Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Nobody Dies for a Lie

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by 37818 View Post
    The One who became the man Jesus was always someone else than God being "with God" (John 1:1-2). He was the sole agent of cause (John 1:3) on behalf of God, making Him always God too (John 1:1, 3, 18).
    Tortuous gobbledegook! Islam doesn't have this problem because it doesn't attempt to make Mohammad part of the godhead, as does orthodox Christianity with Jesus. Islam has the unambiguous doctrine: "there is no god but God". Simple and straight forward...not that I'm advocating Islam.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
      You realize, I hope, that this does not in any way anwer his question. If the doctrine fails on its own merits, why are you incapable of presenting it as such?
      The answer is self evident. You need to explain logically how “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”.
      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        The answer is self evident.
        Conversation with you might be more fruitful if you actually bothered to process what others wrote rather than hammering away with your preconceived notions. Repeating something does not make it any more accurate.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment


        • It's obvious, at this point, that Tassman and JimL have no interest in honestly presenting what they're arguing against, so I think y'all are wasting your time in this thread. The phrase "deliberately obtuse" comes to mind.
          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Tortuous gobbledegook! Islam doesn't have this problem because it doesn't attempt to make Mohammad part of the godhead, as does orthodox Christianity with Jesus. Islam has the unambiguous doctrine: "there is no god but God". Simple and straight forward...not that I'm advocating Islam.
            The text, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. . . ."

            Twice the text says "with God."
            In the text it says that the Word "was God . . . All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

            Islam the Quran, Mormons the Book of Mormon. For which the Hebrew Proverb warned, ". . . Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."
            . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

            . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

            Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              The answer is self evident. You need to explain logically how “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”.
              The term "person" and the term "god" are two different concepts. That there being three persons who are identified as God. And that there is only One God. And that God is also identified as a person does not constitute a contradiction. It may raise the question as to how? But the question of how something is true, does not make anything false.

              You need to show a contradiction. Now where is it said 3 is 1? By reason the three persons are not being said to be one person. Rather being said to be One God.

              Now one person having two natures, human and divine, and those two natures not being mixed, and yet one person is another issue.
              Last edited by 37818; 05-14-2018, 10:44 AM.
              . . . the Gospel of Christ, for it is [the] power of God to salvation to every [one] believing, . . . -- Romans 1:16.

              . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3, 4.

              Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                The answer is self evident. You need to explain logically how “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”.
                Let's suppose that there is a treaty drawn up between the US and Germany. How many treaties are executed? The answer is three: A treaty executed in English, a treaty executed in German, and a treaty executed in French (which of course is the language of the UN). Every one of the these three treaties is fully the treaty, they are not just copies of the treaty. The English Treaty is fully and actually the treaty apart from and separate from the other two. The French version is fully and actually the treaty...again apart from and separate from the others. At the same time, the German Treaty is also fully and separately the actual treaty. Yet, there is no question that the treaties are different as one is in English, one in French and one in German. So, you have one "Thing", the treaty between the US and Germany can be made up of three "Things" (the English, German and French treaty) where each of them is fully the "Thing" (the treaty) but each of the 3 things are distinct from each other.

                There you have it, three things that are one thing.
                "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                  It's obvious, at this point, that Tassman and JimL have no interest in honestly presenting what they're arguing against, so I think y'all are wasting your time in this thread. The phrase "deliberately obtuse" comes to mind.
                  I was thinking more "willfully blind" - but yours is not inapt.
                  Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                  Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                  sigpic
                  I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                    No, we don't know that, if we did know that, there would be no debate about what if anything exists outside of our spacetime. Funny you think you know that.
                    Yes we do know that. The big bang was the start of time, space, and everything in the universe. The universe did not exist prior to it being created in the big bang.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Right, and 3 can not be 3 and Not-3, i.e. it can't be 3 and 1 at the same time and same manner.
                      It's not.

                      False, they are either persons or they are god. Again, just because you call it god, doesn't make your illogic all of a sudden logical. If I said that 3 distinct persons are 1 person you'd recognize the illogic of the statement. You saying the same thing but calling the 1 entity god rather than person doesn't make it any more logical unless you give a logical reason as to how being god changes the illogical nature of the statement. How is god different in that respect? Can he be 1 god and 25 distinct persons? 100 distinct persons? A 1000? Does anything go with you?
                      Again, you are just making dumb assertions. If you wish to prove the trinity is illogical you need to do more than make dumb noises. Prove it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        Dumbfounded are we, CP?
                        Yes you are.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                          Conversation with you might be more fruitful if you actually bothered to process what others wrote rather than hammering away with your preconceived notions. Repeating something does not make it any more accurate.
                          There is nothing to process. You have yet to explain how simultaneously “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”. Clearly you are unable to do this and for good reason, it's logical nonsense. It was a formula devised over the course of several centuries by the Church, in an attempt to explain how the man Jesus could also be God without fracturing Judaic monotheism.

                          Every attempt to coherently explain the Trinity ends up committing a formal heresy; most commonly Modalism whereby the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are considered different ‘modes’ of apprehending God. Just as Littlejoe's example is of different modes (or languages) in understanding a Treaty. Or the common example that a man can be simultaneously a father, a brother, a husband etc. All heretical!
                          Last edited by Tassman; 05-15-2018, 12:54 AM.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                            There is nothing to process. You have yet to explain how simultaneously “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”. Clearly you are unable to do this and for good reason, it's logical nonsense. It was a formula devised over the course of several centuries by the Church, in an attempt to explain how the man Jesus could also be God without fracturing Judaic monotheism.

                            Every attempt to coherently explain the Trinity ends up committing a formal heresy; most commonly Modalism whereby the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are considered different ‘modes’ of apprehending God. Just as Littlejoe's example is of different modes (or languages) in understanding a Treaty. Or the common example that a man can be simultaneously a father, a brother, a husband etc. All heretical!
                            My example does not commit heresy. If you think so, it's on you to prove that assertion. Each Treaty is "THE TREATY". That is explained several times in the example. It's nothing like the man example.
                            "What has the Church gained if it is popular, but there is no conviction, no repentance, no power?" - A.W. Tozer

                            "... there are two parties in Washington, the stupid party and the evil party, who occasionally get together and do something both stupid and evil, and this is called bipartisanship." - Everett Dirksen

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              There is nothing to process. You have yet to explain how simultaneously “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”. Clearly you are unable to do this and for good reason, it's logical nonsense. It was a formula devised over the course of several centuries by the Church, in an attempt to explain how the man Jesus could also be God without fracturing Judaic monotheism.

                              Every attempt to coherently explain the Trinity ends up committing a formal heresy; most commonly Modalism whereby the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are considered different ‘modes’ of apprehending God. Just as Littlejoe's example is of different modes (or languages) in understanding a Treaty. Or the common example that a man can be simultaneously a father, a brother, a husband etc. All heretical!
                              No every attempt by you to explain the Trinity (or twist it) results in heresy. Because you are just interested in burning straw men.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                No every attempt by you to explain the Trinity (or twist it) results in heresy. Because you are just interested in burning straw men.
                                I'm not trying to explain anything. I'm waiting for you to explain the logic of how simultaneously “three” can be “one” and one can be “three”.
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Esther, 09-27-2020, 02:01 PM
                                56 responses
                                261 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 09-15-2020, 11:19 AM
                                49 responses
                                412 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Tassman
                                by Tassman
                                 
                                Started by shunyadragon, 09-09-2016, 03:27 PM
                                1,015 responses
                                54,070 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by showmeproof, 01-19-2014, 11:28 AM
                                91 responses
                                19,192 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X