|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 3, 2023 17:39:13 GMT
Wait, what? Um, no. No it is not. Jesus literally says otherwise. This is the chicken before the egg problem too... how exactly do you follow Christ and have salvation, if you don't even believe he is the son of God? You are basically saying it is more important for works than faith. Which is the antithesis to the overall theme of the New Covenant vs the Old. All them Jews be going to hell. After all they aren't Believers, right? I have no idea what will come of all them or what options they may have when their end or end times comes, but the pretty basic tenet of Christianity is that you must have faith in Christ for salvation, yes. There are also the Messianic Jews. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 17:49:28 GMT
Why are you making this just about Jews as if some Christians might have a special desire to see Jews in hell as opposed to, well... anyone and everybody else? That's dishonest. Besides which, it has less to do with "what people want" than how they perceive reality. That's like implying that you're racist if you recognize that sickle cell anemia attacks people of a certain skin colour and not others. Really poor analogies don't mean anything. Well, your accusation of antisemitism is both wrong and inappropriate. It's not like Christians should be "immune to criticism," but at least make it a legitimate and rational accusation. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 17:50:41 GMT
Really, eh? Where does Jesus say "believe that I am the Son of God"? Now, if you mean "believe in" as not just an opinion (i.e., believing a certain proposition to be a fact) but as "believing in" to mean "stake your life upon," then I agree with you. But most people don't mean that. They mean "hold this opinion," and many who do so demonstrate no connection between said opinion and the way they live. As for "works vs. faith," that is a false dichotomy that bows to a post-enlightenment reduction of "faith" to "belief." Biblical faith ( pistis) is allegiance and trust, not mere opinion. When this is grasped, it's not difficult to reconcile between Paul's "faith not works" from James's "faith without works is dead." Paul is not talking about "not working"; he's talking about the attempt to gain (and retain) status by works of Torah. OK, hold up... no point in continuing if you don't even believe Jesus is the son of God. Do you? Irrelevant. The point is not whether I or someone else believes in God—the issue is whether it matters that someone believes Jesus to be the Son of God. Tell me...what does it mean that Jesus is the Son of God? What is the meaning of the term? What are the implications? |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 3, 2023 18:00:01 GMT
OK, hold up... no point in continuing if you don't even believe Jesus is the son of God. Do you? Irrelevant. The point is not whether I or someone else believes in God—the issue is whether it matters that someone believes Jesus to be the Son of God. Tell me...what does it mean that Jesus is the Son of God? What is the meaning of the term? What are the implications? I am not wasting my time bickering with you about what Jesus said regarding being the son of God if you don't even believe he is. It is pointless. I have no desire to go down your usual semantics game rabbit hole if we can't even start with the same foundation. |
|
|
|
Post by william on Nov 3, 2023 18:14:28 GMT
Really poor analogies don't mean anything. Well, your accusation of antisemitism is both wrong and inappropriate. It's not like Christians should be "immune to criticism," but at least make it a legitimate and rational accusation. If telling an entire faith that they gotta believe your way if the want the prize - sure seems anti-something. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 3, 2023 18:32:22 GMT
And then you blow it. Freon You might disagree, but this is certainly a Christian (or Christian scriptural) point of view. Simply read the Philippine hymn (in Philippians ch. 2), which is likely the oldest Christian piece of literature and compare it to Isaiah 45. It unmistakably equates Jesus with YHWH. As does John the Baptist's proclamation of Jesus as the "coming of YHWH," referencing Isaiah 40. Apparently this view of an "embodied YHWH" coheres with a 1st-century Jewish view of the "two YHWHs in heaven," one of which is "embodied" (as described in Two Powers in Heaven, by Alan F. Segal). That view, of course, was discarded—for obvious reasons. Definitely a Christian view, and I would be willing to bet, a minority one. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 20:04:58 GMT
Irrelevant. The point is not whether I or someone else believes in God—the issue is whether it matters that someone believes Jesus to be the Son of God. Tell me...what does it mean that Jesus is the Son of God? What is the meaning of the term? What are the implications? I am not wasting my time bickering with you about what Jesus said regarding being the son of God if you don't even believe he is. It is pointless. I have no desire to go down your usual semantics game rabbit hole if we can't even start with the same foundation. See? I think this is one of your biggest problems. Read what I wrote. Stop imposing meanings on what I'm not saying. I NEVER said I didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. I said that following him (and "following in the footsteps of someone" means discipleship, apprenticeship, mentorship—a pretty intense concept in the culture in which it was written)—is more important than holding the opinion that Jesus is the Son of God. Especially when someone doesn't even know what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God. Merely assenting to some syllables without meaning is quite literally meaningless. If someone says, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God," but doesn't even know what it means, what is that worth? Absolutely nothing. Do you know what it means? Or is it merely assent to a "statement," some kind of sign of correctness or belonging? I certainly believe it and have some idea of what it means... |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 20:05:35 GMT
Well, your accusation of antisemitism is both wrong and inappropriate. It's not like Christians should be "immune to criticism," but at least make it a legitimate and rational accusation. If telling an entire faith that they gotta believe your way if the want the prize - sure seems anti-something. Again, irrelevant. Telling people they're going to get cancer if they keep smoking is not "anti-those people." |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 20:06:41 GMT
You might disagree, but this is certainly a Christian (or Christian scriptural) point of view. Simply read the Philippine hymn (in Philippians ch. 2), which is likely the oldest Christian piece of literature and compare it to Isaiah 45. It unmistakably equates Jesus with YHWH. As does John the Baptist's proclamation of Jesus as the "coming of YHWH," referencing Isaiah 40. Apparently this view of an "embodied YHWH" coheres with a 1st-century Jewish view of the "two YHWHs in heaven," one of which is "embodied" (as described in Two Powers in Heaven, by Alan F. Segal). That view, of course, was discarded—for obvious reasons. Definitely a Christian view, and I would be willing to bet, a minority one. Freon Uh...nope. You missed the the point. Legal traces the belief in Jewish texts. And the reason the belief was discarded seems obvious—because it buttressed the Christian point of view (you know, just like the messianic "Son of Joseph"). |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 3, 2023 20:19:33 GMT
Definitely a Christian view, and I would be willing to bet, a minority one. Freon Uh...nope. You missed the the point. Legal traces the belief in Jewish texts. And the reason the belief was discarded seems obvious—because it buttressed the Christian point of view (you know, just like the messianic "Son of Joseph"). All that education, and yet all you can recite is the dogma. Are you sure you're a RELIGIOUS studies scholar, or a CHRISTIAN studies one. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 20:20:30 GMT
Uh...nope. You missed the the point. Legal traces the belief in Jewish texts. And the reason the belief was discarded seems obvious—because it buttressed the Christian point of view (you know, just like the messianic "Son of Joseph"). All that education, and yet all you can recite is the dogma. Are you sure you're a RELIGIOUS studies scholar, or a CHRISTIAN studies one. Freon What's the dogma? Please be specific. Because nothing in that post specifically referred to dogma. I was referencing historical data. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 3, 2023 20:35:13 GMT
All that education, and yet all you can recite is the dogma. Are you sure you're a RELIGIOUS studies scholar, or a CHRISTIAN studies one. Freon What's the dogma? Please be specific. Because nothing in that post specifically referred to dogma. I was referencing historical data. Oh, history is it? Because unless some miraculous new discovery occurred, historic records don't go back that far. So is the Bible 'history' now? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 3, 2023 20:35:28 GMT
I am not wasting my time bickering with you about what Jesus said regarding being the son of God if you don't even believe he is. It is pointless. I have no desire to go down your usual semantics game rabbit hole if we can't even start with the same foundation. See? I think this is one of your biggest problems. Read what I wrote. Stop imposing meanings on what I'm not saying. I NEVER said I didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. I said that following him (and "following in the footsteps of someone" means discipleship, apprenticeship, mentorship—a pretty intense concept in the culture in which it was written)—is more important than holding the opinion that Jesus is the Son of God. Especially when someone doesn't even know what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God. Merely assenting to some syllables without meaning is quite literally meaningless. If someone says, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God," but doesn't even know what it means, what is that worth? Absolutely nothing. Do you know what it means? Or is it merely assent to a "statement," some kind of sign of correctness or belonging? I certainly believe it and have some idea of what it means... No, this is YOUR problem. I NEVER said you didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. I said IF you don't and I further clarified wanting to start from the same foundation. YOU are the one reading into that more than I said. YOU are now further qualifying your comments to include "the opinion" I never asked you to merely assert Jesus is the Son of God, you are arguing against a strawman now. What I clearly said was belief and faith. You can't have belief or faith in Jesus as the Son of God if you don't even know what it means and are just asserting a statement. So, again, if we can't start from the same foundation, no point in continuing. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 21:13:36 GMT
What's the dogma? Please be specific. Because nothing in that post specifically referred to dogma. I was referencing historical data. Oh, history is it? Because unless some miraculous new discovery occurred, historic records don't go back that far. So is the Bible 'history' now? Freon Oops, was I referencing the Bible? Nope. I was referencing extra-biblical historical texts (not "history books," but texts from a long time ago). |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 21:14:26 GMT
See? I think this is one of your biggest problems. Read what I wrote. Stop imposing meanings on what I'm not saying. I NEVER said I didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. I said that following him (and "following in the footsteps of someone" means discipleship, apprenticeship, mentorship—a pretty intense concept in the culture in which it was written)—is more important than holding the opinion that Jesus is the Son of God. Especially when someone doesn't even know what it means for Jesus to be the Son of God. Merely assenting to some syllables without meaning is quite literally meaningless. If someone says, "I believe that Jesus is the Son of God," but doesn't even know what it means, what is that worth? Absolutely nothing. Do you know what it means? Or is it merely assent to a "statement," some kind of sign of correctness or belonging? I certainly believe it and have some idea of what it means... No, this is YOUR problem. I NEVER said you didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. I said IF you don't and I further clarified wanting to start from the same foundation. YOU are the one reading into that more than I said. YOU are now further qualifying your comments to include "the opinion" I never asked you to merely assert Jesus is the Son of God, you are arguing against a strawman now. What I clearly said was belief and faith. You can't have belief or faith in Jesus as the Son of God if you don't even know what it means and are just asserting a statement. So, again, if we can't start from the same foundation, no point in continuing. Dude, this is what you said: "I am not wasting my time bickering with you about what Jesus said regarding being the son of God if you don't even believe he is. It is pointless" (bold added). What do you think "Son of God" means? |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 3, 2023 21:17:26 GMT
No, this is YOUR problem. I NEVER said you didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God. I said IF you don't and I further clarified wanting to start from the same foundation. YOU are the one reading into that more than I said. YOU are now further qualifying your comments to include "the opinion" I never asked you to merely assert Jesus is the Son of God, you are arguing against a strawman now. What I clearly said was belief and faith. You can't have belief or faith in Jesus as the Son of God if you don't even know what it means and are just asserting a statement. So, again, if we can't start from the same foundation, no point in continuing. Dude, this is what you said: "I am not wasting my time bickering with you about what Jesus said regarding being the son of God if you don't even believe he is. It is pointless" (bold added). What do you think "Son of God" means? Yes, IF you don't BELIEVE. Are you unaware of what IF means now too? That BELIEVE != merely assert? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 3, 2023 21:19:50 GMT
Dude, this is what you said: "I am not wasting my time bickering with you about what Jesus said regarding being the son of God if you don't even believe he is. It is pointless" (bold added). What do you think "Son of God" means? Yes, IF you don't BELIEVE. Are you unaware of what IF means now too? That BELIEVE != merely assert? And here's the problem. What does it mean to believe that Jesus is the "Son of God"? What does Son of God mean? Until someone knows what that means, they can hardly believe it. But they can certainly follow him. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 3, 2023 21:23:20 GMT
Yes, IF you don't BELIEVE. Are you unaware of what IF means now too? That BELIEVE != merely assert? And here's the problem. What does it mean to believe that Jesus is the "Son of God"? What does Son of God mean? Until someone knows what that means, they can hardly believe it. But they can certainly follow him. There is no problem. You just keep grasping at straws now. First the problem was you accusing me of saying things I did not, your building a strawman on things I did not assert, and now you want to play games about what the word believe means. You are not worth the time. Stop playing games. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 3, 2023 21:43:50 GMT
Oh, history is it? Because unless some miraculous new discovery occurred, historic records don't go back that far. So is the Bible 'history' now? Freon Oops, was I referencing the Bible? Nope. I was referencing extra-biblical historical texts (not "history books," but texts from a long time ago). And who wrote these 'texts't? You're going to make this difficult aren't you, when in the end, you will end up agreeing that the sources of these 'texts' are not authoritative, and very likely religious. To which I will say, they are Christian dogma. So can we just save some time, and cut to that last part? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by william on Nov 3, 2023 22:06:54 GMT
If telling an entire faith that they gotta believe your way if the want the prize - sure seems anti-something. Again, irrelevant. Telling people they're going to get cancer if they keep smoking is not "anti-those people." You sure do work hard at not understanding others. |
|
