|
|
Post by jasmine on Nov 3, 2023 23:06:17 GMT
If you follow Jesus, yet don’t consider Him to be the Son of God, are you a Christian? Here’s the kicker: following Jesus is more important than believing he is the Son of God. True. But it should go hand in hand. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 12:47:35 GMT
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. So you can’t or won’t explain but it means for Jesus to be the Son of God but people have to believe that to be a Christian. Unhelpful. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 12:48:00 GMT
Here’s the kicker: following Jesus is more important than believing he is the Son of God. True. But it should go hand in hand. What does it mean for Jesus to be the Son of God? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 12:50:06 GMT
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 Irrelevant. I didn’t say the texts were authoritative. I said evidence exists that in the first century at least some Jews believed in an embodied YHWH in heaven. And now none do. Thats what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 12:52:58 GMT
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. Well you’re missing the point that if someone believes something is true, they’re not just making a prejudiced choice about other people. If the house is on fire, it’s not prejudice to believe that those are who refuse to leave will die. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 4, 2023 13:43:01 GMT
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. So you can’t or won’t explain but it means for Jesus to be the Son of God but people have to believe that to be a Christian. Unhelpful. No, a Christian would know what it means to believe Jesus is the Son of God and you are just playing games now. I have zero interest in trying to talk to someone who is clearly not beiing genuine right now. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 14:55:42 GMT
So you can’t or won’t explain but it means for Jesus to be the Son of God but people have to believe that to be a Christian. Unhelpful. No, a Christian would know what it means to believe Jesus is the Son of God and you are just playing games now. I have zero interest in trying to talk to someone who is clearly not beiing genuine right now. A Christian would know? Here's my challenge to you—most don't. If "most Christians would know," then it shouldn't be difficult to explain it, if not to me, then to everyone else reading this thread on "What is A Christian?" |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 4, 2023 14:57:08 GMT
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 Irrelevant. I didn’t say the texts were authoritative. I said evidence exists that in the first century at least some Jews believed in an embodied YHWH in heaven. And now none do. Thats what I said. Then I'll make the argument that at least some Christians right now see no connection between Jesus and that other word you reference. And I'll make the argument that at least some Christians consider the way you practice Christianity to be blasphemous and sinful. And finally, I'll make the argument that there were indeed, as you say, some Jews in the first century who believed as you say. The total number was two. Prove me wrong. So if all of this is not clear to you, what I am saying is that if it is not ACCEPTED history, then it's just unverified stories (hmmm, 'fake news'), and to see a recognized scholar such as yourself use them as if they prove any point, says that our scholarly standards have seriously declined. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by william on Nov 4, 2023 15:54:27 GMT
You sure do work hard at not understanding others. Well you’re missing the point that if someone believes something is true, they’re not just making a prejudiced choice about other people. If the house is on fire, it’s not prejudice to believe that those are who refuse to leave will die. Again with the uncomparable comparison Houses do catch on fire and burn to the ground in the real world. Bushes burn without being consumed in the superstitions you hold in your mind. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 4, 2023 16:39:09 GMT
No, a Christian would know what it means to believe Jesus is the Son of God and you are just playing games now. I have zero interest in trying to talk to someone who is clearly not beiing genuine right now. A Christian would know? Here's my challenge to you—most don't. If "most Christians would know," then it shouldn't be difficult to explain it, if not to me, then to everyone else reading this thread on "What is A Christian?" Difficult to explain? You can't even explain if you do believe Jesus is the Son of God or not. Again, until we come up with a foundation to move forward, there is no point. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 17:04:27 GMT
Irrelevant. I didn’t say the texts were authoritative. I said evidence exists that in the first century at least some Jews believed in an embodied YHWH in heaven. And now none do. Thats what I said. Then I'll make the argument that at least some Christians right now see no connection between Jesus and that other word you reference. Agreed. Which is why I don't just lean on my perspective or opinion. I'll show them where it says that in Christian scripture. "At least some Christians..." Maybe. "At least some Christians" think that interracial marriage is wrong, so I don't care that much about what "at least some Christians" think. Great counter-argument there. Very scientific. Maybe we should ignore all first-century texts because we can't prove that any of them describe views held by only two people. I'm hardly a "recognized scholar." Not like Alan Segal, who might have even less "recognition" than, say, a Michael Heiser (who appeals to Segal's work). Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this line of argument, but it's pretty weak. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 17:06:57 GMT
Well you’re missing the point that if someone believes something is true, they’re not just making a prejudiced choice about other people. If the house is on fire, it’s not prejudice to believe that those are who refuse to leave will die. Again with the uncomparable comparison Houses do catch on fire and burn to the ground in the real world. Bushes burn without being consumed in the superstitions you hold in your mind. What you're saying is that you don't believe this, therefore nobody else has the right to. And because they do, they are horrible people. Despite their intent and actions to attempt to rescue people from the fate they believe those people are destined for. To help my case, let me appeal to atheist Penn Jillette: “I’ve always said, I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” And yet you think it's hateful for Christians to act on their beliefs that someone else might be fated for hell. Weird. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 17:09:20 GMT
A Christian would know? Here's my challenge to you—most don't. If "most Christians would know," then it shouldn't be difficult to explain it, if not to me, then to everyone else reading this thread on "What is A Christian?" Difficult to explain? You can't even explain if you do believe Jesus is the Son of God or not. Again, until we come up with a foundation to move forward, there is no point. No. Misrepresentation again. I've explicitly and clearly said that I DO (and I believe I used caps) believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Why are you pretending I didn't say that? Do you need the actual quote? Let's reaffirm this: I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God and I believe that I have a pretty good idea of what that means. You claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God but for some reason you're reticent to explain what that means. Instead of answering, you keep calling into question my own believe, despite my clear clarification. Why? What are you trying to do with this? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 17:11:02 GMT
Here’s the kicker: following Jesus is more important than believing he is the Son of God. True. But it should go hand in hand. So following Jesus "should go hand in hand" with believing that he is the Son of God. But what does it mean for him to be the Son of God? Is that just a claim to an ambiguous statement with no clear meaning? If so, then "believing in it" means nothing except maybe the mindless assent to a statement for the sake of acceptance and belonging into "the right group." Which seems pointless to me. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 4, 2023 17:44:39 GMT
Then I'll make the argument that at least some Christians right now see no connection between Jesus and that other word you reference. Agreed. Which is why I don't just lean on my perspective or opinion. I'll show them where it says that in Christian scripture. "At least some Christians..." Maybe. "At least some Christians" think that interracial marriage is wrong, so I don't care that much about what "at least some Christians" think. Great counter-argument there. Very scientific. Maybe we should ignore all first-century texts because we can't prove that any of them describe views held by only two people. I'm hardly a "recognized scholar." Not like Alan Segal, who might have even less "recognition" than, say, a Michael Heiser (who appeals to Segal's work). Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this line of argument, but it's pretty weak. Sure, no problem. I can simplify. Your original argument is BS. Clear? Let me put it another way. Just because someone wrote something down, does not make it true. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by william on Nov 4, 2023 18:03:57 GMT
Again with the uncomparable comparison Houses do catch on fire and burn to the ground in the real world. Bushes burn without being consumed in the superstitions you hold in your mind. What you're saying is that you don't believe this, therefore nobody else has the right to. And because they do, they are horrible people. Despite their intent and actions to attempt to rescue people from the fate they believe those people are destined for. To help my case, let me appeal to atheist Penn Jillette: “I’ve always said, I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” And yet you think it's hateful for Christians to act on their beliefs that someone else might be fated for hell. Weird. Off you go again deliberately tying to misunderstand anything that threatens your superstitions. Try reading my post again because what you claim I said, ain’t what I said. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 18:23:10 GMT
Agreed. Which is why I don't just lean on my perspective or opinion. I'll show them where it says that in Christian scripture. "At least some Christians..." Maybe. "At least some Christians" think that interracial marriage is wrong, so I don't care that much about what "at least some Christians" think. Great counter-argument there. Very scientific. Maybe we should ignore all first-century texts because we can't prove that any of them describe views held by only two people. I'm hardly a "recognized scholar." Not like Alan Segal, who might have even less "recognition" than, say, a Michael Heiser (who appeals to Segal's work). Not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this line of argument, but it's pretty weak. Sure, no problem. I can simplify. Your original argument is BS. Clear? Let me put it another way. Just because someone wrote something down, does not make it true. Freon Your response? BS. I never claimed that "it was true because someone wrote it down." Check it out...did I say that? What is true, and which was my claim from the beginning, was that an "embodied YHWH in heaven" was part of some Jewish people's theological package in the first century. That was my claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 18:25:25 GMT
What you're saying is that you don't believe this, therefore nobody else has the right to. And because they do, they are horrible people. Despite their intent and actions to attempt to rescue people from the fate they believe those people are destined for. To help my case, let me appeal to atheist Penn Jillette: “I’ve always said, I don’t respect people who don’t proselytize. I don’t respect that at all. If you believe there is a heaven and hell, and people could be going to hell or not getting eternal life or whatever, and you think it’s not really worth telling them this because it would make it socially awkward. How much do you have to hate somebody to not proselytize? How much do you have to hate someone to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” And yet you think it's hateful for Christians to act on their beliefs that someone else might be fated for hell. Weird. Off you go again deliberately tying to misunderstand anything that threatens your superstitions. Try reading my post again because what you claim I said, ain’t what I said. 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 Monster Man on Nov 4, 2023 18:30:58 GMT
Difficult to explain? You can't even explain if you do believe Jesus is the Son of God or not. Again, until we come up with a foundation to move forward, there is no point. No. Misrepresentation again. I've explicitly and clearly said that I DO (and I believe I used caps) believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Why are you pretending I didn't say that? Do you need the actual quote? Let's reaffirm this: I do believe that Jesus is the Son of God and I believe that I have a pretty good idea of what that means. You claim to believe that Jesus is the Son of God but for some reason you're reticent to explain what that means. Instead of answering, you keep calling into question my own believe, despite my clear clarification. Why? What are you trying to do with this? If you said that, I missed it. You first said it was irrelevant when I asked. OK, went back and looked, I don't see where you explicitly and clearly said that you believe after you told me it was irrelevant. The only reason I have been reicent to explain anything is because you first started this game of saying it was irrelevant when I asked you if you even believed Jesus is the Son of God. My point was clear from the start, that is was pointless for us to discuss semantics around what comes first, following Christ of believing in Christ if you don't even believe He is the Son of God. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 4, 2023 18:39:41 GMT
Sure, no problem. I can simplify. Your original argument is BS. Clear? Let me put it another way. Just because someone wrote something down, does not make it true. Freon Your response? BS. I never claimed that "it was true because someone wrote it down." Check it out...did I say that? What is true, and which was my claim from the beginning, was that an "embodied YHWH in heaven" was part of some Jewish people's theological package in the first century. That was my claim. When people communicate different points of view, each presents arguments that support their position. Those arguments must be relevant, meaning applicable to the subject, significant, meaning in high enough numbers to compare to the numbers being counter-argued, and verifiable, meaning generally accepted as accurate. Yours does not meet two of those metrics. Therefore, BS. Freon |
|
