Cheat Engine Forum Index Cheat Engine
The Official Site of Cheat Engine
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


I 100% whole heartedly miss Clifford
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
I have offered my defense. If you view it as insufficient, then that is your business. The difference in the "I am" was explained well in the reddit post. He was claiming divinity, and I believe that based on what I have read. I do not find your arguments against that statement to be sufficient either.


you haven't offered your defense, you have offered links that are thoroughly rebuked by what i have offered prior. links that even present arguments and problems that are not touched on by any of your material.

when you are repeatedly asked to demonstrate what your defense is, you refuse.

further, you fixate on this one issue, while actively avoiding addressing any of the other disagreements.

you have not provided a defense that has not been laid to rest, you simply have shut your eyes from the rebuttal i have given, and refused repeated requests to present your own defense, even making up lies to defend yourself.

your argument doesn't even hold for "I am" against my disagreements; one such being that many of the Gospels as well as the most ancient manuscripts did not use “I AM” in John 8:58, and it has a long history of being translated and interpreted differently. (this means you are clearly wrong or uneducated to say that there is zero confusion on this)
your desperate reddit link even incorrectly says that Jesus says something similar in Revelations -- when the bible and scholars clearly show that it was not Jesus, but God making this statement (according to the anonymous authors who wrote it at least).

furthermore, as the trinity was developed hundreds of years after Jesus, and the disciples and earliest Christians were all ignorant of the trinity, there can be no doubt that the early Christians did not understand these verses this way, but that this interpretation came later.
this is supported further by the narration being absent from the other synoptic gospels, and is only in the youngest document, John, which came much later (around the beginning of the second century). clearly no early Christians accepted what you make necessary to know salvation.

you have not even addressed how this statement presents a problem of a logical dilemma for the trinity. that is because you have not attempted to address any of the objections (perhaps you do not understand them). you have only dishonestly attempted to avoid doing so.


greatsage wrote:
HackOtaku wrote:
I have offered my defense. If you view it as insufficient, then that is your business. The difference in the "I am" was explained well in the reddit post. He was claiming divinity, and I believe that based on what I have read. I do not find your arguments against that statement to be sufficient either.


i checked your reddit link too, and it's a veritable lie. it comes down to claiming "it's an indirect reference, because they can translate similarly" -- "the greek can be translated to have a similar meaning to the translation of Exodus 3:14"

and goes on to make an argument as such:
Quote:
I'll give definitions for each word in the Greek and the Hebrew:

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה "I am"

אֲשֶׁ֣ר "That/Which"

אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה "I am"


biblehub.com/hebrew/ehyeh_1961.htm

Ehyeh means "I will be", so this desperate attempt is flat out incorrect. as far as i can tell, the book of ruth is the only place this is translated "I am", the original poster clearly doesn't understand what they're saying. this is simply a fallacy of false equivocation.

all of the other claims by God in the old testament are direct and indisputable, so there is no good foundation whatsoever for divinity in a claim with no convincing evidence or direct testimony.
worse, it is a statement that you can not authenticate or verify as coming from Jesus, but only as being attributed to Jesus through a manuscript from an anonymous author-- written decades later from hearsay, not eyewitnesses.
a claim to divinity should not have such a shaky foundation but rather should be indisputable and exact, not vague and indirect.
the claim does not hold up to scrutiny, and a statement of "I am"/"I have" can not be taken as evidence of being God (there is no reason to do so), especially as God is not known only through indirect inference or paraphrased references to prior claims. God has no problem saying in clear terms that He is God, and there is not a single statement where Jesus does such a thing.

>Not only that, but the entire account of His life points to this
funny to say this, when you don't have an entire account of Jesus' life, or even a record/testimony of his life contemporary with him.
but we do have such a thing for Muhammad ﷺ, and this is established. that is why historians have some doubt Jesus existed, but know that Muhammad ﷺ is the only Prophet in historical record, and who is attested to contemporary sources.
the only sources you claim for Jesus are in dispute with each other, and a house divided against itself can not stand.


still not addressing any of the points, i guess because you are not capable. still, your link doesn't address the disputes or refutations or offer anything new.

Br. Erik bin Kisam wrote:

bloggingtheology.net/2016/11/17/ehyeh-aser-ehyeh-al-azaly-alladzi-la-yazulu-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%a3%d8%b2%d9%84%d9%8a-%d8%a7%d9%84%d8%b0%d9%8a-%d9%84%d8%a7-%d9%8a%d8%b2%d9%88%d9%84-rabbi-saadiah-ben-yosef-gaon/
In Exodus/Shemot 3:14prophet Moses asked God what is His name, then God said to him Ehyeh ašer ehyeh אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה. The common English translation of this enigmatic phrase is: “I am what I am“, often contracted in English as “I AM” and often thought as one of God’s name. I probably think that the most literal translation of its meaning phrase from hebrew is “I Shall Be What I Shall Be“.

However one may wonder what this God’s Name really is? I would like draw the reader attention to the works of the great Rabbi Saadia Gaon ben Yosef (882-942) or Saʻīd bin Yūsuf al-Fayyūmi also known by the acronym “Rasag” who is the most famous Gaonic sage, a great Talmudic scholar, philosopher and hebrew grammarian.

In his Arabic translation of the Torah in Exodus 3 :14 he translated Ehyeh ašer ehyeh as “Al Azāly alladzī lā yazūlu” الأزلي الذي لا يزول which means

“The eternal which never perishes“

It is evident that Rashag and Rashbam rendering of the verse do away with any possibility that God is one being in Three Persons. The entirety of the existence of God is that He shall always be eternal. The trinitarian truth claims that Jesus was begotten was then invalidated. God is always ONE unseparated exclusive PERSON the ONE who never ceases to exist therefore who absolutely do not die. If there is existence that ‘eternity’ belongs to, then there is ONE who exists and will aways exist, never begotten . If there is ONE who never perishes , then there is only ONE who does. No other “personages” can be introduced.

Thus He Shall Be What He Shall Be: “The Eternal”.


here is a jewish revert to islam who clarifies that Exodus 3:14 has no relation to John 8:58.

again you can not authenticate what was actually said by Jesus, if it was even actually said. nor do you have the author to explain the meaning, so you are distorting the words of the author and of Jesus.
the clearest meaning is therefore the most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction -- which is simply that Jesus was not claiming divinity, but stating that he had seen Abraham (thus the entire sentence and discussion matter., and the numerous Christian translations that render the conversation as such)

Quote:
web.archive.org/web/20170326220036/https://unveiling-christianity.net/2016/03/27/examination-john-85659-exodus-31314/
According to Driver’s view, the future verb ‘eheye’ in both Exodus 3:12 and 3:14 does not convey an ontological conception or description of God and this is in line with Rashi’s view.
No doubt Onkelos, another notable Rabbinical exegete, interprets Exodus 3:14 as revealing God’s ‘shem’ (name), but we feel that Rashi and Driver are more justified in their interpretation.
If ‘eheye’ is truly the name of God, then Exodus 4:15, which says, “You shall speak to him and put the words in his mouth, and I will be with your mouth and with his mouth and will teach you both what to do.” wouldn’t make much sense. The context is the appointment of Aaron as Moses’ spokesperson by God and so God says that “I will be with your mouth…I will teach you what you are to do.”
It has nothing to do with God’s identity. It has everything to do with putting someone in charge by God’s decree and His instructions as to how things will be. And if it was really God’s name, then a human being has no business using it for himself, but the verb is used numerous times for and by human beings throughout the Old Testament (cf. Judges 11:9; Ruth 2:13; 2 Samuel 7:14).

In the foregoing discussion and careful examination of John 8:56-59 and Exodus 3:12-14, we have seen that the Trinitarian interpretation in hopes of deifying Jesus is founded upon translated texts that are reeked with inconsistencies.
We have also meticulously examined the contexts of those texts and have come to the conclusion that they do not in any way propel a Trinitarian view.
And finally, upon careful consideration of the John and Exodus texts, we do not feel that the Trinitarian has a leg to stand on when they attempt to connect the two.
There is no basis or even an allusion in John 8 to support that Trinitarian connection. And the final nail in the coffin of the Trinitarian interpretation of Exodus 3:14 is hammered down by Christian translations themselves as they translate ‘eheye’ correctly in the future tense as “I will be” in Exodus 3:12.


and here is yet another refutation you will simply refuse to address. there is no good evidence to claim that Jesus was claiming divinity, and you actively avoid doing so.
you do not even seem to profess whether or not you support the trinity, especially if your whole basis for the trinity relies on an explanation and justification that negates it

accordingly, though -- you think The Eternal, the Everliving, the One Who Does Not Perish, the Self-Subsisting -- is limited, subjugated, humiliated, and died. there is nothing holy about such a lie against God or His servant whom never claimed such a thing. the Jews understand that Exodus 3:14 is completely incompatible with what you are asserting with Jesus -- and by making the assertion, you are demonstrating that you do not understand what God was claiming in Exodus.
Quote:
jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11305-names-of-god
Of the names of God in the Old Testament, that which occurs most frequently (6,823 times) is the so-called Tetragrammaton, Yhwh , the distinctive personal name of the God of Israel.
This name is commonly represented in modern translations by the form "Jehovah," which, however, is a philological impossibility (see Jehovah). This form has arisen through attempting to pronounce the consonants of the name with the vowels of Adonai ( = "Lord"), which the Masorites have inserted in the text, indicating thereby that Adonai was to be read (as a "ḳeri perpetuum") instead of Yhwh. When the name Adonai itself precedes, to avoid repetition of this name, Yhwh is written by the Masorites with the vowels of Elohim, in which case Elohim is read instead of Yhwh.
In consequence of this Masoretic reading the authorized and revised English versions (though not the American edition of the revised version) render Yhwh by the word "Lord" in the great majority of cases.

This name, according to the narrative in Exodus 3 (E), was made known to Moses in a vision at Horeb. In another, parallel narrative (Ex. vi. 2, 3, P) it is stated that the name was not known to the Patriarchs. It is used by one of the documentary sources of Genesis (J), but scarcely if at all by the others. Its use is avoided by some later writers also. It does not occur in Ecclesiastes, and in Daniel is found only in ch. ix. The writer of Chronicles shows a preference for the form Elohim, and in Ps. xlii.-lxxxiii. Elohim occurs much more frequently than Yhwh, probably having been substituted in some places for the latter name, as in Ps. liii. (comp. Ps. xiv.).

In appearance, Yhwh is the third person singular imperfect "ḳal" of the verb ("to be"), meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person—"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem).
The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought.
There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ḥai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).

at least we do not say that Jesus died, but you can not say that "He who lives eternally" has died, that the Source and Sustainer of all creation and life has died, and that the Self-Existing is begotten of creation (a woman) and even dependent on it.
God protect us from such lies, and we seek refuge in Him in His eternal perfection.


    (Acts 3:13) The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go.

    (Acts 2:22) Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.


clearly Jesus saw himself as separate and sent from God, and that His God was Our God, and that his relationship with God as a "Father" was not literal, but the same for him as for us.
and, clearly, the earliest Christians understood this -- if they thought Jesus was God, like you claim Jesus made apparent in John 8:58, they would say Jesus as God did these miracles himself.
they knew him as another creation of God

    (Acts 2:36) God has made this Jesus,

    (John 20:17) Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.


this is made plain in the old testament, which the Jews are familiar that the phrasing is a colloquialism, not a literal statement

    (Deuteronomy 14:1) You are the children of the LORD your God.


and no wonder, because Jesus makes it clear in direct words of his own, that he was a man.

    (John 8:40) ...you are determined to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God.”

God does not call himself a man, rather, the opposite. and Jesus says that he heard this from God -- that God delivered it to him, a man.

    (Numbers 23:19) "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
    (1 Samuel 15:29) Moreover, the Glory of Israel does not lie or change His mind, for He is not a man, that He should change His mind.
    (Hosea 11:9) I will not execute the full fury of My anger; I will not turn back to destroy Ephraim. For I am God and not man— the Holy One among you— and I will not come in wrath.
    (Job 9:32-33) For He[God] is not a man like me, that I can answer Him, that we can take each other to court. Nor is there a mediator between us, to lay his hand upon us both.


tellmeaboutislam.com/90-verses-jesus-is-not-god.html

and here are 90 verses from the Bible, in them are certain statements where Jesus contradicts the very idea that he is God.

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 79

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 6:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your points have been addressed, you just keep saying they haven't.

If you want to say "you can't prove what Jesus said", then why do you follow the new testament at all? The most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction explanation is Jesus's claim to divinity. I have given you plenty of refutations by people more knowledgeable than myself. Islam's entire belief system is based around bringing Jesus down to elevate Muhammad, so of course they deny His divinity, just like they deny He was crucified, and just like they claim Muhammad was perfect like Jesus.

The bottom line though, is that the context of what was happening, other statements He said "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world; I am not ot this world" as well as His lack of a predicate nomiative when He said it all points to the same thing. Your objections regarding "ehyeh" are flimsy at best.

The rest of your objections come from ignorance about the hypostatic union. Things like "God doesn't sleep ". Jesus was both man and God.

Is God not capable of becoming flesh?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

HackOtaku wrote:
Your points have been addressed, you just keep saying they haven't.

If you want to say "you can't prove what Jesus said", then why do you follow the new testament at all? The most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction explanation is Jesus's claim to divinity. I have given you plenty of refutations by people more knowledgeable than myself. Islam's entire belief system is based around bringing Jesus down to elevate Muhammad, so of course they deny His divinity, just like they deny He was crucified, and just like they claim Muhammad was perfect like Jesus.

The bottom line though, is that the context of what was happening, other statements He said "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world; I am not ot this world" as well as His lack of a predicate nomiative when He said it all points to the same thing. Your objections regarding "ehyeh" are flimsy at best.

The rest of your objections come from ignorance about the hypostatic union. Things like "God doesn't sleep ". Jesus was both man and God.

Is God not capable of becoming flesh?

>Your points have been addressed, you just keep saying they haven't.
this is literally a lie. i have asked you to do so and you have refused. i have contrasted your links with mine-- your links do not answer any of mine, but mine approach your claims.
if you want to actually give a response showing how they are refuted, then by all means, finally do so.
in reality, you have not addressed any of the points, and avoid doing so -- you just keep saying that you have

>If you want to say "you can't prove what Jesus said", then why do you follow the new testament at all?
lol ? who said Muslims follow the new testament ? i have actually told you numerous times that the new testament is not something we hinge any of our religion on, because the Qur'an is evidence enough to confirm the existence of God, and to know Him and His religion, and to confirm the prior prophets. we do not need the new testament or the bible, it is that the bible is confirmed and safeguarded from further corruption by our religion.





>The most straightforward, upon the clearest evidence, and without contradiction explanation is Jesus's claim to divinity.
that is not straightforward, as i have ATTEMPTED TO GET YOU TO DISCUSS, or present SOME EVIDENCE FOR, but you literally just paste a link and pretend "it is apparent and obvious", then say it is a "truth", while regarding literally none of the objections i have personally presented.
this is not how a truth is established.






moreover, there are clear contradictions that have not been addressed, but rather handwaved by axioms necessary for your conjecture to begin to function. there are even contradictions all over your new testament and even more made by the assertion that Jesus is divine. that is because your new testament is the work of men, full of fabrications and interpolations, and the work of people removed from ever witnessing the events purported.

take for example:
    (Ephesians 1:4) For He[God] chose us in Him[God], before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His[God] sight

so here you see we all were known to God before the world -- clearly if this can be said, then it can be said that before Jesus or Abraham was born, as they were both chosen by God, they may have had some relationship or knowledge of each other. this is also in line with Jeremiah 1:5, and so the idea that Jesus is claiming to have some existence of which to know Abraham prior, i.e., before birth being set apart, is not a new idea, but rather one that the Jews were familiar with.

i think in all fairness, you should admit there are enough clear objections here to reasonably have to intuit the difference some other way as to what Jesus said -- as it is not a concrete enough statement to hinge salvation or definite knowledge upon (otherwise, God failed in communicating His salvation by allowing it to be translated and interpreted in a way as to say Jesus is not divine, but rather he has seen Abraham).
if it were not possible to interpret it as being anything else but a claim to divinity, then it would be similar to every statement prior God made Himself known by.
however, i have shown you that Christians have always translated this verse to mean many different things, with the most reasonable and removed from scriptural contradiction, and removed from contradiction of Jesus' own words, that Jesus is clearly stating in context to the conversation that he has seen Abraham before.


all while you are disregarding every single contrary assertion.

if it was straight forward, clear evidence, there would not be any disagreement in translations, or numerous different opinions on this, especially by Christians.





> I have given you plenty of refutations by people more knowledgeable than myself.
K. LOL.
no, you haven't. you have given DOCTRINES AND CLAIMS, and these claims are what i have presented rebuttals to. you have not addressed any of these rebuttals in any form.

what you are really saying AND demonstrating is that you believe blindly what you have insufficient knowledge of to understand or even intelligently present/defend to rational analysis.





>Islam's entire belief system is based
you are acting in pure ignorance and arrogance to tell me what our belief system is based around with absolutely no comprehensive study, and after saying a statement that clearly dismisses you from ever being an authority who could reasonably define what our belief system is.
you demonstrated your ignorance by saying we follow the new testament -- there was no such thing in the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ as a new testament that the muslims followed, as there was no translation for hundreds of years after.






>bringing down Jesus
that is what you are doing by saying he said things he never said, and even saying that he was cursed to die a humiliating punishment, and died naked and tortured.
you say he prayed so hard to be saved by God, that he bled blood. and you say that God can not be just without an innocent and brutal sacrifice of Jesus.
and still, you pray to Jesus, but you believe that the righteous Jesus' prayers are not answered by God Almighty.

we say that Jesus came to teach us better than this, and promised us better than this, and was higher than this so much so that God heard him and saved him, and raised him alive to Himself.
God can forgive by His own grace and almighty mercy. He does not require Jesus to do it; as God is without partner. God is above being limited to incapability to forgive, and God is above being limited to imperfection and injustice.

it is rather that this, and more, you are bringing down Jesus with your conjecture,
and you do it further by rejecting the one whom he prophecised would guide into all truth, whom would reprove you for not believing in Jesus.
to obey Jesus is to obey the one he said would come after and guide you, which is Muhammad ﷺ. otherwise, you are rejecting Jesus' guidance and the guidance of the One who sent him.


>to elevate
you are making a lie against God to elevate Jesus!
and you do this to elevate yourself by your creeds, to say it is done by God to make you become God!

[Qur'an 5:17] They have certainly disbelieved who say that God is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent God at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?"
And to God belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and God is over all things competent.
[Qur'an 19:93] There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant.





>The bottom line though, is that the context of what was happening,
what was happening? where the Jews were asking whether he had seen Abraham before, and Jesus said "truly I have seen Abraham"? did you even read the context?
how about you are saying the Jews are claiming he is claiming divinity -- something that can not clearly be reasoned from scripture -- and saying the Jews are telling the truth that Jesus said he was God -- when Jesus just denounced them as liars.
so your statement relies on a claim from liars while denying context of the conversation, context from scripture, etc.





>other statements He said
oh you mean like the ones clearly contrary to the trinity that have been presented which you won't touch on?





>He said "You are from below, I am from above. You are of this world; I am not ot this world"
God isn't from, God is. this statement is not contrary to any bit of Islam, and it holds true for the prophets.
you are limiting to God to space and time while God is unlimited.
in Islam, we accept that Jesus is a spirit and a word sent from God that became flesh, and this statement is in agreement with it.

what exactly is your claim here, anyways?
    (John 8:23) Then He told them, “You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world(ego ouk eimi ek tou kosmou).


this Jesus says about those who follow him, too.

    (John 17:14-16) I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of this world(ego ouk eimi ek tou kosmou).


Jesus is defining other people in the same way he defined himself as "not of this world"; it is not a claim to divinity, otherwise you are saying Jesus is claiming his followers are God too.




>as well as His lack of a predicate nomiative when He said it all points to the same thing.
explain what you mean? are you saying a predicate nominative is something absent from God or required of Him? there are many predicate nominatives attributed to Jesus, none are claims to divinity. there are many attributed to God in the old testament as well.

perhaps you are saying because there is not a predicate nominative in "Truly I tell you, I have" in John 8:58, it must be a claim to divinity?
there is not a predicate nominative necessary to arrive at Jesus claiming to have seen Abraham with this statement, so if an absence of predicate nominative is all you need to validate a claim to divinity, the same absence will validate the simpler interpretation of
"You are saying you have seen Abraham" being answered with "I have [seen Abraham]" / "I am [saying I have seen Abraham]."

and the simplest explanation is the best explanation, as there is no contradiction here.






>Your objections regarding "ehyeh" are flimsy at best.
it was YOUR objection that necessitated ehyeh -- and proves that your objection relies on a flawed translation and false equivocation. what you are doing is not actually responding to the argument, again.
moreover, there are numerous objections, that you still refuse to even touch on.








>The rest of your objections come from ignorance about the hypostatic union. Things like "God doesn't sleep ". Jesus was both man and God.
false, and false. are you saying you understand the hypostatic union when it is regarded as a mystery? it is something that is a mystery because of its confusing and contradictory nature, and can only be confirmed by faith alone. that is to say, a christian relies on salvation through following Jesus' command, while their concept of God is illogical and "mysterious".

too bad that mystery was never obviously taught by Jesus, and because of it you miss out on Jesus' plain teachings of loving the One Lord, the One God, with total submission of the heart, mind, soul, etc.
he never asked you to believe in hypostatic union, but to act on and believe in what he did plainly teach, your religion necessitates your concept of God rest on a mystery, ignorance, and confusion.

really though, such beliefs were developed much later than Jesus' ascension to God, and are simply polytheism.

that is why you say that God suffered and died, or that God has a mother.

but you also are saying more with your hypostatic union -- a doctrine that was not taught in the old testament or even by Jesus , but rather came around 400 years after Jesus, is necessary to attain salvation with God.

the hypostatic union however, is not taught by God in the old testament whatsoever. so did God hide His true nature and deceive us of it? did He lie about Himself and deceive us from His true nature?
you either accept that God does not have this nature, or have to say that the God in the old testament is a different God than the one who is supposed to be in a hypostatic union or trinity.
you can not operate upon monotheism with the trinity or hypostatic union, so either you reject monotheism or you reject the trinity and hypostatic union.
tell me though, since your belief necessitates that God somehow deceived with how He revealed and made Himself known prior to Jesus, why is that preferable to God only deceiving the evil ones among the Jews into believing they had successfully crucified the Messiah?





>Is God not capable of becoming flesh?
this is an erroneous question that shows you have no concept of the Abrahamic God. you might as well ask, can God remove Himself, or destroy Himself, or make Himself no longer God? these are erroneous questions that are not sensible to the understanding of God that He made known to the Jews through scriptures and many prophets, which you claim Jesus to be the fulfillment of. how would the fulfillment be something that is contrary and undermining?

moreover, if He did, He would be violating His statements that He does not change, and that He is not a man.

similarly, you could ask: "Is God not capable of becoming stupid?"; for God to become man is to lessen Himself, make Himself dependent, remove His omniscience and omnipotence and any unique qualities, while also assuming the qualities of others. truly, God is the singular Being who alone possesses all of the qualities of being God, He does not share them with others, and He is not like others, nor are others like Him.

    (Psalms 102:27) But you are always the same; you will live forever.


God is unique, and not limited as or similar to creation.

    (Job 25:4-6) How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man, that is a worm? and the son of man, which is a worm?


the Biblical God has made it clear that He does not do such a thing.

the entire Christian faith relies on Jesus being virgin born, ministering to the Jews, being betrayed, crucified, and conquering death.

Jesus is not required for Islam to exist. it is therefore absurd to say we need Jesus to lower him.

Jesus was a great prophet and brought a beautiful message of love and hope and brotherhood, but Islam would still exist without Jesus.

Islam requires no man to exist, but is God's perfect faith.
Islam requires only God.

the Prophets (upon them be peace) came to deliver messages to the people, but even the prophets mean nothing when compared to God.

God guides whom He wills and leads astray whom He wills.

we have the choice whether or not to listen to the prophets-- and Jesus, peace be upon him, was no more than a prophet and, like all prophets, unworthy of worship.

God does not need to display His power to us.

we are commanded to believe whether or not He is in our sight.

for God to display Himself as a man is pointless.

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.


Last edited by greatsage on Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:23 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 128

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 11:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IS this considered a muslim hate crime, with how much we are getting him to type
_________________
Some Retarded Muslim who crys ad hominem every chance he can get wrote:
btw, since im a leech i have to get a job, arent u a 4x leech by having 4?

https://guildav.com
THIS IS JUST AN OPINION
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Channel GannoK wrote:
IS this considered a muslim hate crime, with how much we are getting him to type


[Qur'an 18:30] Indeed, those who have believed and done righteous deeds - indeed, We will not allow to be lost the reward of any who did well in deeds.






rather, it is a crime that you have been rendered so incapable as to offer little or no substance. perhaps it is best to stop wronging your self.


let me guarantee you that HackOtaku will have as he intends, and pursuing knowledge and God in sincerity has put him high above you in rank, good action, and piety.
so it is not just for you to equate yourself with him. he has approached truth, while you will not begin to reason.
deeds are only by intention, as long as one intends good, they will be good.



[Qur'an 41:34] And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel [evil] by that [deed] which is better; ...



may God guide, reward, and bless HackOtaku, and make things easy for him; sharpening his mind and softening his heart.
although God has bound Himself to the exercise of Mercy, the punishment of God upon the evil-doers is guaranteed and the Day of Resurrection is coming.
may we be counted among those deserving of His Favour and Mercy, safeguarded in His Eternal Refuge, and not of those who are astray.


Kyle, may you be admonished, as justice is your ultimate destination, and there is no doubt you will return to God and be held accountable for all that you do.
this is beyond doubt; but those who have counted their own ruin are not going to believe.



Fudayl ibn ‘Iyad, may Allah have mercy on him, wrote:
“Admiration is part of faith and envy is part of hypocrisy.
The believer admires others and does not envy others. The hypocrite envies others and does not admire others.
The believer overlooks the faults of others, admonishes others, and gives good advice. The hypocrite disgraces others, insults others, and betrays others.”




[Qur'an 2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.



[Qur'an 87:9] So remind and instruct (them in the truth) in case reminder and instruction may be of use.
[Qur'an 51:55] And remind, for indeed, the reminder benefits the believers.

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.


Last edited by greatsage on Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 128

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So because I choose not to engage with you asinine and futile ego driven attempts to convert everyone, that makes me a criminal in the eyes of Islam?

Religion of peace and acceptance.

_________________
Some Retarded Muslim who crys ad hominem every chance he can get wrote:
btw, since im a leech i have to get a job, arent u a 4x leech by having 4?

https://guildav.com
THIS IS JUST AN OPINION
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Channel GannoK wrote:
So because I choose not to engage with you asinine and futile ego driven attempts to convert everyone, that makes me a criminal in the eyes of Islam?

Religion of peace and acceptance.

only a criminal would object to being held accountable for their wrong-doing.

Islam does not teach that we can convert anyone. it is rather because you refuse to engage in the truth that you are a criminal, and because you wrong your self. it comes to no surprise then that you facilitate and fabricate lies instead of come with respect, honesty, and manhood.

let it be shown that again, you demonstrate yourself to have no functional knowledge of the religion of Islam (and possibly any religion), but you are fine with saying you "understand it very well".



[Qur'an 18:29] And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve.

[Qur'an 28:56] Verily, you guide not whom you like

[Qur'an 10:108] Say: "O you mankind! Now truth (i.e. the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ), has come to you from your Lord. So whosoever receives guidance, he does so for the good of his own self; and whosoever goes astray, he does so to his own loss; and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs."




Islam is the religion of the natural state of man, the religion of reason and thought.
Allah has distinguished the truth from falsehood. He has enjoined all that is good and forbidden all that is evil.



[Qur'an 2:256]There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in taghoot (false gods) and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break.”

[Qur'an 41:46] “Whosoever does righteous good deeds, it is for (the benefit of) his ownself; and whosoever does evil, it is against his ownself. And your Lord is not at all unjust to (His) slaves.”


guidance is in the hand of Allah.
if Allah willed, He could guide all of mankind, for there is nothing that He cannot ordain on this earth or in the heavens.



[Qur'an 6:149] Say: "With Allah is the perfect proof and argument, (i.e. the Oneness of Allah, the sending of His Messengers and His Holy Books, to mankind); had He so willed, He would indeed have guided you all."


[Qur'an 6:104] Verily, proofs have come to you from your Lord, so whosoever sees, will do so for (the good of) his ownself, and whosoever blinds himself, will do so to his own harm, and I am not a watcher over you.”

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 128

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

greatsage wrote:
Channel GannoK wrote:
So because I choose not to engage with you asinine and futile ego driven attempts to convert everyone, that makes me a criminal in the eyes of Islam?

Religion of peace and acceptance.

only a criminal would object to being held accountable for their wrong-doing.

Islam does not teach that we can convert anyone. it is rather because you refuse to engage in the truth that you are a criminal, and because you wrong your self. it comes to no surprise then that you facilitate and fabricate lies instead of come with respect, honesty, and manhood.

let it be shown that again, you demonstrate yourself to have no functional knowledge of the religion of Islam (and possibly any religion), but you are fine with saying you "understand it very well".



[Qur'an 18:29] And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve.

[Qur'an 28:56] Verily, you guide not whom you like

[Qur'an 10:108] Say: "O you mankind! Now truth (i.e. the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ), has come to you from your Lord. So whosoever receives guidance, he does so for the good of his own self; and whosoever goes astray, he does so to his own loss; and I am not (set) over you to arrange your affairs."




Islam is the religion of the natural state of man, the religion of reason and thought.
Allah has distinguished the truth from falsehood. He has enjoined all that is good and forbidden all that is evil.



[Qur'an 2:256]There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path. Whoever disbelieves in taghoot (false gods) and believes in Allah, then he has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that will never break.”

[Qur'an 41:46] “Whosoever does righteous good deeds, it is for (the benefit of) his ownself; and whosoever does evil, it is against his ownself. And your Lord is not at all unjust to (His) slaves.”


guidance is in the hand of Allah.
if Allah willed, He could guide all of mankind, for there is nothing that He cannot ordain on this earth or in the heavens.



[Qur'an 6:149] Say: "With Allah is the perfect proof and argument, (i.e. the Oneness of Allah, the sending of His Messengers and His Holy Books, to mankind); had He so willed, He would indeed have guided you all."


[Qur'an 6:104] Verily, proofs have come to you from your Lord, so whosoever sees, will do so for (the good of) his ownself, and whosoever blinds himself, will do so to his own harm, and I am not a watcher over you.”


Go fuck yourself, I've committed crimes against your religion, sure. But nobody gives a SHIT. You've comitted ACTUAL UNLAWFUL crimes and actions in your life. Do you see me branding you as a CRIMINAL?

You're a piece of shit, and it's not because you're a muslim, although that doesn't help your public perception much.

_________________
Some Retarded Muslim who crys ad hominem every chance he can get wrote:
btw, since im a leech i have to get a job, arent u a 4x leech by having 4?

https://guildav.com
THIS IS JUST AN OPINION
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Channel GannoK wrote:
Go fuck yourself, I've committed crimes against your religion, sure. But nobody gives a SHIT. You've comitted ACTUAL UNLAWFUL crimes and actions in your life. Do you see me branding you as a CRIMINAL?

You're a piece of shit, and it's not because you're a muslim, although that doesn't help your public perception much.


someone's triggered that they just got proved to be an ignorant, arrogant loudmouth.
& triggered that they were proved to know absolutely nothing about me or my religion.

you got mad quick, you should know that "The strong are not the best wrestlers. Verily, the strong are only those who control themselves when they are angry."


do you not know that Islam destroys that which came before it? turning to Islam means turning to God with a new and clean slate.


truly, you have committed crimes against yourself, crimes against my religion, and more. it is your own actions that brand you, not i.
as for what you accuse me of, there can be no doubt that your accusations are the words of a proven liar.
you will never be placed in a position to give testimony of another's character.

you are just behaving loud and annoying, and no good nor anything productive do i recollect as coming from you.

rectify your character before it is too late--
you have already been given good example that Allah changes the conditions of those who change what is within themselves.

the best people are those with the best character, and those who bring the most benefit to mankind.
do not anchor yourself in pride to counting your own ruin, do not proudly persist in increasing your bad character.
better yourself, and be beneficial to others.
you will die as you live, so fear the state in which you die and return to your Lord.

indeed, I invite you to a way that is better, and a religion of ease.
Islam does not demand perfection from us -- Islam is perfect, Muslims are not.
rather, Islam asks that we make continuous, sincere efforts to cultivate excellent character and good action.
come to Islam, and turn to goodness in action and character. God is ever-acquainted with what you do, and there is no doubt of the coming of the Day of Recompense and of His Perfect Justice.
listen to your heart, and use your reason;
this is the truth, and this is what is better for you.



[Quran 18:58] Yet, your Lord is the Forgiver, full of mercy.

[Qur'an 57:28] O you who believe, you shall reverence God and believe in His messenger. He will then grant you double the reward from His mercy, endow you with light to guide you, and forgive you. God is Forgiving, the Most Merciful.

[Qur'an 6:54] ... Your Lord has decreed that mercy is His attribute. Thus, anyone among you who commits a transgression out of ignorance, and repents thereafter and reforms, then He is Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[Qur'an 45:21] Or do those who commit evils think We will make them like those who have believed and done righteous deeds - [make them] equal in their life and their death? Evil is that which they judge.

[Qur'an 16:30-31,33-34] For those who do good in this world is good; and the home of the Hereafter is better. And how excellent is the home of the righteous -
Gardens of perpetual residence, which they will enter, beneath which rivers flow. They will have therein whatever they wish. Thus does Allah reward the righteous -

Do the disbelievers await [anything] except that the angels should come to them or there comes the command of your Lord? Thus did those do before them. And Allah wronged them not, but they had been wronging themselves.
So they were struck by the evil consequences of what they did and were enveloped by what they used to ridicule.

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Channel GannoK
pffrt
Reputation: 128

Joined: 12 Apr 2008
Posts: 601

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're persecuting an atheist for his beliefs.


Some open minded paragon of virtue you are. You are so fucking stupid, hypocritical, and you have the ultimate lack of self awareness here. More than anyone I've ever known in life.

Just admit you believe in shariah law and want a caliphate you fucking terorist, quit going around your way to try and defend yourself as a nice person, when really you're just like the rest of religious america, ATTACK AND SHUN THE NON BELIEVERS, THEY MIGHT INFOUENCE OUR CHILDREN AWAY FROM GOD. Reject and deny the idea of taqiyah, and tell us the muslims who interpret the Quran, front to back literally, that they are the wrong ones and misinterept the word of god. Someone's gotta be wrong. And the book is supposed to be infallible.


You're fucking crazy and you do so much mental gymnastics

_________________
Some Retarded Muslim who crys ad hominem every chance he can get wrote:
btw, since im a leech i have to get a job, arent u a 4x leech by having 4?

https://guildav.com
THIS IS JUST AN OPINION
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Channel GannoK wrote:
You're persecuting an atheist for his beliefs.


Some open minded paragon of virtue you are. You are so fucking stupid, hypocritical, and you have the ultimate lack of self awareness here. More than anyone I've ever known in life.

Just admit you believe in shariah law and want a caliphate you fucking terorist, quit going around your way to try and defend yourself as a nice person, when really you're just like the rest of religious america, ATTACK AND SHUN THE NON BELIEVERS, THEY MIGHT INFOUENCE OUR CHILDREN AWAY FROM GOD. Reject and deny the idea of taqiyah, and tell the muslims who interpret the Quran, front to back literally, that they are the wrong ones.


You're fucking crazy and you do so much mental gymnastics


i have not persecuted you. this is another lie from you.
we do not accept your testimony about others, Kyle. it is known your character is beyond exercising justice, and hearing you on others would be to extend your injustice upon them. it is one consequence of your being a braggart whom is incessant at dealing in abuse and malice.


>Just admit you believe in shariah law and want a caliphate you fucking terorist
you do not know what a caliphate is, or what shariah law is. if you did, you would not need a muslim to admit anything about them.
we already know your knowledge on these subjects is absent, so continue making a mockery of yourself.

an equivalent statement to a Christian might be, "just admit you want the 10 commandments!! and you want Jesus to return!!", how do you think that makes you look? it speaks volumes about your self-awareness, and willingness to speak in ignorance.



[Qur'an 60:8-9] "God does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes – from dealing kindly and justly with them. Indeed, God loves those who act justly.
God only forbids you from those who fight you because of religion and expel you from your homes and aid in your expulsion – (forbids) that you make allies of them. And whoever makes allies of them, then it is those who are the wrongdoers."



>really you're just like the rest of religious america, ATTACK AND SHUN THE NON BELIEVERS
this is expressly forbidden in Islam, and while i no longer need to justify my claims when speaking to the contrary of you on this subject, you are still easily refuted.
i have even previously presented quotations from the Qur'an on page 2 that refute this baseless and unsupported assertion.

however-- you are expressly demonstrating that this is your own value (to attack and shun those who believe different), along with your oblivious self-awareness accompanying hypocrisy after hypocrisy.


i urge you to do better and be better, and to understand there is no need for animosity to those of us who are successful in doing so.





[Qur'an 35:15] O mankind, you are those in need of Allah, while Allah is the Free of need, the Praiseworthy.

[Qur'an 38:2] But those who disbelieve are in pride and dissension.

[Qur'an 37:35] For they, when they were told that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, would puff themselves up with Pride,

[Qur'an 40:56] Indeed, those who dispute concerning the signs of Allah without [any] authority having come to them - there is not within their breasts except pride, [the extent of] which they cannot reach.

[Qur'an 3:20] And if they submit [in Islam], they are rightly guided; but if they turn away – then upon you is only the [duty of] notification. And Allah is Seeing of [His] servants.

[Qur'an 9:129] Still, if they turn away from you, say:
"God is sufficient for me; there is no deity but He. In Him have I put my trust, and He is the Lord of the Supreme Throne (as the absolute Ruler and Sustainer of the universe and all creation, Who maintains and protects it)."

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
HackOtaku
I posted the 500000th topic
Reputation: 79

Joined: 31 May 2007
Posts: 247

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Link
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HackOtaku wrote:

we loved that show til they started mocking religion. salaam alaikum, hope your day is going well

(Luke 24:36) As they said these things, Yeshua himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, "Shalom Aleichem.."

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Volictic
Cheater
Reputation: 61

Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 41

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

xavier is one of my favorite tv shows
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
greatsage
How do I cheat?
Reputation: 13

Joined: 05 Aug 2014
Posts: 0

PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Brolock wrote:
xavier is one of my favorite tv shows

id welcome it back very quickly. lately ive been getting into anti-humor, we were evolved by eric andre. now im starting to get some of tim heidecker's humor.
together with gregg turkington they're brilliant

HackOtaku wrote:
Jesus was both man and God

since that doesn't make any sense in the english language, or logically, it is important to seek the answer to the question of what the 'death of Jesus' truly means; in what sense did Jesus die --
Who died, How of, what?

who:
according to James White:
    A God-man is dying.
    By John 1:14, the Son became ‘one’ with the flesh of Christ.
    There is no intermingling of the natures.
    The divine nature does not cease to be divine.
    The human nature does not become something other than (or more) than human.
    The union (or the union of the God man) died.


now we have the who, and have to ask what the death means for the God-man. death has many meanings, and pastor Thabiti Anyabwile states that the death of Christ (God-man) is:

Pastor Thabiti Anyabwile wrote:
Jesus died. What can it mean to say the Son of God died? And how should the Christian respond to that news? The death of Jesus Christ means the death of death itself. The death of death in the death of Jesus Christ also means victory over death for those who trust in Christ as their God and Savior.



circular reasoning is employed here, he has said that the death of Jesus means the death of death. yet, what is death and how can death itself die?
in answering this problem, he gives six definitions for death:

    Death is a curse (Genesis 2:15-17).
    Death is wage (Romans 6:23).
    Death is an enemy (Jeremiah 9:21).
    Death is an agony (Luke 16:23-24),
    Death is both a physical and spiritual death (Ephesians 2:1-2,5).
    There are two deaths for unbelievers (Revelations 20:11-15).


by these (five) things being nullified/conquered by the divine Son, we are to understand that death 'died'.

it can be said that the Christ died a physical death by the hands of an enemy, through which he suffered agony and in doing so, the divine Son paid (nullified) the wages of sin and ended the curse of God upon the sinners.
this holistically covers points one through five, wherewith each nature playing a distinctive and fundamental role.

pastor Samuel Green agrees with this definition, given his endorsement of a comment made by a colleague of his via a discussion with myself, which was rendered as such:
pastor Samuel Green wrote:
“His physical body ceased to function, and a non-physical or immaterial aspect of His ontology became disembodied.”


given all of what we’ve been told by erudite christian apologists, we’re still at a juncture of disillusion – who actually died this physical death?

James White says that the divine Son became incarnate in the human known as Jesus, and the result is the God-man, without the two natures combining, yet he’s calls it a union, and a union is by definition the joining two two entities:

    The action or fact of joining together or being joined together, esp. in a political context.


how can they be a ‘union’ and yet the two distinct natures not be joined together?
it seems then, James White is speaking paradoxically (inconsistently).

the Catholic Encyclopedia attempts to give us some clarity (please note, by catholics they mean Trinitarian Christians):

    Nestorians: One person, two hypostases, two natures.
    Catholics: One person, one hypostasis, two natures.
    Monophysites: One person, one hypostasis, one nature.


given pastor Samuel’s definition and that of pastor Thabiti’s, we understand that the God-man suffered a physical death.

this would mean that the human (the body, the flesh) of the Son which is the Christ, died.

Jesus has two natures, his divine nature known as the Son and his human nature known as the flesh and blood of the Christ.

if he died a physical death (and this what is being claimed)-- then the flesh and blood of Christ died, that is the human nature died.

this now, brings us to a startling conclusion – the premise of John 3:16 is nothing short of a fallacious myth.
    (John 3:16) For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


yet, it is not the Son (divine nature) which died, but it is the physical Jesus which died.

if we take James White’s claim of the union of the God-man ‘dying’, then we come to the conclusion that the death of a union is the separation of both entities, i.e. the union is no more – the divine Son is no longer incarnate in the flesh of the human known as the Jesus.

this therefore presents a problem for Christianity, besides the Bible being wrong, the death itself was no major sacrifice. by the terms laid out by paul of tarsus and Thabiti, there is wages of death necessary for every person, and all of mankind, and so one person can not suffice, a bigger suffice must be necessary.

to understand this, i must simplify my terms of argumentation:
Son (divine nature) became incarnate in a human shell known as the blood and flesh of Jesus.
the flesh perished/suffered, but the (divine) Son, did not.
from this, it is therefore clear, that the shell is what died, and the death of a human, as Shaykh Deedat concludes, cannot pay for the sins of mankind -- only the death of the Son can achieve this -- which is what John 3:16 appeals to, but of which the Christological rendition of the death betrays.

this leaves us with not only confusion, mistrust and a lack of salvation, but most importantly – we’re left with the impression that Christians themselves do not understand what the death of the God man implies and how it affects their theology.

given all of the definitions, examples and explanations demonstrated, in the end – what we see is a belief on one end of the Christological spectrum and a practical reality on the other.

in saying this, the body which the divine Son could have entered (become incarnate), could have been any animate shell – another human such as a female or even an animal.

as shocking as it is, the body and flesh of the human Jesus does not matter, as what is needed for salvation according to Christianity -- is not the death of a human, but the death of a divine Son which they clearly do not believe in through saying that there is a dual nature to Jesus, who is fully God and fully man.

it is simply one of the classic go-to arguments by our christian brothers and sisters to argue that only the human nature suffered, not the divine nature.

the reason this is argued is to circumvent the law of non-contradiction. what is the law of non-contradiction?

    A cannot be A and not-A at the same time.


to circumvent this, we are told Jesus has two natures, so he suffered in one nature (the human nature or A) and didn’t suffer in another nature (the divine nature or B).
on the surface this may seem like a reasonable response, until you break it down:

Jesus, the 2nd person of the trinity and therefore God, can be said to have suffered. to say otherwise is to deny the personhood of Jesus in totality as the Trinitarian schema is presented to us. i.e., as the God-man suffered, so must the 2nd person of the trinity have suffered.

many christians and calvinists in particular are fond of this argument-- but other Christians historically and popularly accuse them of being nestorians by dividing Jesus into two persons, a human person and a divine person.
those who argue in the form that Calvinists and most other popular Christian speakers do, fall prey to being declared apostates:

Council of Ephesus (431 CE) wrote:
If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.


we can abstract this ontological model even further:
God-man {(Father), (Son), (Holy Spirit)}
in this rendition, we can say the God-man suffered, as we are told each member of the Godhead is fully divine. so to say Jesus has two natures--and only one nature, the human nature suffered, is literally the heresy of nestorianism.
to say God-man died then rose again, is against saying only the human nature died/resurrected/suffered, as according to the trinity, it's still one being, one God-man, the whole God-man suffered and died equally.


[Qur'an 4:157-158] and for their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!"
However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so;
and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture.
For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:
nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed Almighty, Wise.

_________________
Imam ash-Shafi’i ( رحمه الله ) wrote:
It does not befit the lion to answer the dogs.


Last edited by greatsage on Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:52 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Cheat Engine Forum Index -> Random spam All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

CE Wiki   IRC (#CEF)   Twitter
Third party websites