What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Author: OntologicalSpider ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 294
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 824
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    RoderickSpode,

    YOUR UNGODLY QUOTE: "You mean he most likely didn't wake you up at 3AM?"

    What part of me wanting Jesus to exist didn't you understand?

    Furthermore, to show respect to Jesus, then the least of which you should capitalize his pronoun "He."  Understood? Then you wonder why I call you "pseudo-christians."  :(

    It's just that I don't think there was any Jesus to capitalize the first letter for who woke you up at 3AM.

    Maybe it was Watson?

    Maybe you dreamed you were Sherlock Holmes (in "A Scandal In Freehold") , and while addressing Dr. Watson while talking in your sleep, Watson thought you were addressing it,  and responded back. And while leaving  your sleep state you interpreted the response as one originating from Jesus?

  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 824
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @ludofl3x
    Google any automaker plant, in fact almost any manufacturing plant. Maybe 1% of robots produced have some sort of human shape. The majority only look like what they need to look like to perform the functions for which they are designed. IBM's Watson, the most advanced AI to date...looks literally nothing like a human. One could posit that this is by design, because the moment we start 'identifying' with robots as peers, you end up with a lot of ethical questions. Watch Be Right Back, an episode of Black Mirror. It raises these ethical questions.  I'm really intrigued by the discussion of AI achieving independent intelligence, and the implications it would have for religion and for how we treat such robots, though, I've tried to start hat discussion many times!
    It's about function. There are robots that are not produced for public appearance, and created to look a certain way that is suitable for it's intended operation. The robots created to interact with humans generally look like humans.
  • ludofl3x
    ludofl3x avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,197
    2
    2
    2
    ludofl3x avatar
    ludofl3x
    --> @RoderickSpode

    Maybe in science fiction, but really all robots are built for function first. There might be some in beta test, but by a wide, wide, wide margin, robots do not look like humans, even the ones who "interact" with humans (as if the manufacturing automation doesn't interact with humans?). They have to humanize some of these to reduce the natural apprehension, like putting googlie eyes on one. There's a couple of robots built by Honda that are humanesque, but they literally serve zero function other than proof of concept right now. 

    Can you give me some examples of the kinds of robots you're talking about, and where we can see them in use?  Also, does god like robots?
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
     and that children should honor their parents. 

    And the punishment for children not honouring their parents is what?


    The Brother accused Jesus of being a killer in his human form.

    No I believe the Brother is suggesting that Jesus as Jehovah from the beginning killed innocent people including children. You just want to ignore this fact.  

    Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
    Yes, Jesus is God. 

    Jesus while in human form for a period of at least 33 years did not kill anyone. Philippians 2:1-11 clearly indicates his divinity - but also notes his intentional humility. 

    Christian doctrine is Jesus is fully God and Jesus is fully human. Yet God is not human. Yet Jesus became human and remains so. 

    Nevertheless, and obviously my point of contention is that Jesus in his human form never killed anyone. He showed no signs of murderous intent - with murder defined as unlawful killing of people.  If the argument as the Brother puts it as you seem to concur with is - God is a bloodthirsty, petty and vindicate killer then the life of Jesus is a glaring irony. Indeed, from the gospel portrayals, Jesus is loving and kind and meek and merciful and well loved by the people.  His sacrificial death on the cross for the people of God is probably the highpoint of humanity. And yet the Brother and you both it seems consider this highpoint in a different light. 

    My position however is that Jesus in his human form was both holy and full of love and compassion and this by any objective standard is the correct picture of Jesus. I think those who object are grasping at intellectual straws.  And if this is his revealed character in human form - then it stands to reason that if Jesus is God, then in his divine form, the same character will extend and be seen throughout the entire bible. I think that if God is petty and vindictive and a serial killer that he would not have been able to contain himself for his time as a human - yet the Gospels clearly show this to be the case.  

    It is my view and the view of millions of people around the world and through history that God is not vindictive or petty or a serial killer.  He is holy and he is just. He is loving and full of compassion. This means that we would see situations where he lays down the law, and brings judgment and justice - and there will be times where we see he shows love and is full of compassion. And this is what we do see in the bible. In both the OT and the NT. God always acts in holiness and he always acts in a way consistent with his nature. If the God we see in the OT did not lawfully put people to death - then I would consider him to be unholy. If he did not warn people of the consequences of their sins - then I would think that would be unjust. Yet God from the beginning has always warned humanity. 

    You have a different view - and that is completely your prerogative.

    I see no reason to continue the circle of justifications.  
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Tradesecret, DEBATE RUNAWAY,


    YOUR QUOTE #1 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “Well on the contrary - my point was entirely directed towards showing that Jesus was not violent and was rather in favour of promoting families - and that children should honor their parents.”  

    YOUR QUOTE #2 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #210): I can only note that it was not my intention to incite violence against parents or children and in fact believed that I was suggesting that the family unit is a good thing which is why Jesus was making such a point. 

    YOUR QUOTE #3 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “My intention was to promote children being nice to their parents and that families are a good thing inherently.”

    YOUR QUOTE #4 RELATIVE TO YOU USING THE TERM “CHILDREN” RELATING TO MATTHEW 15:1-4 (POST #216): “The highest end of my point is that children should honor their parents.” 

    The reason I use the term "offspring" in this situation where Jesus in His serial killing mind condones the murdering of “anyone” that curses their parents, is for the FACT that it covers any age of “offspring” of said parents, get it, BIBLE FOOL?! Therefore, when you erroneously use the term “Children” you further show the membership in how biblically ignorant you truly are relative to Jesus’ actual words in said verses!


    Here, let me give you some more Bible Schooling at your embarrassing and laughable expense AGAIN:

    "Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked,  “Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat! JESUS REPLIED, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?  For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ (Matthew 15: 1-4) 

    GET IT BIBLE FOOL? Jesus' inspired words in the passage above stated with specificity that ANYONE that curses their father or mother shall be put to death, and where He did NOT use your term “children” that you laughably used!  The "Tradition" that Jesus is talking about is the following in the Old Testament: "Anyone who curses his father or mother must surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:17). Jesus does not throw away the OT writings in Matthew 15:1-4 like you pseudo-christians want to do, whereas when you do, you disparage Jesus once again because He does not change His mind (Numbers 23:19), do you understand? Jesus' inspired word uses the term ANYONE and NOT “Children” that you are erroneously proposing!  H-E-L-L-O?

    In addition, do you want to call MARK a LIAR to like you did with Jesus' LITERAL SPOKEN WORD in committing the Unpardonable Sin? “Honor your father and mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.” (Mark 7:10). Mark DID NOT use the term “children” like you are trying to do which only ads more proverbial egg to your face!

    I left out your comical and embarrassing post #218 where you were now HYPOCRITICAL to your first position regarding children as children in the true sense of the term, and where you tried so hard in continuing to use the term “children” now as adults by bending over backwards to defend your Satanic position. Priceless TURNAROUND claims!  You can thank me later.


    Tradesecret, seriously, you really need a break in making yourself the outright Bible fool on DEBATEART in where you are by far passing ethang5 in this respect, unfortunately you are not able to see this fact. Whereas, it would be a blessing for you and the membership if you were banned for a certain time period, where it would a benefit for all of us!

    Your continued Bible ignorance is excused at this time, AGAIN, therefore wipe the proverbial egg from your face relative to the the facts herein. LOL!
    Why are you so desperate to put this onto me? If you knew how to debate properly according the rules of a debate and knew what a real argument was then you could have spared yourself the embarrassment of getting your butt kicked by someone like me. You could have lost the battle, revealed you were intellectually honest (or at least given that perception) and then debated me and kicked my butt. But history now shows the reverse. It shows that you are an ignorant little pissant. One who has no intellectual honesty and now has to berate his opponent with as much vitreol as possible in order to make yourself feel better. 

    Oh by the way, why have you run away from my response to you in your Catholic forum topic? Is it because once more you have revealed yourself to be ignorant and clumsy?

    I note the following for those watching. Jesus used the term children here not in the sense of minors but of adults. He was addressing adults, those who had money. Minors did not have money in those particular days (or very little anyway) and minors could not be pharisees. These are the facts and the facts are not in dispute and no one includng the brother has countered this fact. 

    The brother however did raise quite properly that the verse contained the word "anyone".  He therefore includes minors with adults in the word children. I think he is correct.  This does not mean that Jesus was addressing minors because he was not in the context, But I certainly can see how that connection can be made. As the brother indicated as well - I used the term "kids" in an earlier piece and this was because I was including kids as minors within my argument. 

    Nevertheless, I maintain that I did not cite violence against any person, adult or child.  Neither did Jesus. His intention as mine was to promote the family unit and to encourage people to do the same. It is because we both have a very high regard for the family unit that we both hold that the highest sanctions ought to be available for those who breach it without good excuse. Maintaining that the highest sanction ought to be available for breaching what I consider such a fundamental part of society is not inciting violence. It is highlighting how important I think this family unit is. If I advocated that they ought to get a fine it would reduce significantly the view I hold of family. I certainly am not going to resile from that position just to stop myself from being banned or suspended from this site. This is why I am content for the moderator to make a ruling. And why I am also prepared for suspension if that is to be the appropriate sanction in this instance. 

     
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 824
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @ludofl3x
    Maybe in science fiction, but really all robots are built for function first. There might be some in beta test, but by a wide, wide, wide margin, robots do not look like humans, even the ones who "interact" with humans (as if the manufacturing automation doesn't interact with humans?). They have to humanize some of these to reduce the natural apprehension, like putting googlie eyes on one. There's a couple of robots built by Honda that are humanesque, but they literally serve zero function other than proof of concept right now. 

    Can you give me some examples of the kinds of robots you're talking about, and where we can see them in use?  Also, does god like robots?
    I understand the misunderstanding. I'm not talking about the extending metallic arms at a factory that welds metal together. I don't think I need to give you any examples because I'm sure they're the same as what you're thinking of. So how few humanesque robots there are is not relevant. The fact is that they've been made.

    And you really made my point. The purpose to making robots humanesque is to make the consumer comfortable. A robot Pennywise wouldn't do that.

  • Ragnar
    Ragnar avatar
    Debates: 29
    Forum posts: 1,553
    5
    7
    10
    Ragnar avatar
    Ragnar
    --> @BrotherDThomas @Tradesecret
    ***
    Regarding #203
    Disagreeing with someone is not against the CoC, nor are accusations against Tolkien for all the things he imagined, nor indeed would someone defending Sauron's foreign policy.

    Nor even applying their opinion of context to a mythological figures statements, as related to them having referenced old religious texts. The presumed threatened people, have all been dead for about 2000 years. To borrow a line from the user reported, and use it toward the user who filed the report: "You are grasping for straws."

    ---

    Regarding #209
    This has been reported by a third person (saying it to avoid Tradesecret being accused of having soft skin).

    I'm pretty sure you're trying to be funny, but abuse of the report function was just key to a lengthy ban on someone. This is really not the time (not that there ever really is an appropriate time for that).

    Also if quoting the CoC about someone in future, please trim off extra bits that are not relevant to avoid being confused with accusing the person of all of those things. 
    ***
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,322
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
    Yes, Jesus is God. 
    Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
    Yes, Jesus is God. 
    Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 
    I thought I had already answered you. 

    Jesus is fully God. Jesus is fully man.  Jesus is the Second Member of the Holy Trinity.  Jesus is not the Father. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit.  Jesus is the Son. Jesus is the Son of God. Is his name Jehovah? Some have used that terminology.  I don't use that term though. Probably I prefer the term YHWH - although even that is not accurate. The Name is not actually pronounceable because no one knows the correct vowel usage. This is why in some places it has different vowels to other places - often it uses the vowels from Adonai - and at other times it uses different vowels. 

    I don't actually think that it helpful referring to the OT or even NT God as Jesus. God is Trinity. The LORD GOD is invariably described as invisible because he is spirit. Yet, God the Son, as part of the Divine contact or covenant took on the form of Human. God the Father, who is not Jesus and God the Holy Spirit who is not Jesus or the Father did not take on human form.  In other words, God, the Holy Trinity remained God yet the Son took on human form. 

    Jesus when he was on earth was fully human and was invested as it were with two natures. A divine nature and a human nature. None of the miracles that Jesus is attributed as doing, none of the wisdom, nor the manner in which he conducted himself are to be attributed to his divine nature. He attributed everything he did to his Father in Heaven and to the power of the Holy Spirit.  In fact God became like a man in order to be able to represent man as a man. He was born of a woman. He grew up as a child experiencing everything that humans do from a baby. He experienced adolescence, and doing chores.  He grew up and became an adult. He worked and ate and slept and experienced friendship and loss - grief and happiness.  In every way he was human - save and except his Father was the Holy Spirit.  The difference in his life was he did not sin. And this was not because he was divine - but because he was led and taught by the Spirit of God.  

    So yes Jesus is God. But so is the Father and the Holy Spirit and these three are one. But the Father who is also known as YHWH and the Holy Spirt who is also known as YHWH - neither are the Son nor are the Jesus.  This is the classic understanding of the Trinity. And it is what the Bible teaches. 

    Why are you asking the question? Perhaps that is a better way of getting to your point.  After all, it is better if we start there, rather than trying to lead me into a corner which is what you are attempting to do. 


  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    PGA2.0 SORROWFUL QUOTE: “ I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today. Are opinions now taboo?”

    Yes, this “biblical perspective” and Tradesecrets OPINION promotes violence and criminal activity towards a person which is against the COC rules, GET IT, MAYBE?  2+2=4.  Take your Satanic blinders off!
    This is a ridiculous statement. TradeSecret is not promoting violence. He is stating what he believes the Bible teaches. There is a promise in the Ten Commandments that honouring your parents leads to a longer life.

    12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.

    There is a reason that their life's would be prolonged for honouring godly parents. Godly parents give wise council and protect their children from harm. 

    Those teachings apply to an OT people and OT economy. The land spoken of was the Promised Land they were about to enter. Spiritually, we too enter the Promised Land, but not an earthly kingdom but the heavenly country. We, as Christians, do not enter the physical land of Israel. Thus, in everything OT there is a typology and symbolism here of a greater truth. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant. Jesus is addressing the people He was prophesied to come to, an OT people. That is the primary audience of the address. Pay attention to the nouns and pronouns if you want to understand the Author's intended audience. 


    PGA2.O REMOVING ONE FOOT TO INSERT THE OTHER QUOTE:
     “I  see the verse TradeSecret references as applicable to the OT economy and old covenant people that Jesus was addressing. We, as Christians, live under a new covenant but the message is still relevant to us in the sense that there is a lesson there for us, we should honour our parents if they are God-fearing that our lives would be long. “

    You show yourself to be as ignorant as Tradesecret when it comes to Bible precepts! Jesus stated that you are to follow ALL, and I repeat, ALL of His words, including the Old Testament 613 laws from His time until the end of the earth in His Sermon on the Mount! How utterly and blatantly ignorant do you want to get by promoting that just because it is in the Old Testament, you don’t have to follow the passage in question where parents are to MURDER their offspring if they curse them?  
    It is not me who is ignorant about Scripture. Jesus said that not ONE jot or title of the law or the prophets would disappear until everything was accomplished. 

    Matthew 5:17-18 (NASB)
    17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

    The Jewish OT economy and way of life passed away in AD 70. Their heaven and earth, their Jewish economy and temple system of worship, everything they worshiped and live by ended in AD 70. 
    The prophets were sent to an Old Covenant people
    The Law of Moses was given to OT Israel who agreed to live by all the 613 laws and Ten Commands given at Mt. Sinai. 

    After AD 70 there is no more priesthood, as stated in Deuteronomy, representing the people before God. There were no more animal sacrifices taking place to atone for the sins of the people as stated was necessary by the Law of Moses. There were no more feast day sacrifices, no more genealogical records (destroyed with the temple, and there was no more temple for the people to meet at and worship God in.

    So, it is you, not me, who does not understand Scripture. You brush over all the relevant words to paint a false picture of what happened and to whom.

    Do you want to remove the Ten Commandments from being displayed around the nation, because they are in the Old Testament area of what you mentioned, Bible fool! YOU ARE PATHETICALLY DUMBFOUNDED REGARDING THE SCRIPTURES! 
    The Ten Commandments have been met for Christians in the Lord Jesus Christ. He has fulfilled all righteousness required by God on our behalf. Thus, we are judged on the merit of Another - Jesus Christ - in whom we place our faith and trust. Thus, our Substitute has met the requirements of God on our behalf. 

    Ephesians 2:8-10 (NASB)
    8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselvesit is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

    Our faith in Jesus Christ transforms us, not our works of "righteousness." I don't stand before God on my own righteousness (heaven forbid). My righteous acts do not measure up to God's righteous standard. Only Jesus, among those who are accountable, has accomplished God's righteousness. 

    YOUR CRYING AND WHIMPERING QUOTE, BOO HOO, SNIFF, SNIFF: “But if BroThomas is going to play at that point the finger game then consider BrotherDThomas as fueling the fire with ad homs and insightful words that insult Christians in almost every post he addresses them while poking fun of Someone and something they hold dear.”

    +++++. First thing, this is a discussion forum about religion, where this specific thread is relative to Jesus, get it? If you find yourself unable to defend Jesus in certain instances, or for being a serial killer, then leave, it is as simple as that, understood? Besides, Jesus stated the following that we have to take into account, instead of you crying like a little baby in front of the membership,  understood Bible fool? “You will be hated by everyone because of me, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.” (Matthew 10:22 ++++++
    Then apply the underlined standard to yourself. You have too often made it a thread attacking TradeSecret and myself, among other Christians, not discussing religion. Not only this, when you use Scripture you separate the audience of address from the context and make the main audience of address ourselves in the 21st-century. You deconstruct the verses to suit your own interpretation, ignoring what they actually say while supplying a private understanding. By collapsing context you make the verses a pretext. Then you ignore other verses that teach the same message, but instead, from one verse you supply your own false message. In OT times some may have recognized you for what you are, a false prophet and teacher, and you may have suffered the consequences of such actions as stipulated by the OT Law. As Christians, we are not yoked to that law. Jesus has set us free by fulfilling the law on our behalf. For those who are not Christians, they show they agree with many aspects of the OT law, thus, they are judged on their own merit, not the merit of Christ. Do you realize how far short they fall in their own merit? 

    YOUR QUOTE GOING AGAINST THE COC RULES: “I hope you, Ragnar, will not consider barring TradeSecret for this for I will be very disappointed.”

    OMG!  Why don’t you just tell Ragnar to remove all the rules of the COC and be done with it, where we all have free rein to do whatever we want? Go ahead, tell him!  Oh my, when will you get out of your child like "crying state" where you will be disappointed if Ragnar actually follows the COC rules, boo hoo, boo hoo, sniff, sniff, how insipid can you get in front of the membership?  LOL!

    You need to pay attention to your own violation of the CoC, and the constant barrage of ad hom attacks you issue against others. You not only insult them but what they hold dear. Yes, many Christians are willing to discuss these issues with you until you show that your agenda is one of mal intent. From my perspective, you only see things one way and that is not as Scripture discloses them to be.  IMO, you are not thinking logically, not reasoning rationally, but from a spirit of ill-will. Others may think so also. 

    I believe I could very easily document a hundred examples of your ad home attacks and your unkind words about Jesus and Christians. 
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,322
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret
    Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
    Yes, Jesus is God. 
    Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 
    I thought I had already answered you. 

    You haven't.   Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why?    Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah.  Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.  

    Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    You haven't.   Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why?    Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah.  Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.  

    Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.

    No I have answered the question. Jesus is God. I have explained this before but for whatever reason you think I am trying to dodge something. 

    The bible is quite clear. You continue to try or attempt to input into it which it does not say - funny how you seem to gravitate towards some things but avoid completely other places.  For example, you narrow in on god being a killer of innocents, yet miss the part where he say he is just. Why do you always omit that part? Easy. Because it contradicts the lies you want to present. 

    I have never once said that God did not put people to death. I have always maintained that every death God is responsible for directly or by way of delegated authority has been lawful.  You on the other hand miss this point or deny it or try and find some way around it because you don't want this to be the case. Because if it were the case then you would be an enormous pickle. Why is it that the Brother could not find an example in the Gospels? Because there was none there. It does not matter how much he wants to believe it is there - it is not there. Jesus was a loving man - a generous man - a forgiving man - a compassionate man - a man loved by the common folk - although despised in general by the religious leaders.  Why you find this so repugnant is beyond me? 

    As I said to the Brother - this picture of Jesus in the Gospels is one that is easy to extend to the rest of the Bible. God in the bible is shown to be holy and just and righteous. He always acts in accordance with holiness and justice and mercy.  Yet, you continue to find fault in his character. You look at what you call innocents but reject the bigger picture. You get all teary eyes and horrified because there were probably pregnant woman killed during the flood, yet it would not surprise me at all if you are pro-choice - and have no issue at all if a mother kills her foetus.  You would not consider that foetus a victim or vulnerable. 

    It is people such as yourself who pretend to be so high and mighty that make me sick.  And then you have the gall to suggest that I go around in circles. If I had said yes - then you would have gone "aha". If I say it is more complex than this - you go - you did not answer the question. Well Stephen, whatever floats your boat. 

    I have answered - and you have your answer. It of course is again an answer you don't like - so attempt to slur my character and motivations again. Well at least you have succeeded in getting me to respond in kind. I hope that will help you sleep tonight. 
  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @Stephen
    Is Jesus God Jehovah or not? 
    Yes, Jesus is God. 
    Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 
    I thought I had already answered you. 

    You haven't.   Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why? 
    He answered adequately but you don't like the answer. How did he not answer your question?

     Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah.  Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.  

    Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.
    Newsflash, we all die a physical death. It is what happens after that is the issue. Whether you consider yourself innocent (delusional, IMO, to think this way and that you have done nothing wrong) or not, you are going to experience physical death. 

    It is your presumption that we know nothing about this God. Even you know something of Him for you speak of Him frequently, although you speak of one who only knows about Him, not knowing Him personally.  
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @RoderickSpode



    .
    RoderickSpode,

    YOUR ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ QUOTE: "It's just that I don't think there was any Jesus to capitalize the first letter for who woke you up at 3AM.
    Maybe it was Watson? Maybe you dreamed you were Sherlock Holmes (in "A Scandal In Freehold") , and while addressing Dr. Watson while talking in your sleep, Watson thought you were addressing it,  and responded back. And while leaving  your sleep state you interpreted the response as one originating from Jesus?"

    You need a new comedy writer.  :(





  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Ragnar



    Moderator Ragnar.

    YOUR QUOTE: “Regarding #203 Disagreeing with someone is not against the CoC, nor are accusations against Tolkien for all the things he imagined, nor indeed would someone defending Sauron's foreign policy.”

    Tolkien’s imagination and Sauron’s foreign policy DO NOT include possible death to a person like TradeSecret alluded to, big difference. When Tradesecret explicitly states “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death” then I do not know if he has offspring living at home, and since he “tries” to follow the words of Jesus, these “offspring” might have been in danger.  Error on the side of caution? Yes.


    YOUR QUOTE: “Nor even applying their opinion of context to a mythological figures statements, as related to them having referenced old religious texts. The presumed threatened people, have all been dead for about 2000 years. To borrow a line from the user reported, and use it toward the user who filed the report: "You are grasping for straws."

    The statement of murdering offspring that curse their parents was made by Jesus, are you calling Jesus a myth?  The statement by Jesus is to be held at anytime irrelative to a 2000 year time span, in the same vein as spreading the Gospel of Christ is to be followed today and into the future.  


    YOUR QUOTE: “I'm pretty sure you're trying to be funny, but abuse of the report function was just key to a lengthy ban on someone.”

    Me being funny was NOT the purpose of the report, whereas like I stated, error on the side of caution when others of a family may have been in danger. Therefore absolutely NO ABUSE is to be noted. 


    YOUR QUOTE: “Also if quoting the CoC about someone in future, please trim off extra bits that are not relevant to avoid being confused with accusing the person of all of those things.”

    I truly don’t see how the other COC guidelines could possibly be conceived as infractions relative to Tradescret, and this is why the ones that I included that were, were are in bold type, underlined, and with asterisks. Next time I will now follow your request and not include the entire COC guidelines.   

    When the COC guidelines specifically state the following, to wit: You may not threaten or promote violence against any person or persons, and, You may not engage in or promote criminal activity, don't fall under said guidelines to Tradesecrets following quote: "then they should be put to death" AND THAT TRADESECRET ADMITTED HE WAS WRONG, and to you then there is no infraction, then so be it. :(  Okay, we all have different opinions, and that is one reason there are so many different contradicting divisions of Christianity, where every one is correct, except the other divisions that one is not associated with.
    .
  • RoderickSpode
    RoderickSpode avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 824
    2
    1
    2
    RoderickSpode avatar
    RoderickSpode
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    You need a new comedy writer.  :
    I got one, but Mel suggested Alexa as your vocal alarm clock.

    I just couldn't be that cruel.
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @PGA2.0 @Ragnar @Tradesecret



    .
    PGA2.0, 

    YOU AGREEING WITH JESUS AND TRADESECRET RELATIVE TO MATTHEW 15: 1-4 QUOTE IN YOUR POST #212:  "I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today."  YOUR ADDITIONAL QUOTE OF SAME, POST #235: "TradeSecret is not promoting violence. He is stating what he believes the Bible teaches"

    Okay, then you as well promote that anyone that curses their parents ARE TO BE PUT TO DEATH today and into the future!  Since Tradesecret got a free pass on this issue where moderator Ragnar did not think that he violated the COC rules on promoting criminal activities and threatening or promoting violence against any person or persons in the future, then you shall receive the same pass as well, praise!  To jog your memory, Tradesecret stated: “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death." Hmmmmm. :(

    Here is the blatant irony, if YOU murdered your offspring because they cursed you as Jesus says you are able to do (Matthew 15:1-4), then you would be tried and more so than not found guilty of this offense. Why?  Because that is the law of man today in the year of 2020 in the USA and other countries. Besides, Jesus' inspired words states that you are to obey mans laws: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1-2).  

    BUT WAIT! Then we have Peter that states the opposite in the following: " But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29). WHOOPS!  

    A. We are to obey man's laws in 2020, and Jesus agrees because He instituted said laws through Himself for man.
    B. Peter says to obey Jesus' laws rather than man, which include murdering of anyone that curses their parents (Matthew 15:1-4)

    NOW WHAT???!  WHATS THE LATEST APOLOGETIC AND INSIDIOUS SPIN ON THIS PREDICAMENT OF CONTRADICTION? I need to know the latest spin from you guys, and at the same time, how to look intelligent looking in the aftermath when I use said spin on this topic, so I can continue to promote our perceived ever loving and forgiving Jesus to others, okay? Thanks.  



    .


  • PGA2.0
    PGA2.0 avatar
    Debates: 4
    Forum posts: 2,348
    3
    3
    7
    PGA2.0 avatar
    PGA2.0
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    YOU AGREEING WITH JESUS AND TRADESECRET RELATIVE TO MATTHEW 15: 1-4 QUOTE IN YOUR POST #212:  "I see nothing wrong with TradeSecrets opinion since he is expressing a biblical perspective and how he sees it as should be applied today."  YOUR ADDITIONAL QUOTE OF SAME, POST #235: "TradeSecret is not promoting violence. He is stating what he believes the Bible teaches"

    Okay, then you as well promote that anyone that curses their parents ARE TO BE PUT TO DEATH today and into the future!  Since Tradesecret got a free pass on this issue where moderator Ragnar did not think that he violated the COC rules on promoting criminal activities and threatening or promoting violence against any person or persons in the future, then you shall receive the same pass as well, praise!  To jog your memory, Tradesecret stated: “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death." Hmmmmm. :(
    Here you go, doing what you always do, putting words in my mouth. I said there was a lesson to be learned, that it is good to obey GODLY parents, that our time on earth would be prolonged. I gave the reason; they provide wise council. God appointed them as our guardians until we reach an age of accountability and are able to reason soundly for ourselves. Godly parents should be consulted, even after we leave the nest. Wise counselors give sound perspectives. 

    As for the Old Covenant and covenant people Jesus came to in the 1st-century, those people no longer live in covenant relationship, and the Old Covenant is obsolete, no longer applicable to the Christian. It has been met in Jesus Christ in whom we put our trust and allegiance. We live under a new covenant before God, one of grace and mercy, not of works. No human being has been successful in living in complete obedience to that old covenant, except Jesus Christ. He became a human to fulfill the Father's wishes, and was completely obedient to the Father. You, nor I am.

    Here is the blatant irony, if YOU murdered your offspring because they cursed you as Jesus says you are able to do (Matthew 15:1-4), then you would be tried and more so than not found guilty of this offense. Why?  Because that is the law of man today in the year of 2020 in the USA and other countries. Besides, Jesus' inspired words states that you are to obey mans laws: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." (Romans 13:1-2).  
    We are to obey the laws of the land in as much as they don't go against the greater authority - God. For instance, I do not accept abortion as morally permissible except when the woman's life is in danger and the unborn's life has not developed enough to save it. 

    I use the resource that God has given me, I protest in a non-violent way by using my voice, my intellect, to oppose unjust practices, and I pray to God for His justice to prevail on unjust rule. 

    BUT WAIT! Then we have Peter that states the opposite in the following: " But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29). WHOOPS!  

    A. We are to obey man's laws in 2020, and Jesus agrees because He instituted said laws through Himself for man.
    B. Peter says to obey Jesus' laws rather than man, which include murdering of anyone that curses their parents (Matthew 15:1-4)
    You confuse the OT with the new. Matthew 15:1-4 is addressing a specific 1st-century audience as the primary audience. Note the boldened text below. 

    Matthew 15:1-12 (NASB)
    Tradition and Commandment
    15 Then some Pharisees and scribes *came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” 3 And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother is to be put to death.’ 5 But you say, ‘Whoever says to his father or mother, “Whatever I have that would help you has been given to God,” 6 he is not to honor his father or his mother.’ And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. 7 You hypocrites, rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you:
    8 ‘This people honors Me with their lips,
    But their heart is far away from Me.
    9 ‘But in vain do they worship Me,
    Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’”
    10 After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, “Hear and understand. 11 It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man.”
    12 Then the disciples *came and *said to Him, “Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?”

    Where is your name or mine mentioned? 

    Again, Jesus is addressing an Old Covenant people concerning the Mosaic law. As for Jesus' instruction to His disciples:

    3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
    5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
    6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
    7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
    8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
    9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
    10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great; for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

    NOW WHAT???!  WHATS THE LATEST APOLOGETIC AND INSIDIOUS SPIN ON THIS PREDICAMENT OF CONTRADICTION? I need to know the latest spin from you guys, and at the same time, how to look intelligent looking in the aftermath when I use said spin on this topic, so I can continue to promote our perceived ever loving and forgiving Jesus to others, okay? Thanks.

    There is no contradiction.  You confuse two covenants.

    The latest spin? Consider yourself as the one spinning out of control of reason.

    The Jesus you say never existed? 
  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret


    .
    Tradesecret, DEBATE RUNAWAY,

    Addressing your normal inept MO regarding the Bible, here are a few more of your outright embarrassing propositions:

    YOUR INSIPID QUOTE, LOL!: “I note the following for those watching. Jesus used the term children here not in the sense of minors but of adults. He was addressing adults, those who had money. Minors did not have money in those particular days (or very little anyway) and minors could not be pharisees. These are the facts and the facts are not in dispute and no one includng the brother has countered this fact. “

    !!!ROFLOL!!!  Your turnaround was revealing, again, you left out your comical and embarrassing post #218 where you are now HYPOCRITICAL to your first position regarding children as children in the true sense of the term, and where you tried so hard in continuing to use the term “children” now as adults by bending over backwards to defend your Satanic position. Priceless TURNAROUND claims at your embarrassing expense once again. LOL!


    YOUR WANTING QUOTE: “Oh by the way, why have you run away from my response to you in your Catholic forum topic? Is it because once more you have revealed yourself to be ignorant and clumsy?”

    I have always thought that when I easily make a pseudo-christian like you the fool that they are, and it is in an intense thread, I leave it to one thread at a time so you can heal more quickly, okay? Don’t worry, I will show you how wrong you were ONCE AGAIN upon that topic as well. Be prepared when I do it this time, okay?


    YOUR QUOTE THAT DOES NOT AGREE WITH LOGIC 101 AND JESUS' INTENTION: “Nevertheless, I maintain that I did not cite violence against any person, adult or child.”

    Your quote in question that relates to ANYONE, instead of your Bible ignorance of using the term “children,” was the following: “And I would think that if people do curse their parents - unless there is a jolly good reason to do so - then they should be put to death.

    YOUR COMICAL PROPOSITION IN NOT CITING VIOLENCE TOWARDS ANY PERSON, ADULT OR CHILD:  The topic is ANYONE and within your syntactical sentence structure, it most certainly is citing violence without question in stating, in part, “ THEN THEY SHOULD BE PUT TO DEATH!” 

    1.  You are stating that ANYONE that curses their parents are to be put to death in that you AGREE with Jesus in an absolute manner and at any time of an infraction to Matthew 15: 1-4.

    2.  You are proposing that if you have ANYONE that is your offspring, they too should be put to death if they curse you, period.

    3.  The syntactical sentence structure of your sentence contains the following words in a "structure" of the complete sentence that supports without question, that you are citing VIOLENCE: 

    A.  THEN:  (adverb) which means at a particular time in the past or in the future.
    B.  THEY: (pronoun) used to refer to two or more people
    C.  SHOULD: (modal verb) used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness
    D.  BE: (prefix) to take place; happen; occur
    E.  PUT: (transitive verb) to take place; happen; occur:
    F.  TO:  (preposition) toward a point, person, place, or thing, implied or understood.
    G. DEATH: (noun) the act of dying, the end of life.
    to cause (a person) to experience the endurance or suffering (of)to put to death; to put to the sword

    To now address your ignorance of the English Language, along with your Biblical ignorance, then as explicitly shown above regarding your complete sentence, YOU ARE IN FACT PROMOTING VIOLENCE!  2+2=4!  Your embarrassing statements will be held to the fire now, and into the future, do you understand?

    In closing, have you found your “big boy pants” yet, where even though you are SCARED, you will actually debate me on Jesus' TRUE MO, instead of RUNNING AWAY with your insipid and embarrassing lame EXCUSES? Whats your excuse going to be? Maybe something like this:  “The moon has to be in its second phase and the ISS has to be within 5 degrees over your dwelling, and you haven’t eaten Mexican food in the last 32 days, 15 hours, and 12 minutes? 

    Don't let the chicken feathers pile up too high where you won't be able to see your computer screen

    RUN TRADESECRET, RUN!  LOL!  



    .

  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @PGA2.0


    PGA2.0,

    YOUR MORE THAN BIBLE IGNORANT QUOTE: "As for the Old Covenant and covenant people Jesus came to in the 1st-century, those people no longer live in covenant relationship, and the Old Covenant is obsolete, no longer applicable to the Christian."

    Listen up you minion of Satan, where did I mention the Old Testament in my post #242 where Jesus CONDONES the murdering of ANYONE that curses their parents, whether the foundation of Jesus stating this biblical axiom is in Matthew 15: 1-4 which is the New Testament, or the Old Testament that He refers too does not matter!  Like your equally Bible dumbfounded Tradesecret, are you now calling Jesus a LIAR in Matthew 15:1-4?!  

    Your complete Bible ignorance has no bounds!  What part of Jesus' Sermon on the Mount don't you understand relative to the Old Testament writings are to be followed now and forever as stated by none other than, Jesus???!

    Jesus H. Christ, it is to bad that DEBATEART can't give an impromptu live test relative to the Bible before one can become a member, which would quickly eliminate the PGA2.0's,  and most importantly, the equally dumbfounded of the Bible, the Tradesecrets from being able to join! LOL



    .
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,322
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Tradesecret

    Let's try that again. Is Jesus also the God Jehovah? 
    I thought I had already answered you. 


    You haven't.   Is all you have done is circle the question. And we all know why?    Your god is a killer of innocents no matter in what guise you prefer to address him as. Unless of course, Jesus is a different god to Jehovah.  Which the bible states that there are indeed many other gods.  
    Again, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.


    No I have answered the question. Jesus is God.

    No you haven't stop telling lies.  I have asked you is Jesus Jehovah?  You are avoiding answering this question direct and honest because you  know that it would put Jesus in the frame for millions of innocent deaths!  As I keep telling you, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.

    Jesus was not a god. Jesus was a rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem. He was a very human King of the Jews NOT Christians. All kings of Jerusalem were called `sons of god'.

  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Stephen
    No you haven't stop telling lies.  I have asked you is Jesus Jehovah?  You are avoiding answering this question direct and honest because you  know that it would put Jesus in the frame for millions of innocent deaths!  As I keep telling you, this is what you get when you adopt a god of who you know nothing and from a time and place you know absolutely nothing at all about.

    Jesus was not a god. Jesus was a rightful heir to the throne of Jerusalem. He was a very human King of the Jews NOT Christians. All kings of Jerusalem were called `sons of god'.
    Stephen, why are you so obnoxious? I actually don't tell lies.  Not intentionally anyway - which means by definition I don't tell lies since by definition a lie has to be by intention. I In other words, it is impossible to tell lies accidentally. Just because I don't want to play your game, does not mean I am lying or that I am avoiding your question. Surely you don't live in a two dimensional world where the only answer is a simplistic one? I don't hold to the view that the world is simple. In other words, I don't have a left wing progressive view. Nor am I am conservative of a right wing disposition. 

    You asked whether Jesus was Jehovah. I think the name Jehovah is an incorrect understanding of the real name of the Lord in the OT.  I have stated this before but you keep asking if I think Jesus is Jehovah. I seem to recall you got rather upset a while ago because I called you Steve or something like that. Why? Because your name means something to you. Yet like the hypocrite you are - you continue the charade that you actually care. 

    I think it is not correct to identify Jesus with Jehovah or YHWH in a simple yes or not response.  As I said in my previous post - it is not that simple. Yet, your response reveals an interesting prejudice and bias which I find quite amusing. You actually think I am avoiding such a connection because "it would put Jesus in the frame for millions of innocent deaths!".  Are you for real? I have no such view and your position is wrong. I have indicated even to you quite recently that I think the OT picture of God is Holy. He never kills anyone who is innocent. And whether you link the OT to Jesus or not does not change my view.  Do you even see your prejudice a little bit? 

    Wow! I am of the view that Jesus is God. The book of Philippians 2:1-11 clearly indicates that he is God as do other places in the OT and the NT. Paul's entire argument in relation to humility is based on the fact of God humbling himself. The passage makes no sense unless Jesus is GOD.  The Christian position is that GOD is Trinity. I don't particularly care if you don't understand or believe in the Trinity - but the Christian Church does. It is one of the hallmarks that sets Christianity apart from EVERY other religion. No other religion including the ancient ones - has an understanding of God like the Trinity of the Christian church. Yes, other religions have a semblance of one - but it does not even come close. And to pretend that they are close is nonsense and intellectual dishonest in the extreme. 

    Nevertheless, because God is Trinity - whom I see in the whole as the God presented in the OT, it is incorrect to simply try and identify Jesus as the same. Jesus is God - but Jesus is not the Trinity. Nor is the Father or the Holy Spirit. The three together constitute the Holy Trinity. ONE God - three persons, not parts, but persons. 

    In regards to the character of the GOD of the OT, God is holy and just. He is totally lawful and just in accordance with his own laws and rules - since he is not under jurisdiction of anyone but his own holy character.  For you to attempt to bring even one charge against the God of the OT, you need to be able to have standing to do so.  What standing do you propose that you have and under what jurisdiction do you propose to insist that you have standing? And furthermore, let's pretend for a moment that you have both standing and jurisdiction, on what power do you rely upon to exercise any ruling you might actually succeed upon? 

    It is one of the most pointless exercises in the history of humanity to attempt to bring a charge against God. And yet it seems you spend your time - or at least quite a large amount of it doing just that. The bible on the other hand is quite clear to most people who read it. It is quite simple really. God made the world including humanity. Humanity chose to rebel against God and was justly punished. Game over. And yet even at this point, God, not man decided to execute his eternal plan to assist all humans prepared to repent of their treason against him. This still amazes me. Humanity already on death row - no question of their guilt at all - and God in his mercy and grace still despite the fact that most of humanity hates him - to save some anyway. What strikes me Stephen is that you find this repugnant. For me the amazement is staggering. 

    I don't see the issue with God knowing all things.  Yes, if I want to believe that God cruelly did it- I still have to explain all of the loving and kind things that happen everyday as well.  Why is it that people see God knowing the future as cruel but omit the kind and loving things that occur as well? To suggest that God is cruel - is inconsistent with these things. These lovely and kind things prove the lie of the God is cruel picture. 

    In relation to your argument that every king of Israel is called Son of God, I say prove it. If for instance I find one king of Israel who was not called Son of God, does that prove you wrong? And I certainly hope you would not be foolish enough to rely upon an argument from silence. Yet, what you fail to realise that even if every king of Israel is called the Son of God - this does not logically prevent Jesus from being GOD. How about you prove the point? It is quite logically possible that a proper heir of the throne of David could not only be called the Son of God as a title - but in fact be the TRUE SON of GOD. To say otherwise is something that you need to prove. 

    It seems your argument at the moment is as follows: please correct me if I am wrong: Jesus is a son of David. (You seem to accept this fact) He is called the Son of God. (You also seem to accept this fact) yet because you say (this is yet to be established) that every true heir to the throne of David is entitled to the title of SON of GOD, that the fact Jesus is called the Son of God means nothing more than he was the legitimate heir to the throne of David.  Is that correct? Have I understood you properly? 

    If I have then I do not see why your reasoning could not also appropriate the possibility that the true God of heaven could condescend himself and so enter the family of David to be called both SON of GOD as title and also Son of God as God. Unless you take the view that GOD is unable to become a human being? 


  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Tradesecret


    .
    Tradesecret, DEBATE RUNAWAY, AND BIBLE DENIER OF JESUS BEING THE TRINITY GOD IN THE OT,

    YOUR SCHIZOPHRENIC BIBLE QUOTE ABOUT JESUS’ IDENTITY IN YOUR POST #247:   “Nevertheless, because God is Trinity - whom I see in the whole as the God presented in the OT, it is incorrect to simply try and identify Jesus as the same. Jesus is God - but Jesus is not the Trinity.”

    Huh? Your mish-mash Satanic quote above in that the God presented in the OT has the Triune Doctrine, BUT, you ignorantly state that this God is not Jesus! WTF?  Since there is only one God (1 Timothy 2:5), then the God that you mentioned in the OT that you say is not Jesus, has to be Jesus in His overall Triune way! THINK, whether Jesus is mentioned in the Old or New Testaments, He always has is true Trinity Doctrine. DUH!  2+2=4, oil and water don't mix, and your BLATANT BIBLE IGNORANCE AND LIES are unsurpassed by any pseudo-christian on DEBATEART, bar none!


    I will prove that your proposition is wrong regarding Jesus NOT being the serial killer HEBREW Triune God named Yahweh in the Old Testament, even though Yahweh in the OT before the New Testament was not in a Triune state that you deceivingly propose, as the Hebrews so state, remember? LOL. For the sake of discussion, only subsequent to the Christians stealing Yahweh for their own God did He received His new identity of a Trinity.

    Therefore, tell the membership in where you get the authority to piss on the passages below stating that Jesus, is in fact mentioned in the OT, and is the God of the Old Testament as well, where you say Jesus is not.  Are you calling Jesus and the prophets LIARS as you have done before with Jesus alone?  Get it Bible fool?

    1. Jesus said He spoke to Moses and the OT prophets: “And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!  Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24, 25-27)
    2.  Jesus said Moses spoke of Him in the Old Testament:  “Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, in whom you have put your hope.  If you would have believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?” (John 5: 45-47)

    3.  Jude, the brother of James, ties Jesus to the Old Testament in saying: “Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.” (Jude 5)

    4.  Moses in the Old Testament was motivated by Jesus:  "He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward." (Hebrews 11:26)

    5. Jesus ties Himself to the Old Testament again: “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.” So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” (John 8: 56-58). The “I Am” that Jesus speaks of, gives a sense of the enigmatic, transcendent and eternal nature of God (Revelation 1:8). The “I Am” in whom Abraham rejoiced in the Old Testament was in fact Jesus as John 8: 56-58 so states.


    Tradesecret, seriously, maybe you would be more comfortable in a Childrens Christian Forum, where their complete Bible ignorance is equal to yours, therefore you can all masturbate your feeble Bible ignorant minds together! To save you the needed time in joining a "Kids" Religion forum post haste to save further embarrassment, I have given a few links shown below for this purpose. You can thank me later, okay?






    ******** Tradesecret, psst, can't find anyone to help you to even "try" to address my post #243 where it was explicitly shown that you did incite violence in agreeing with Jesus regarding Him saying that "ANYONE" that curses their parents should be put to death, when you concluded; "Then they should be put to death," in the name of Jesus?  You will NEVER live this quote of yours down while on DEBATEART! *********

    Your days are numbered in more ways than one. :(


  • BrotherDThomas
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,140
    2
    3
    7
    BrotherDThomas avatar
    BrotherDThomas
    --> @Stephen




    .
    Stephen,

    As embarrassingly shown by us, even though you are a Hell bound Atheist, Tradesecret is on borrowed time here on DEBATEART because we are literally and embarrassingly making him the number 1 Bible ignorant pseudo-christian fool in front of the membership!  As we know, the runaway ethang5 will be sad that Tradesecret takes over his current position of being #1. LOLl

    A little bit of history, I have tried many times in the past in wanting to know what DIVISION of Christianity he has taken into the fold, but to no avail with an answer from him. He obviously is way too embarrassed to tell the membership of which one he "practices," therefore maybe he will tell you in which one? I know you know that this is important when you know what Division of Christianity that he follows, therefore in which "version" of the Christian God he accepts before one can deduce this God's MO to his faith. I am preaching to the choir with you, but remember a case in point, where the Satanic Jehovah God of the Hell bound Jehovah Witness faith, REWROTE the true King James Bible into the Satanic NWT bible which takes away Jesus divinity!  Total BLASPHEME!

    Barring the FACT that Tradesecret is to SCARED to debate me upon Jesus' TRUE modus operandi that I have explicitly shown, and has come up with every lame child-like excuse known to weak pseudo-christians to not too, we will continue to easily Bible Slap him Silly®️ at his continued expense.



    .
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 737
    2
    2
    5
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @BrotherDThomas
    Don't pull my quote out of context. It was not directed to you. And as such I don't need a response from you. I don't have to put up with your abuse. So why don't you go and do something else. If you want me to address you - go and find the Catholic topic you put up and respond to my post which I wrote 7 days ago and which you are constantly avoiding and running away from.