Who is Jesus? Is he God? (page 19)

Hellrider

First of all, this strawman-stuff is getting old. From the Wikipedia-dictionary:

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted."

What you are saying, is exactly the same as the text: That when Jesus use the term The First and The Last, it is different than when Yahweh uses it, because Yahweh uses it in the sense eternal, existing for all eternity, while when Jesus uses it, it means "The First and the Last, the Living One, who was dead", as in "the First one to be ressurected and who now lives forever". Now, this really doesn`t say anything at all, because this alternative meaning of the term "the first and the last" rests upon the halt in Jesus` existence! Now, what I did, was to analyse the text given! In my opinion, the texts basic argument is that Jesus is excluded from fulfilling the outlayed definition of "the first and the last" because he (according to the text) has not been eternal. The halt in Jesus existence (his three days of death) are used as an excuse to introduce this alternative meaning of the expression "the first and the last". This whole "new meaning" of the expression rests on Jesus` death! - and there is nothing in the passage in Rev that indicates that the authors intention is to introduce a new meaning (just because "The Living One, who was dead" follows the expression). Your problem is that you are so brainwashed that you are unable to see the difference between a strawman and an analysis.

You have not done anything with the view presented on the speaker change in 22:16

I have no problem with the speaker change there. When I reacted about the "speaker change", it was because you made it seem like there was a speaker change in Rev 1.

you have not touched anything further on 22:12 in relation to Isaiah 40:10

I have no problem with that either. "I am the First and the Last" belongs to God, and God alone. All trinitarians will absolutely agree with you on that. And that is part of the reason why they cocnlude that Jesus is part of God. Because he is using this expression too.

LittleToe

Maybe we should get all those strawmen together and have a bonfire of the vanities

Inquisitor

"But you'll agree that the Trinity wasn't explicitly mentioned in the first post, wherein others have jumped on the Divinity debate to their own [anti-]trinitarian ends?" - LT To those who disagree with the Trinity, it is inevitable to associate Christ's divinity with his role in the Trinity. To them they are not running off-topic. I dislike the way you characterize people who disagree with the Trinity as having "jumped" on an opportunity to argue. Are you oblivious to the fact that the content of the first post is inflammatory (albeit unknowingly) towards those who disagree with Jesus' divinity? INQ

Mondo1

Hellrider,

I see you have now modified your argument from what the author is saying though really didn't say to what the argument rests upon. The strawman remains, because it continues to be a misrepresentation of the argument. In no way does the argument "rest upon the halt in Jesus` existence," as you falsely claim. It rests upon the fact that Jesus is not called this until after his resurrection and that Jesus only calls himself it when refering to his resurrection.

You have made it abundantly clear that you cannot simply deal with the argument itself. You must imply that the author meant something he didn't mean or that the argument rests upon a point that is not even made! This is the only way for you to deal with the text it seems.

Mondo

LittleToe

Inquisitor:

To those who disagree with the Trinity, it is inevitable to associate Christ's divinity with his role in the Trinity.

No, it's not. You have control over your own passions and mental processes - use it. Alternatively remain bound by your own preconceptions and dogma and stop refering to yourself as open-minded...

ellderwho

I did not backpeddle at all. I simply said that the Bible does not provide a specific definition, but that we can look a get a general idea.

Keep tellin yourself that.

Bible does not provide a specific definition,

But you can?

we can look

Who's we? You mean you can look.

Mondo1

ellderwho,

Do you have a point anymore? You seemed to have lost one if you ever had it.

Mondo

Beardo

Christians

Inquisitor

LT

To insist that Christ is God, does that not mean you believe that the Son and the Father are co-equal? How then is the concept of Christ's divinity independent of Trinitarian leanings? I would genuinely like to hear how you make that distinction. I am not trying to taunt.

I have made it clear why people who do not agree with the Trinity just cannot accept that Christ is divine. I personally feel it is a contradiction. We cannot simply call Christ God and yet disagree with the Trinity. If you think that is possible, please tell me why and how.

You have control over your own passions and mental processes - use it. Alternatively remain bound by your own preconceptions and dogma and stop refering to yourself as open-minded

May I please know how I have offended you that you should mock my intellectual abilities and my personal integrity? Does it make your loyalty to the Trinity doctrine seem like the more intelligent thing to do when you insult people who do not share such a belief?

INQ

BelieverInJesus

Mondo,

You still have not clearly explained how there is a speaker change in rev 22. "This testimony I speak of..." is the testimony of what is previous verses above. There is 1 speaker.

You gave a politician's answer, a round answer to this earlier. Please speak straight, directly to me, CLEARLY!!

Who is Jesus? Is he God?

Share this