Post Reply
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Just WHO is the One Jesus said was "the ONLY true God"? - John 17:3
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 12:47AM #1
theMadJW
Posts: 49
He wasn't referring to himself...or a Ghost!

 
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 1:05AM #2
Namchuck
Posts: 11,349

Jan 15, 2012 -- 12:47AM, theMadJW wrote:

He wasn't referring to himself...or a Ghost!

 



That comment is bound to earn itself a sermon from iamachildofhis! :)


Assuming for a moment that Jesus even existed to say it at all, he must have been referring to the despotic God of the Jewish Bible. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 2:10AM #3
theMadJW
Posts: 49

Barring your pompous opinions, you are correct!

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 3:59PM #4
Namchuck
Posts: 11,349

Jan 15, 2012 -- 2:10AM, theMadJW wrote:


Barring your pompous opinions, you are correct!




Which of my opinions do you consider to be"pompous", that is, 'self-important, affectedly grand or solemn'?


The utterly well-founded opinion that one would be hard-pushed to make a case for an historical Jesus, or the equally correct observation that the God of the Bible is an ogre?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 4:01PM #5
theMadJW
Posts: 49

Jan 15, 2012 -- 3:59PM, Namchuck wrote:

Jan 15, 2012 -- 2:10AM, theMadJW wrote:


Barring your pompous opinions, you are correct!




Which of my opinions do you consider to be"pompous", that is, 'self-important, affectedly grand or solemn'?


The utterly well-founded opinion that one would be hard-pushed to make a case for an historical Jesus, or the equally correct observation that the God of the Bible is an ogre?


"Assuming for a moment that Jesus even existed"


"the despotic God"

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 4:07PM #6
Namchuck
Posts: 11,349

Jan 15, 2012 -- 4:01PM, theMadJW wrote:

Jan 15, 2012 -- 3:59PM, Namchuck wrote:


Jan 15, 2012 -- 2:10AM, theMadJW wrote:


Barring your pompous opinions, you are correct!




Which of my opinions do you consider to be"pompous", that is, 'self-important, affectedly grand or solemn'?


The utterly well-founded opinion that one would be hard-pushed to make a case for an historical Jesus, or the equally correct observation that the God of the Bible is an ogre?




"Assuming for a moment that Jesus even existed"


"the despotic God"




Historical biblical scholarship has all but given up on the enterprise of trying to establish whether Jesus existed at all.


And that the biblical God is despotic is the easiest thing to show - from the Bible itself. Take, for example, the story of the Great Flood that involves the Bible God committing both genocide and ecocide as a result of his own short-sightedness.


Neither of these views could be considered 'pompous' by any well-informed biblical student. 


You have yet to identify how they are supposedly 'self-important' or 'affectedly grand' claims.


In the mean time, your accusation of pomposity on my part teeters on the brink of amounting to bearing false witness on your part.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 4:21PM #7
theMadJW
Posts: 49

   Two refernces exist, plus THOUSANDS who were persecuted, many as entire families WILLINGLY thrown to the Lions, the fact that people in every land have been inspired by his teachings, and the stark honesty found in the biblkical accounts all INDICATE (not PROVE) he existed.


   To state your OPINION as absolute fact is pompous. Are you also an atheist?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 4:35PM #8
Namchuck
Posts: 11,349

Jan 15, 2012 -- 4:21PM, theMadJW wrote:


   Two refernces exist, plus THOUSANDS who were persecuted, many as entire families WILLINGLY thrown to the Lions, the fact that people in every land have been inspired by his teachings, and the stark honesty found in the biblkical accounts all INDICATE (not PROVE) he existed.


   To state your OPINION as absolute fact is pompous. Are you also an atheist?




A whole variety of people in every age have lived and died on the basis of their religious views, not just Christians. But people ready and willing to die for their faith doesn't make their views automatically true.


By the way, there is now very good evidence that shows that the numbers of Christians supposedly killed in Roman circuses was enormously inflated by later Christian writers. The Samnites were slaughtered in large numbers by the Romans. Should one, on the basis of this well-attested fact, adopt the religious views of those people?


And there you go bearing false witness again! When did I claim that my views on these issues were "absolute fact"!? You are likely over-reacting on the basis of some sort of emotional commitment.


There is no compelling evidence that Jesus was an actual historical person. I personally think there likely was an authentic personage that gave rise to the legends and myths that eventually accumulated around him, but the chances that we will ever know who he really was is now extremely remote.


And does being an atheist render my views any less valuable? One becomes an atheist for reasons, some of them very compelling, you know.


And, please, show the "two references"?

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 4:44PM #9
theMadJW
Posts: 49

False witness my saying "many"?


You've blown your credibility with me.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jan 15, 2012 - 4:48PM #10
Namchuck
Posts: 11,349

Jan 15, 2012 -- 4:44PM, theMadJW wrote:


False witness my saying "many"?


You've blown your credibility with me.




No, bearing false witness in saying that my views were "pompous" and that I claimed that they were "absolute fact". Both unproven by you.


Thus, my credibility stands while your own appear to be in tatters!   Undecided


Where, for instance, is the "two references" you seem reluctant to advance?

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 3  •  1 2 3 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook