The Great Deception

[?Impact]

59 minutes ago, betsy said:

Why should an opinion that's based on cherry-picked quotations matter at all?   I'm pointing to the verses that clearly say, Jesus is God.

Yes, my cherries are sweeter than your cherries.

[betsy]

On 2/1/2018 at 8:04 AM, John Prewett said:

 Famous example of putting interpretation of scripture over scripture:

“call no man father”

 Roman Catholicism will give you scads of interpretive pretext to NOT heed the simple “call no man father”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_church_of_the_Roman_Empire 

 

 

What's the difference between their interpretation, and your interpretation? They're both distorting the message!

 

 

Furthermore....

To lessen Jesus His status (as God)...is very much the same too with Catholicism's lessening of His status by making Mary equal to Him!  Or, even above Him....if a queen is considered to have more authority than a Prince.

 

It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Edited February 15, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

 

We're not all Catholics.  And some of us, like me who used to be Catholic....had left that building because I see some of its teachings go directly against the Scriptures.  I have a very big problem with glorification of Mary and the saints.....among other things.  Now that I'd read the Bible, that is to me, a big red flashing flag!

 

My take on this is that, some folks discredit the Scriptural truths  - like the concept of 3-in-1 - by pointing to denominations that they say, had corrupted it. 

  So the term "Trinity" was coined.  So what?  Big deal.    Based on that....some try to sell the opinion that Jesus as God, is therefore,  a hoax. 

 

They came up with the term Trinity - maybe, it's because they don't really have an accurate  term for 3-in-1 that's described in the Scriptures!  Some even tried to explain that concept likening it to  a clear glass of water (God = glass, The Word (Jesus) and the Spirit are its content)

 

Arguing about the term Trinity.....is petty disputation!   What's there to argue about it? 

 

Instead, let's deal with what's turning out to be the hoax.....

Let's talk about the false teaching that Jesus isn't God, but merely the Son.  Why should an opinion that's based on cherry-picked quotations matter at all?   I'm pointing to the verses that clearly say, Jesus is God.

The Trinity among many other concepts about the "Catholics" [Cat- holic == "with or of the whole"] was a means to legitimize Christianity INTO the Roman Empire. The idea was a sort of 'revolution' (and 'revelation') about attempting to both REDUCE government power cohersion and to get people to be more unified. While you might disagree with its later evolution, it was actually THE major factor that spread that belief. Had it not existed, Christianity would have been more trivial and may not have become even what the Protestants evolved to. 

It was noticed that the general Christian of the day were 'collective' and what we might call "Communistic" WITHOUT FORCE. As such, many people of varying faiths also adopted this way and preferred it to the forces of Emperors. The "Jesus Christ" title means literally, "I am King" or "I am (equivalent) to the Ceasar". They were conflicted meanings at the time for ANYONE who attempted to either declare their right as a human to be equally permissible by nature (ie, 'God' then) to voluntarily BECOME as significant as the Emperor ....OR....to some, an alternate threat TO the Caesar by some delusional nutcase who thought they were told that some higher power predicted their own particular means to overthrow the King (Caesar). I'm guessing that most "je suis christos" were NOT actually the nutcase definitions but were treated as such by some in power.

So by the time of Constantine, this emperor realized that instead of defeating the cult, it had MORE power by its voluntary followers as a religion, even if some interpreted in extreme ways. This is WHAT ended the actual Roman empire 'officially'. But in reality, it only REPLACED the Empire by turning the emperor into the "Pope". It made people less conflicted and fearful of HOW the Empire was run and made it able to spread voluntary compliance to Rome with much less force needed. In fact, it was a kind of clever Rhetorical device because of its ease. People then as now had MORE motive to change when it was thought to have some more intimate connection to Nature. That is, Nature (as God), to the Christian belief was DEMOCRATIC as it treated each and every person as EQUAL as their leaders (the political authorities). It is much harder for one to DICTATE they ARE some 'God on Earth' as many political leaders opted to than to have its leaders assert an INSPIRATIONAL LINK to God (or Nature) where the Pope is just a portal, but still a regular man.

The abuses of later Popes is like the "antithesis" I mentioned above. In time, while the original concept was most advanced and unifying, its leaders tend to devolve into abuses as they pass on leadership through HEREDITARY links rather than to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

So while the Protestant movement had its appropriate means to be the next "synthesis" of a newer era, you can't completely discredit the Catholic history as all with evil intent. Note that if you to appropriately go back to pre-Catholic formation, you should also ask yourself why not allow yourself to trek further in the past to where Christianity evolved from Judaism which evolved from Egyptian (and combination of other of the Middle Eastern peoples)?

I find it odd that the reformation still kept Jesus as being interpreted AS GOD too. Religion keeps evolving in these cycles as political factions do because they ARE evolution of politics. Do you think that God thought to take a vacation of being a Supreme Being for being bored? If God is above us, then why would it presume a submissive human role to appeal to them as though he felt hopelessly unable to communicate some understanding to them. If he had no RISK for being human given his death only returns him to full power, then you also belittle the 'sacrifice' as a concept because 'sacrifice' means to GIVE UP something of power you have to others. If Jesus was God, he has LESS to give up by dying than a human who would NOT be raised or returned to its Superpowers in heaven. 

So you have to understand that even the Protestant interpretations are equally lacking rationale IF YOU THINK THE CATHOLICS were being such.

I think if you interpret Christianity without recognizing that it was a movement that was attempting to ASSERT equality of all beings to the same significance of a God, just as Jesus was saying against the kings on Earth, then the "Jesus" character is not only NOT a God but another 'cartoon' to teach others some lesson. The "Emperor's New Clothes" is the EQUAL story of Jesus in a secular way. "Jesus" was the like the child in the audience pointing out that the King was naked. THAT was the 'sacrifice'.....daring to RISK authoritarian rule of pompous and cruel leaders. 

[betsy]

51 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

The Trinity among many other concepts about the "Catholics" [Cat- holic == "with or of the whole"] was a means to legitimize Christianity INTO the Roman Empire. The idea was a sort of 'revolution' (and 'revelation') about attempting to both REDUCE government power cohersion and to get people to be more unified. While you might disagree with its later evolution, it was actually THE major factor that spread that belief. Had it not existed, Christianity would have been more trivial and may not have become even what the Protestants evolved to. 

It was noticed that the general Christian of the day were 'collective' and what we might call "Communistic" WITHOUT FORCE. As such, many people of varying faiths also adopted this way and preferred it to the forces of Emperors. The "Jesus Christ" title means literally, "I am King" or "I am (equivalent) to the Ceasar". They were conflicted meanings at the time for ANYONE who attempted to either declare their right as a human to be equally permissible by nature (ie, 'God' then) to voluntarily BECOME as significant as the Emperor ....OR....to some, an alternate threat TO the Caesar by some delusional nutcase who thought they were told that some higher power predicted their own particular means to overthrow the King (Caesar). I'm guessing that most "je suis christos" were NOT actually the nutcase definitions but were treated as such by some in power.

So by the time of Constantine, this emperor realized that instead of defeating the cult, it had MORE power by its voluntary followers as a religion, even if some interpreted in extreme ways. This is WHAT ended the actual Roman empire 'officially'. But in reality, it only REPLACED the Empire by turning the emperor into the "Pope". It made people less conflicted and fearful of HOW the Empire was run and made it able to spread voluntary compliance to Rome with much less force needed. In fact, it was a kind of clever Rhetorical device because of its ease. People then as now had MORE motive to change when it was thought to have some more intimate connection to Nature. That is, Nature (as God), to the Christian belief was DEMOCRATIC as it treated each and every person as EQUAL as their leaders (the political authorities). It is much harder for one to DICTATE they ARE some 'God on Earth' as many political leaders opted to than to have its leaders assert an INSPIRATIONAL LINK to God (or Nature) where the Pope is just a portal, but still a regular man.

The abuses of later Popes is like the "antithesis" I mentioned above. In time, while the original concept was most advanced and unifying, its leaders tend to devolve into abuses as they pass on leadership through HEREDITARY links rather than to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

So while the Protestant movement had its appropriate means to be the next "synthesis" of a newer era, you can't completely discredit the Catholic history as all with evil intent. Note that if you to appropriately go back to pre-Catholic formation, you should also ask yourself why not allow yourself to trek further in the past to where Christianity evolved from Judaism which evolved from Egyptian (and combination of other of the Middle Eastern peoples)?

I find it odd that the reformation still kept Jesus as being interpreted AS GOD too. Religion keeps evolving in these cycles as political factions do because they ARE evolution of politics. Do you think that God thought to take a vacation of being a Supreme Being for being bored? If God is above us, then why would it presume a submissive human role to appeal to them as though he felt hopelessly unable to communicate some understanding to them. If he had no RISK for being human given his death only returns him to full power, then you also belittle the 'sacrifice' as a concept because 'sacrifice' means to GIVE UP something of power you have to others. If Jesus was God, he has LESS to give up by dying than a human who would NOT be raised or returned to its Superpowers in heaven. 

So you have to understand that even the Protestant interpretations are equally lacking rationale IF YOU THINK THE CATHOLICS were being such.

I think if you interpret Christianity without recognizing that it was a movement that was attempting to ASSERT equality of all beings to the same significance of a God, just as Jesus was saying against the kings on Earth, then the "Jesus" character is not only NOT a God but another 'cartoon' to teach others some lesson. The "Emperor's New Clothes" is the EQUAL story of Jesus in a secular way. "Jesus" was the like the child in the audience pointing out that the King was naked. THAT was the 'sacrifice'.....daring to RISK authoritarian rule of pompous and cruel leaders. 

 

I'm relying on what's written in the Scriptures.

 

I don't expect non-Christians to take the Scriptures as AUTHORITATIVE............BUT  Christians rely on the Scriptures.  We're supposed to. 

 

This discussion (from John Prewett's position - since he's been quoting from the Scriptures), is on the premise that you view the Scriptures as God-inspired.  I assume he's a Christian like me.

 

That's why a non-believer's opinion is actually irrelevant in this discussion.

 

I don't care about what happened during the Roman Empire.  I'm responding to his claim that Jesus is not God.  He's been cherry-picking and  distorting the Scriptures.....and I'm using the Scriptures to show it.

Edited February 15, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

15 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

I'm relying on what's written in the Scriptures.

 

I don't expect non-Christians to take the Scriptures as AUTHORITATIVE............BUT  Christians rely on the Scriptures.  We're supposed to. 

 

This discussion (from John Prewett's position - since he's been quoting from the Scriptures), is on the premise that you view the Scriptures as God-inspired.  I assume he's a Christian like me.

 

That's why a non-believer's opinion is actually irrelevant in this discussion.

 

I don't care about what happened during the Roman Empire.  I'm responding to his claim that Jesus is not God.  He's been cherry-picking and  distorting the Scriptures.....and I'm using the Scriptures to show it.

Well just because I'm not Christian doesn't mean what I say lacks credible insight for those who do. You CAN justly question whether Jesus is God here too. If a 'Trinity' is interpreted by some Protestants as being irrational as well as to the Saints as you pointed out, why not take the final step in rationale and remove Jesus AS God. To some this still treats God as two simultaneous entities, a 'Diety'. Note that the Muslims thought to overthrow the Catholics for precisely the same concern. 

Ironically, while Mohammad originally intended to point out that God was ONLY ONE essence, even they have done just as you have by making Mohammad into a kind of prophet turned into a God figure. In time future Muslims will also likely formally treat Mohammad and God as one and the same. 

I also mentioned the logical concern about dismissing the POWER of the meaning of "sacrifice". If Jesus 'sacrificed' something, how can it mean anything unless he were NOT a god but a mere man. If he were just a manifestation of God (like taking a vacation on Earth WITHOUT his powers above), ANY means for which Jesus as the man who died is NOT a SACRIFICE because his return to heaven would only return his power.....thus no sincere thing he gave up. Does this not raise some question in your own mind, regardless of what others think? 

[Scott Mayers]

The 'saving' of Jesus was actually a reference to INCLUDING non-Jews as the original exclusive religion OF a 'chosen people'. In a sense, this too was what the Jesus seemed to mean by attempting to disrupt those in the Temple.....Jews AND the Romans who seemed to represent 'holier than though' authoritarians as hypocrites of convenience to exploiting others.

The 'saving' was to the SAVING of ALL people as equals to a 'kingdom' on Earth, ...as it is in Heaven. As such, the 'sacrifice' was also to the MAN (all men/women) brave enough to speak up in RISK of being ridiculed and even killed for challenging those who DICTATE their supremacy over others here on Earth. It also was to tell others that should they die, they TOO would have as equal FAVOR in God's eyes. 

What is the NEED to revert to a 'dictatorial' stance to REQUIRE the masses of people to 'deify' some man (make the man Jesus == God) when the purpose was to REMOVE the very authoritarianism that said ONLY those who BELIEVE that some people are SUPERIOR in God's eyes will be worthy OF God's favor?

[?Impact]

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Matthew 27:46

It seems that Jesus and Norman Bates share a common ailment - dissociative identity disorder

[betsy]

57 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Well just because I'm not Christian doesn't mean what I say lacks credible insight for those who do. You CAN justly question whether Jesus is God here too. If a 'Trinity' is interpreted by some Protestants as being irrational as well as to the Saints as you pointed out, why not take the final step in rationale and remove Jesus AS God. To some this still treats God as two simultaneous entities, a 'Diety'. Note that the Muslims thought to overthrow the Catholics for precisely the same concern. 

Ironically, while Mohammad originally intended to point out that God was ONLY ONE essence, even they have done just as you have by making Mohammad into a kind of prophet turned into a God figure. In time future Muslims will also likely formally treat Mohammad and God as one and the same. 

I also mentioned the logical concern about dismissing the POWER of the meaning of "sacrifice". If Jesus 'sacrificed' something, how can it mean anything unless he were NOT a god but a mere man. If he were just a manifestation of God (like taking a vacation on Earth WITHOUT his powers above), ANY means for which Jesus as the man who died is NOT a SACRIFICE because his return to heaven would only return his power.....thus no sincere thing he gave up. Does this not raise some question in your own mind, regardless of what others think? 

 

And you bring up Mohammed.  I didn't know he was a Christian! 

 

What makes you think I give a hoot what Mohammed think God is?  Thank you for proving my point.

 

Read my response again.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

And you bring up Mohammed.  Thank you for proving my point.

Read my response again.

I don't want to read into something you think I should be able to when I may be missing your own meaning. What or which point were you referring to? Which response and to whom were you responding?

(Sorry if this means repeating what you already said earlier.)

[Scott Mayers]

34 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? - Matthew 27:46

It seems that Jesus and Norman Bates share a common ailment - dissociative identity disorder

I think this actually helps show that Jesus was more likely intended to represent a normal man, not a God. Giving this charity in a secular way, he's protesting Nature for penalizing him for trying to be the good guy by telling everyone they are as equally 'good' people in Nature's eyes. Meanwhile, the crowds remaining silent to his execution suggests a betrayal of the very opposite respect he was giving them by risking himself by speaking the obvious: that the Emperor is naked! That is, the very crowds he was defending looked away when the Emperor avenged his naivety to dare to insult the superiors.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

On 2/10/2018 at 6:01 AM, John Prewett said:

Trinitarianism is insidious.

Contending Jesus “IS” God seems to honor Jesus,

but actually is a refusal to abide in the word of Jesus who identified Himself as Son OF God

[John 10:36] and endorsed being identified as the Son OF God.  [Matt 16]

 

Christians contend Jesus is the Son OF God.

Trinitarians contend Jesus IS God.

 

See Matt 16 Peter's confession that Jesus endorsed.  

 

Listen to following: 

"Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God." 1 John 4:15 ......

 

"...I [Jesus] said, I am the Son of God"”    John 10:36

 

 

“And this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ”              John 17:3

 

“Jesus said …. go unto my brothers, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God”  John 20:17

 

 Here's another thing:

John 8

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.

 

 

Wouldn't that contradict this verse?
 

 

Isaiah 42
8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

 

 

Not only did God identify Himself as The Lord (the very same title given to Jesus) - but He stated that He wouldn't be giving glory to another!  Why is Jesus claiming otherwise?

 

If you believe Jesus is not God....

 

.......then, you're saying the Bible has contradictions......Jesus was just mouthing off nonsense.....and therefore, the Bible cannot be trusted.
 

Edited February 15, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

10 minutes ago, betsy said:

 Here's another thing:

John 8

54 Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55 Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and obey his word.

Wouldn't that contradict this verse?

Isaiah 42
8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

Not only did God identify Himself as The Lord (the very same title given to Jesus) - but He stated that He wouldn't be giving glory to another!  Why is Jesus claiming otherwise?

If you believe Jesus is not God..........then, you're saying the Bible has contradictions......Jesus was just mouthing off nonsense.....and therefore, the Bible cannot be trusted.
 

Jesus did not write.  It appears that John is saying that the Trinity taken literally is itself irrational and so I'm not sure how you thought my argument supported your view? Can you try to back up your quotes with your direct interpretation? The words don't speak for themselves above. How do you think those quotes even suggest God and Jesus are one and the same, for instance?

As to 'contradictions', the contradictions occur when people INTERPRET meanings with multiple meanings as being LITERAL and STRICT to one meaning where the same meaning being forced to apply in another place is in conflict with the other. You can avoid the contradiction by broadening the interpretation to NOT have a unique or specific meaning. It is only to those who demand ONE specific meaning is intended when the writer was NOT necessarily meaning what you impose upon it. Often the 'liberal' religious interpretations are more fair precisely BECAUSE they don't impose that the BOOK that the Bible represents is itself some kind of MAGICAL creation imbued with direct and literal POWERS. So you CAN have 'contradiction' if you interpret the Bible as only a book with multiple authors (human ones) because the separate writers involved can mean different things in different parts of the book. The Bible is a COLLECTION of books, NOT one book by ONE author!

So you are wrong to assume you cannot 'trust' matters in the book. You just cannot treat the Bible as some magical object. Treating it this way seems to also diminish any need to read it.....you can just declare having it in your possession is sufficient enough to grant you supernatural powers. This is kind of LAZY thinking. AND it would be insincere to the intellectual content of those writers trying to convey a message that might be of some use. 

[?Impact]

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. - John 10:38

Is that distinct and connected, or the same?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

yet

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. - 1 Timothy 1:15

Did God send or Jesus come into the world?

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by ?Impact

[Scott Mayers]

19 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. - John 10:38

Is that distinct and connected, or the same?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. - John 3:16

yet

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. - 1 Timothy 1:15

Did God send or Jesus come into the world?

 

Interesting conflicts arise when homonyms of the same word are used. The original Greek likely had some more specific clarity.

 

What is the prior sentence to "But if I do,...." What was said before this that he is contrasting? This is an incomplete contextual sentence otherwise.

Again, "For God so loved..." also lacks context because it is implying a BECAUSE to something said before. What was that? 

And finally, what is the "This" in "This is a faithful saying..." What is a faithful saying?

 

I notice many speak this way in religions and leave it up to the listener to FILL IN THE BLANKS. 

 

Like,....

 

While I was sleeping, which explains everything, right?

Edited February 15, 2018 by Scott Mayers

[betsy]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

 Often the 'liberal' religious interpretations are more fair precisely BECAUSE they don't impose that the BOOK that the Bible represents is itself some kind of MAGICAL creation imbued with direct and literal POWERS. So you CAN have 'contradiction' if you interpret the Bible as only a book with multiple authors (human ones) because the separate writers involved can mean different things in different parts of the book. The Bible is a COLLECTION of books, NOT one book by ONE author!

I suppose by "magical"....you must mean supernatural.    How the heck do you suppose a non-Christian would take to the Cristian's belief the Bible is God-inspired??? 

 

Why do you think you keep spouting off terms like "magical?"   That's what I mean.  

 

As a non-believer, you don't see the Bible the way Christians do. 

 

The discussion I'm having with John is on the premise of Jesus as God, not simply the Son. If you want to discuss with him about something like the Roman empire....do so.  

 

  I don't want to discuss whether Jesus is God Himself, or not..... with a non-believer, for obvious reason.  This kind of discussion is for Christians who are into studying the Scriptures.

 

This discussion isn't for non-believers like you.   Sure you can give your opinion....but don't expect me to waste time debating with you!   

 

Quote

So you are wrong to assume you cannot 'trust' matters in the book.

Looks like something went over your head.  Read again .

 

 

Quote

You just cannot treat the Bible as some magical object.

No.  I don't.

I believe it is the Word of God.  

 

Okay...have a nice day.....I'm waiting for John to get back from the ice box.

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

I suppose by "magical"....you must mean supernatural.    How the heck do you suppose a non-Christian would take to the Cristian's belief the Bible is God-inspired??? 

 

Why do you think you keep spouting off terms like "magical?"   That's what I mean.   As a non-believer, you don't see the Bible the way Christians do.

This discussion isn't for non-believers like you.   Sure you can give your opinion....but don't expect me to waste time debating with you!   

No, by "magical" I mean that when you assert some 'faith' that the book is "inspired" you are actually treating it AS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE IN ERROR with the ignorance that it is a book published by humans!

You have a right to dismiss me but are being insincere to dismiss me for BEING without religious belief. How does my LACK of belief disqualify me from intellectual reflection on this matter? You also miss that even John here mentioned to me elsewhere that he was 'atheist'!! So unless I've mistaken him (I had before), you too are less relevant to this discussion for being the 'believer' to a secular discussion!

 

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

The original Greek likely had some more specific clarity.

I wouldn't bet on that, besides I am told that the KJV is the best (based on the received text, lots of scholars, 57 sauce confirmation, etc. etc. etc.)

16 minutes ago, betsy said:

I suppose by "magical"....you must mean supernatural.

untestable, not scientific

[betsy]

18 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

No, by "magical" I mean that when you assert some 'faith' that the book is "inspired" you are actually treating it AS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE IN ERROR with the ignorance that it is a book published by humans!

 

Bingo!

That's the whole point, isn't it.....why I don't want to discuss, whether Jesus is God or not, with a non-believer.

 

Oh boy....just the premise of that discussion alone (is Jesus God Himself, or not)....should be obvious why it's a discussion for Christians!  Can you please contemplate on that.

 

Bye, Scott......

 

 

Edited February 15, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

1 hour ago, Scott Mayers said:

Interesting conflicts arise when homonyms of the same word are used. The original Greek likely had some more specific clarity.

1 minute ago, ?Impact said:

I wouldn't bet on that, besides I am told that the KJV is the best (based on the received text, lots of scholars, 57 sauce confirmation, etc. etc. etc.)

 

 

Ancient Greek and its philosophy uses distinct different words for 'beliefs' that the English do not. That is, the separate entries in the English dictionary homonyms for "Belief" use distinctly different words in Greek to avoid the confusion caused by misinterpretation. They were the initial experts on rhetoric and noticed that many tried to use homonyms inconsistently to con people by altering the meanings in context to make the listener fill in the blanks in the similar way to the quotes you just stated earlier. This goes for other words as well.

"I believe you." may mean that I trust that what you say is valid OR that it is literally true. When it comes to religion, if I FAVOR a particular interpretation, I'll PICK the meaning I assume it is without noticing that I am inconsistent elsewhere. So one might quote something as though it speaks for itself when the meaning has multiple interpretations logically. Religious rhetoric depends a lot on the same technique that lyrics or poetry do to appeal to larger audiences. You gave good examples of HOW many will quote incomplete sentences that lack meaning without the context. It BEGS the listener to interpret it as they will.

[betsy]

12 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

untestable, not scientific

In the Scriptures, magic is attributed to the work of the devil.    An example would be Pharaoh's magicians.

 

 

Quote

 

Jannes and Jambres

In Jewish and Christian traditions, Jannes and Jambres are the names given to magicians mentioned in the Book of Exodus.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jannes_and_Jambres

 

 

Quote

There is a difference between the magicians spoken of in the Bible and the magicians and illusionists one sees today at parties and in stage show acts. The magicians in the Bible either gained their power from demonic forces or else they were little more than charlatans who pretended to have great knowledge or to discover secrets, tell fortunes, and predict things to come.

https://www.gotquestions.org/magic-illusion-Bible.html

[Scott Mayers]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

Bingo!

That's the whole point, isn't it.....why I don't want to discuss, whether Jesus is God or not, with a non-believer.

Oh boy....just the premise of that discussion alone (is Jesus God Himself, or not)....should be obvious why it's a discussion for Christians!  Can you please contemplate on that.

Bye, Scott......

Clearly you are just afraid I might convince you of something with reason??

Its irrelevant whether I am or am not "Christian". You hold some belief about material that I ACTUALLY invest in reading, unlike most people claiming to BE "Christian" hypocritically.

[betsy]

One Lawgiver. One Judge. One God.

 

John 14
15 “If you love me, keep my commands.

Revelation 22

12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”




James 4
12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?



Isaiah 40
10 Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

 

 

How can we not see?

Edited February 16, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

One Lawgiver. One Judge. One God.

John 14
15 “If you love me, keep my commands.

Revelation 22

12 “And behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to give to every one according to his work. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End, the First and the Last.”

James 4
12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?

Isaiah 40
10 Behold, the Lord God will come with strong hand, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him.

 

 

How can we not see?

Speak only for yourself. How do YOU not see that quoting a book about someone asserting authority lacks meaning when WE 

(1) ...do not have ANYONE today living who has the capacity to prove they are a Natural 'god' on Earth?

If you cannot 'see' a god, demonstrate this directly to others PRIOR to demanding they pretend it to be true. It's not enough to dictate one 'pretend' (== make-believe) in order to see it. Anyone can say this about anything. So, 

(2) ...are not willing to play make-belief nor confuse the game as though it were identical with the reality?

(3)...can show how more modern books and other media are more compelling and clear than a collection of books from ancient times that lacked a printing press and film and audio recording      ....like Harry Potter?

Is Harry Potter real? You actually CAN 'see' the characters, follow the language with less doubt, and if IN DOUBT, question the author should you have the fortune to directly meet her. Even if we suspend our sense of reality to pretend it, do we then KNOW that the actual story is not simply a story?

Edited February 16, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Remove dead space in quote...

[betsy]

19 hours ago, Scott Mayers said:

Speak only for yourself. How do YOU not see that quoting a book about someone asserting authority lacks meaning when WE 

(1) ...do not have ANYONE today living who has the capacity to prove they are a Natural 'god' on Earth?

If you cannot 'see' a god, demonstrate this directly to others PRIOR to demanding they pretend it to be true. It's not enough to dictate one 'pretend' (== make-believe) in order to see it. Anyone can say this about anything. So, 

(2) ...are not willing to play make-belief nor confuse the game as though it were identical with the reality?

(3)...can show how more modern books and other media are more compelling and clear than a collection of books from ancient times that lacked a printing press and film and audio recording      ....like Harry Potter?

Is Harry Potter real? You actually CAN 'see' the characters, follow the language with less doubt, and if IN DOUBT, question the author should you have the fortune to directly meet her. Even if we suspend our sense of reality to pretend it, do we then KNOW that the actual story is not simply a story?

 

The "we" is meant for Christians.

 

Like I said.....this particular discussion whether Jesus is God Himself, is a discussion for believers.  Your response keeps on proving me right.  Your views - as a non-Christian - are, irrelevant. 

How the heck can your opinion be relevant when you don't even believe the Bible is the Word of God!  This discussion sits on the belief that the Bible (both the Old and the New Testament),  is the Word of God!   That's the CHRISTIAN BELIEF!

 

You're kinda like the male who insists on butting in, and  arguing with females discussing their experiences with menstrual period!

 

 

 

The funny thing is you're serious about this, since you're spending so much time writing your posts.  You can give your opinion, why not - but you insist to argue with me!    That's all you're doing you know - arguing.   About something that doesn't concern you!

 

I don't know why you can't grasp that logic.  

 

If you can't understand that logic.....how can you be taken seriously even in other discussions?

Edited February 17, 2018 by betsy

[Scott Mayers]

You have NO 'logic' here, Betsy. Nor do you have 'scientific' capacity. That leaves nothing but questions to WHY you think it even matters at all to say anything here. I don't believe that you are even being honest nor intend to. 

Those religious, whether it be Christianity or not, AFFECTS me and others in destructive ways politically because it is just such moronic thinking that is dooming this world. I'll tell you what....if you are sincere, tell us who YOU are. I'm beginning to smell the stench of dirty socks and honey here.