The New Christian Thread 4

[MuscleXtreme]

Right 3 in 1.


But the Son is the Father.. God? God submits to God.



<_<; Yeah it's easy.. God. But according to Christians, Jesus is God.

When we hear that Jesus is God, we also think that Jesus cannot die (naturally it's what anyone would think), but dies. And this god that dies, dies for the sake of humanity so that God doesn't wipe humanity off the face of this earth, instead forgives our sins for the rest of human existence.

God died so that God wouldn't wipe out humanity.

Astagfirullah.

This can't be serious. If you're going to attack Christian theology, you should actually have knowledge of basic fundamental Christian theology...

Not understanding why Christ was needed is demonstrative of a failure to understand fundamental Christian beliefs.

[WarrNation]

Right 3 in 1.

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Spirit of the Father and Son is God.

1 God. 3 distinct persons.

But the Son is the Father.. God? God submits to God.

The Son is not the Father.

They are indeed one, but not one and the same.

<_<; Yeah it's easy.. God. But according to Christians, Jesus is God.

God raised Jesus back from the dead (Acts 2:32).
Jesus raised Himself back from the dead (John 2:18-22).
The Spirit of God raised Jesus back from the dead (Romans 8:11).

All three statements above are correct. God is one.

When we hear that Jesus is God, we also think that Jesus cannot die (naturally it's what anyone would think), but dies. And this god that dies, dies for the sake of humanity so that God doesn't wipe humanity off the face of this earth, instead forgives our sins for the rest of human existence.

God died so that God wouldn't wipe out humanity.

Astagfirullah.

Jesus died in the flesh alone. His eternal Spirit, however, never perished but went down to the spirits in prison to proclaim victory by the cross.

Since God is immortal, He had to become flesh, because only as a man could He die- and by dying- destroy the works of the devil.

[illriginalized]

This can't be serious. If you're going to attack Christian theology, you should actually have knowledge of basic fundamental Christian theology...

Not understanding why Christ was needed is demonstrative of a failure to understand fundamental Christian beliefs.

It's very serious.. I'm coming at the angle of someone who if you presented this to them, not ever knowing a thing about Christianity.. it would be a total mind.. lol

[lasher]

It's very serious.. I'm coming at the angle of someone who if you presented this to them, not ever knowing a thing about Christianity.. it would be a total mind.. lol

Just stop. Your objections are juvenile. And as Ive pointed out to you hundreds of times, stem from your simple refusal to listen to what Christian theology says about the distinction between being/essence and person. This is why you never respond to me when I correct you on this. You know that once you have to take notice of this distinction your little proof texts fall apart.

[PaulG]

From my atheist perspective. The trinity makes sense to me. Just not the way most Christians befuddle their points with their cyrptographics.

Just like the duality of man then there is the trinality of God.

So like, man is not just material, man is basically mind/spirit-matter. Dualism.

God is spirit-matter-creator the trinity.
Holyspirit-Jesus-creator

Does this atheist perspective make sense?

[lasher]

From my atheist perspective. The trinity makes sense to me. Just not the way most Christians befuddle their points with their cyrptographics.

Just like the duality of man then there is the trinality of God.

So like, man is not just material, man is basically mind/spirit-matter. Dualism.

God is spirit-matter-creator the trinity.
Holyspirit-Jesus-creator

Does this atheist perspective make sense?

It's an interesting perspective, especially since it takes seriously the incarnation of the Son as a man.

[Neceseco]

nabeel qureshi wrote in his book that he went to a debate between shabir ally and mike licona hoping for shabir to debunk the arguments of licona and left unsatisfied because shabir wasn't able to do so. after that i watched the debate he was referring to and he was right, all shabir did was inventing excuses and potential justifications without even a single evidence.

will watch in the weekend

[lasher]

nabeel qureshi wrote in his book that he went to a debate between shabir ally and mike licona hoping for shabir to debunk the arguments of licona and left unsatisfied because shabir wasn't able to do so. after that i watched the debate he was referring to and he was right, all shabir did was inventing excuses and potential justifications without even a single evidence.

will watch in the weekend

I like Nabeel, but I think White did much better on this particular debate topic. Watch this one. I posted it up already

[MuscleXtreme]

That feel when you're marching into test and just know that you're going to get demolished.

I will be knowing those feels very strongly in a few hours...

[PaulG]

It's an interesting perspective, especially since it takes seriously the incarnation of the Son as a man.

I didn't say that. I said Jesus is the equivalence of the matter part in dualism of man.

The concept of the trinity isn't complicated to understand at all. But, it almost seems like Christians discombobulate the simple concept of the trinity when trying to explain it.

[WarrNation]

From my atheist perspective. The trinity makes sense to me. Just not the way most Christians befuddle their points with their cyrptographics.

Just like the duality of man then there is the trinality of God.

So like, man is not just material, man is basically mind/spirit-matter. Dualism.

God is spirit-matter-creator the trinity.
Holyspirit-Jesus-creator

Does this atheist perspective make sense?

To be totally honest, what you just said doesn't really make any sense.

God is "one in unity". The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father- perfect unity.

[Cassack]

In. Subbed for later. Good stuff my brother. Love and peace to you all, and of course best of luck to all you brothers.

[uwootm8]

tbh Nabeel dropped the ball a bit when responding to the history argument.

Shabir is correct, that as defined dogma there was a development in the creeds toward explicitly stating that the son, spirit, and father are co-equal, consubstantial, co-eternal, etc. But what Shabir left out, and what Nabeel should have pounced on is the historical reality that always preceded these councils. The councils were always called because someone would come along and start preaching something that opposed what the Church has always preached and understood, but hadn't defined as doctrine yet. The Nicene council was called to affirm that Christ was fully divine, not because the bishops decided to get together and make up some new doctrine, but to refute the Arians who had showed up on the scene declaring the new teaching that Christ was created. Same thing with the Holy Spirit and the first council of constantinople.

Nabeel should have shown the writing of the apostolic fathers, first apologists, and the early church fathers which confirm that belief in the trinity, divinity of Christ, divinity of the spirit, etc, was not a historically developed belief over the centuries. These writers were already talking about this stuff long before the councils. But the councils did solidify these teachings into official church doctrine.


Edit: Just one example, from a hostile source:



This was written around 117 AD. It's a non-christian source already showing that Christians were worshiping Christ as divine.

Cool, you watched the debate

Now I need to pick at this point.

If you say the historical reality preceeded the councils, how does that help in affirming that whatever was taught in the council is originally Jesus's belief? because you are saying here:

The Nicene council was called to affirm that Christ was fully divine, not because the bishops decided to get together and make up some new doctrine, but to refute the Arians who had showed up on the scene declaring the new teaching that Christ was created. Same thing with the Holy Spirit and the first council of constantinople.

In other words, somehow from Jesus's day the trinity was believed in (it was not), and the heresies came later, and now orthodoxy has come along to 'correct' (ie back project their own beliefs) back to the pious figures of the genesis of the religion. This has always been seen in the history of pretty much all religions.

Really the only way to figure out what you should believe is simply to be honest with yourself. Did the Prophet Muhammad believe the Qur'an was not eternal (mu'tazili thought), or that human beings have no genuine causal power (ash'ari dogma), the only correct answer is "he probably did not think about it". See, this is the same type of thought that leads me to conclude the trinity just isn't real. Its the historical aspect of any doctrine that actually matters, because if it is important, then God would have given an answer for it.

[Ehsaun]

Cool, you watched the debate

Now I need to pick at this point.

If you say the historical reality preceeded the councils, how does that help in affirming that whatever was taught in the council is originally Jesus's belief? because you are saying here:



In other words, somehow from Jesus's day the trinity was believed in (it was not), and the heresies came later, and now orthodoxy has come along to 'correct' (ie back project their own beliefs) back to the pious figures of the genesis of the religion. This has always been seen in the history of pretty much all religions.

Really the only way to figure out what you should believe is simply to be honest with yourself. Did the Prophet Muhammad believe the Qur'an was not eternal (mu'tazili thought), or that human beings have no genuine causal power (ash'ari dogma), the only correct answer is "he probably did not think about it". See, this is the same type of thought that leads me to conclude the trinity just isn't real. Its the historical aspect of any doctrine that actually matters, because if it is important, then God would have given an answer for it.

Good point. If these so called 'dogmas' are actually true and important then why wasn't it just defined by God in the new testament to avoid all these schisms and debates?

[sawoobley]

Good point. If these so called 'dogmas' are actually true and important then why wasn't it just defined by God in the new testament to avoid all these schisms and debates?

Jesus and God the Father intentionally make the truth difficult to understand so only the pure and heart would recognize it. God makes very little attempt to clear up all debates. Hence one of the reasons Jesus taught in parables. Don't get me wrong. Most of it is pretty straightforward but God doesn't seem to have any interest in making it super easy on us.

[lasher]

Cool, you watched the debate

Now I need to pick at this point.

If you say the historical reality preceeded the councils, how does that help in affirming that whatever was taught in the council is originally Jesus's belief? because you are saying here:

The councils affirmed biblical teaching as well as the teaching of the church throughout the centuries. Combined, this is Jesus' teaching passed on to the apostles, and then passed on through the church.

In other words, somehow from Jesus's day the trinity was believed in (it was not)

The deity of Christ, the Father, and the Spirit was believed in after the resurrection. This is evident through scripture, and all of the extant christian writings leading up to the councils.

and the heresies came later, and now orthodoxy has come along to 'correct' (ie back project their own beliefs)

nope. It isn't projecting beliefs backwards if the beliefs were pushing forward from the primary event (the resurrection).

back to the pious figures of the genesis of the religion. This has always been seen in the history of pretty much all religions.

uh okay?

Really the only way to figure out what you should believe is simply to be honest with yourself. Did the Prophet Muhammad believe the Qur'an was not eternal (mu'tazili thought), or that human beings have no genuine causal power (ash'ari dogma), the only correct answer is "he probably did not think about it". See, this is the same type of thought that leads me to conclude the trinity just isn't real. Its the historical aspect of any doctrine that actually matters, because if it is important, then God would have given an answer for it.

God did give an answer for it. That's why the councils easily affirmed orthodox doctrine and rejected heresy.

[WarrNation]

Good point. If these so called 'dogmas' are actually true and important then why wasn't it just defined by God in the new testament to avoid all these schisms and debates?

That's why I have never paid any attention to any dogmas, doctrines and traditions that come out of the Roman Catholic church or any other so called ancient churches. If God really wanted to us to know more about the "perfect unity of God", He would have shown us more in His Scriptures. But since they are largely silent on the matter, it means God doesn't think it's of any importance to us.

What really matters is our love towards our friends as well as our enemies.

[confuoco]

That's why I have never paid any attention to any dogmas, doctrines and traditions that come out of the Roman Catholic church or any other so called ancient churches.

I'm just going to point out here for the record that the RCC & Protestant churches all hold the first 18 councils in their common histories. The EOC obviously split after the 8th council.

[magog704]

I'm just going to point out here for the record that the RCC & Protestant churches all hold the first 18 councils in their common histories. The EOC obviously split after the 8th council.

i was just about to say this

[MuscleXtreme]

Now I need to pick at this point.

If you say the historical reality preceeded the councils, how does that help in affirming that whatever was taught in the council is originally Jesus's belief?

The way you phrased your sentence doesn't make any sense. History always precedes an event. Are you saying that history does not precede an event? If so, how? Maybe it's a typo and you left a word out???

If not, then it's quite clear that you can look at the history, i.e. the beliefs and traditions of the people at that time prior to a council to see if the council affirmed those beliefs and traditions held prior to a council. That would be positive evidence for Christians.

If not, then it would be on you to pinpoint exactly where those beliefs affirmed by a council were not consistent with the beliefs and traditions of the people prior to a council, and the exact time that those beliefs strayed and prove with evidence on how they differed.

[WarrNation]

I'm just going to point out here for the record that the RCC & Protestant churches all hold the first 18 councils in their common histories. The EOC obviously split after the 8th council.

18 councils? What did they have to speak against that the Scriptures of God hadn't already spoken against?

Anyway, since I'm neither a Roman Catholic nor am I a Protestant, all those councils are pretty much irrelevant to me. The only council I consider to be divinely inspired was the one convened in Jerusalem at the behest of Paul (Acts 15).

[CalmWind]

Just wanted to share that I am learning to embrace temptation and trials. In the past, I used to see them as a bad thing. Something to avoid. Something to ask God to keep away from me. I saw it as a weapon that the demonic forces use against us, to influence us to sin against God.

Now I understand that temptation and such are actually great things. Being tempted is EXACTLY what God wants. It's why God has designed this whole thing this way, all the way back to the Garden of Eden.

Temptation is one of the main methods that can be used in our development. They are an opportunity to grow and mature, and glorify God - so that all may see the work that has been done inside of us. We go from unrepentant sinners, to humble obedient children. This glorifies the Father in both Heaven and Earth.

I see temptation and trials and tribulations differently now. I am finally beginning to understand why I should rejoice in them.

And I understand I need to avoid asking God to keep temptation away. I have to allow God to do his work in me, and embrace the temptation that comes before me and defeat it..... by depending on our Father.

I've gotten to a point where, when temptation comes, sometimes I smile. It's just another chance to glorify our Father, and continue to be made stronger. After all, nobody gives a medical degree to someone who never passed Medical school to become a Doctor....... in the same manner, temptation is one of the classes in our "school", and we need to "pass" by using what we have been taught, so that we may receive our diploma from our Father.

Just felt like sharing this

[TheFornicator1]

All of this introspection is unnecessary. Just get your dick wet already.

[CalmWind]

All of this introspection is unnecessary. Just get your dick wet already.

[img]http://dosminutos.complot.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Nig]

Temptation comes in all forms. It is not specifically related to sex. We can be tempted by greed, etc.....


I will also add, that viewing sex in that fashion is corrupt. You reduce a child of God, a woman, into nothing more than a venue for your hedonism. And also, I would have to ask - would you want a man to treat your future wife in that way? Probably not, right? If you wouldn't want your future wife to be treated that way, then don't treat other women that way, because they are someone else's future wife.

And all this is an aside..... all I really needed to respond with........ was obedience to God

[TheFornicator1]

Consensual sex is a two way street bro. It's enjoyed by both parties.

[streetlegaltank]

@TheFornicator
It is surprising to me how much sexual purity is still valued in western culture (just look at all the miscers who refuse to settle for anything less than a virgin) when your post seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst most people and many professing believers.

[flexnation]

I like Nabeel, but I think White did much better on this particular debate topic. Watch this one. I posted it up already

LMAO at the Q&A part.

White: If 1 John 5:7 is so essential for defining the doctrine of the trinity, show me anyone in the first 400 years after Jesus who cited it to define the doctrine of the trinity?

Bux: Its, its in De Bibule!!!

White: If the Doctrine of the trinity didn't arise until 325 then why did Ignatius say XXX in 107?

Bux: Look at De Daaattee!! 107 Yeaarzz afta Jesus!

White: *Quotes Mark 14:61-64* Explain Why Jesus said this about himself and why the priest understood it the way he did.

Bux: Johns Gospel is Exageraatteed!! Wareeee Doeeezz It say it in de awtha fffreeeee gawspels!!?

Watching Whites reactions to Bux trying to answer his questions is hilarious. 1 hour 19 minute mark for those who wanna skip to it.

[TheFornicator1]

Wow! lmaoooo. Cringe.

[uwootm8]

The councils affirmed biblical teaching as well as the teaching of the church throughout the centuries. Combined, this is Jesus' teaching passed on to the apostles, and then passed on through the church.

dogma... see next point

The deity of Christ, the Father, and the Spirit was believed in after the resurrection. This is evident through scripture, and all of the extant christian writings leading up to the councils.

Well this won't be clear unless Ally's points are answered (which Nabeel didnt do)

[CalmWind]

Was here today, makes me want to build one when i buy my final home