|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 18:45:37 GMT
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. 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... 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? It's not mere semantics to explain what something means if you claim that you believe it. Seems core to the issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 18:52:38 GMT
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 Well, looks like you've lost track of the argument. You challenged my claim that "Jesus is YHWH" and in response I gave evidence that Christians were not the only first-century people to believe that YHWH was embodied. No "numbers" necessary. Truth is not determined by consensus. Ignaz Semmelweis was right about the need for antiseptic practices in medicine despite nobody believing him. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Nov 4, 2023 19:05:30 GMT
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 Well, looks like you've lost track of the argument. You challenged my claim that "Jesus is YHWH" and in response I gave evidence that Christians were not the only first-century people to believe that YHWH was embodied. No "numbers" necessary. Truth is not determined by consensus. Ignaz Semmelweis was right about the need for antiseptic practices in medicine despite nobody believing him. Not at all. I simply reject your evidence because while it is relevant, it is not significant or accurate. And that is why THIS conversation lives in the religious channel; because religion is not based on fact, but on opinion. I'm done here. If you have conversations based on reality and accurate data, and not the fictions you've devoted your life to studying, then you know which channel to find me. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 20:09:46 GMT
Well, looks like you've lost track of the argument. You challenged my claim that "Jesus is YHWH" and in response I gave evidence that Christians were not the only first-century people to believe that YHWH was embodied. No "numbers" necessary. Truth is not determined by consensus. Ignaz Semmelweis was right about the need for antiseptic practices in medicine despite nobody believing him. Not at all. I simply reject your evidence because while it is relevant, it is not significant or accurate. And that is why THIS conversation lives in the religious channel; because religion is not based on fact, but on opinion. I'm done here. If you have conversations based on reality and accurate data, and not the fictions you've devoted your life to studying, then you know which channel to find me. Freon Anyone can read between the lines here. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 4, 2023 21:41:41 GMT
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. 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. 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? It's not mere semantics to explain what something means if you claim that you believe it. Seems core to the issue. LOL... OK, sure Mercy. When you say you never said you didn't... that is not the same thing as clearly affirming you do. And throwing the last bit in at the end with just saying I believe it, was hardly clear at all, but I certainly see now how it does affirm you do. Fair enough? The core of the issue for me was making sure we started with that foundation, otherwise I honestly have little interest in the semantics that come next. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 4, 2023 22:08:10 GMT
It's not mere semantics to explain what something means if you claim that you believe it. Seems core to the issue. LOL... OK, sure Mercy. When you say you never said you didn't... that is not the same thing as clearly affirming you do. And throwing the last bit in at the end with just saying I believe it, was hardly clear at all, but I certainly see now how it does affirm you do. Fair enough? The core of the issue for me was making sure we started with that foundation, otherwise I honestly have little interest in the semantics that come next. K, it's clear that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This whole thing started because I said that belief in Jesus as the Son of God is secondary to following Jesus. I also claim that "belief that Jesus is the Son of God" is nonsensical and impotent if you don't know what it means. Care to elucidate what it means? |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 5, 2023 0:47:54 GMT
LOL... OK, sure Mercy. When you say you never said you didn't... that is not the same thing as clearly affirming you do. And throwing the last bit in at the end with just saying I believe it, was hardly clear at all, but I certainly see now how it does affirm you do. Fair enough? The core of the issue for me was making sure we started with that foundation, otherwise I honestly have little interest in the semantics that come next. K, it's clear that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This whole thing started because I said that belief in Jesus as the Son of God is secondary to following Jesus. I also claim that "belief that Jesus is the Son of God" is nonsensical and impotent if you don't know what it means. Care to elucidate what it means? Well, this is exactly why I think you have this backwards. Belief in Christ is both the basic understanding and recognition that Jesus is the Son of God and your willingness to trust in Him that you are willing to follow him - e.g. live your life as committed to Him and how He wants us to live. This is why I say belief comes first. Otherwise... what is it you are following? |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 5, 2023 1:06:33 GMT
K, it's clear that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God. This whole thing started because I said that belief in Jesus as the Son of God is secondary to following Jesus. I also claim that "belief that Jesus is the Son of God" is nonsensical and impotent if you don't know what it means. Care to elucidate what it means? Well, this is exactly why I think you have this backwards. Belief in Christ is both the basic understanding and recognition that Jesus is the Son of God and your willingness to trust in Him that you are willing to follow him - e.g. live your life as committed to Him and how He wants us to live. This is why I say belief comes first. Otherwise... what is it you are following? Belief in Christ (for salvation or whatever) is not the same as belief that he is the Son of God. Again, to "believe he is the Son of God" without having a clue as to what that means is meaningless. It's like believing that Tuesday is red or that my teacher is radically oriented towards elm. If someone doesn't know what "Son of God" means, what does it mean that Jesus is that? |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Nov 5, 2023 1:21:29 GMT
Well, this is exactly why I think you have this backwards. Belief in Christ is both the basic understanding and recognition that Jesus is the Son of God and your willingness to trust in Him that you are willing to follow him - e.g. live your life as committed to Him and how He wants us to live. This is why I say belief comes first. Otherwise... what is it you are following? Belief in Christ (for salvation or whatever) is not the same as belief that he is the Son of God. Again, to "believe he is the Son of God" without having a clue as to what that means is meaningless. It's like believing that Tuesday is red or that my teacher is radically oriented towards elm. If someone doesn't know what "Son of God" means, what does it mean that Jesus is that? OK... so, what are you getting at here. Just make your point. I presume you have an idea of what this means, or do you really need me to break down the concept of the trinity, divinity, promise, Jesus sacrifice, God... etc... as if you don't know? Come on. |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Nov 5, 2023 1:33:39 GMT
Belief in Christ (for salvation or whatever) is not the same as belief that he is the Son of God. Again, to "believe he is the Son of God" without having a clue as to what that means is meaningless. It's like believing that Tuesday is red or that my teacher is radically oriented towards elm. If someone doesn't know what "Son of God" means, what does it mean that Jesus is that? OK... so, what are you getting at here. Just make your point. I presume you have an idea of what this means, or do you really need me to break down the concept of the trinity, divinity, promise, Jesus sacrifice, God... etc... as if you don't know? Come on. Go ahead..."Son of God" isn't really about Trinity (in fact, it seems to contradict the Trinity), etc. |
|
