this to reinforce their faith.
LMAO! Red-herring? No, more like I'm paying attention and simply responding to what is presented. You ask "who ever said the the word = Jesus?" I give you an example in the bible where it supports the belief, and you blab on and on about how you didn't ask for Johns opinion!
ROFL!
I've already explained to you that I do understand his justification for being here, yet it doesn't have anything to do with "God" coming to earth.. His Son did.. This is one of those arguments that you can throw on anybody if they disagree with you. "awe, you don't understand it, that's why you can't grasp the concept" type shit.. That won't work...
Again, you do not understand the divinity because you do not understand what you are talking about. If you understand his justification of being here you would understand the relevancy of being divine. If you understood the concepts of messiah you would understand the relevency of being divine. If you understood these things you would not have to...scratch that. Explain what the messi...nope scratch that also. You'll simply avoid it.
And you expect any sensible person to believe this logic? This is borderline schizophrenia, I mean Jesus prayed to God and talked to him daily. On the cross, some of Jesus' last words were "My Lord, why hast thou forsaken me".. If he was talking to himself then that just seems loony to me. Questioning your self? You must have some type of divine understanding in that you can go outside of faith, and try and explain this logically. Kudos to you sir..
Do
I expect any sensible person to believe this logic?
No, I expect a sensible person to read and acknowledge the fact that I said
THE ONENESS DOCTRINE believes etc. The PENTECOSTALS are the main promoters (when it comes to christian sects) of the ONENESS DOCTRINE. Where do you get the idea that
I believe that? LMAO!
I don't know, probably because we have millions of Christians world wide praying in the name of Jesus Christ every single day..
But how does that have an impact on you and your personal relationship with God?
