The Diety of Jesus

[Butch5]

Isa 53:5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.
Isa 53:10 But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.

Let's look at the version that Jesus and the apostles used.

But he was wounded because of our acts of lawlessness
and has been weakened because of our sins;
upon him was the discipline of our peace;
by his bruise we were healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray;
a man has strayed in his own way,
and the Lord gave him over to our sins.

7 And he, because he has been ill-treated,
does not open his mouth;
like a sheep he was led to the slaughter,
and as a lamb is silent before the one shearing it,
so he does not open his mouth.
8 In his humiliation his judgment was taken away.
Who will describe his generation?
Because his life is being taken from the earth,
he was led to death on account of the acts of lawlessness of my people.
9 And I will give the wicked for his burial
and the rich for his death,
because he committed no lawlessness,
nor was deceit found in his mouth.

10 And the Lord desires
to cleanse him from his blow.
If you give an offering for sin,
your soul shall see a long-lived offspring.
And the Lord wishes to take away
11 from the pain of his soul,
to show him light
and fill him with understanding,
to justify a righteous one who is well subject to many,
and he himself shall bear their sins.


Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., “Esaias,” in A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Primary Texts), trans. Moisés Silva (New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), Is 53:5–11.

That's kind of the opposite of what the Masoretic text says. The LXX is the translation used by Jesus and the apostles. The Masoretic text is the text of Rabbinic Judaism, or the unbelieving Jews.

"Some" do. Others of us believe God has standards.

Some do. It's a shame that all don't

He forgives us... BECAUSE of Jesus's sacrifice.

I agree

Heb 9:26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.
Heb 10:5 Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, "SACRIFICE AND OFFERING YOU HAVE NOT DESIRED, BUT A BODY YOU HAVE PREPARED FOR ME;
Heb 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, SAT DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD,
Heb 10:26 For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

1Cor 15:3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

1Pet 2:24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.
1Pet 3:18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit;

I agree. I would submit that the sacrifice or payment is not to God.

 

[KingJ]

No, because each of the 4 points are fallacious. They are only points in one blames God for what happened to Jesus. Which seems to be an obsession. As I've stated an untold number of times, God did not punish Jesus.

Stop talking utter nonsense. These points are logical conclusions from a non-trinitarian belief. Lines you need to explain. Pretend you are trying to convert me.

1. Is worshipping and praying to Jesus fine for you?

If, Yes, please explain as scripture is crystal clear that there is one God and He is very jealous Exo 34:14. We must have no God's before Him Exo 20:3.

2. Is God just in that He ordained Jesus suffer a cruel and torturous death for sins He did not commit?

If, Yes, please explain. If you state that Jesus was a ransom as some do, please note that that does not answer the question, it is simply moving the goal posts.

Case study that you can edit as you wish - Let's say you made a gun (God made mankind).and knew that the gun would get no sales unless it was known to have killed someone (nobody would go to heaven unless Jesus was '''''ransomed'', '''punished'', ''paid penalty for sin'', ''volunteered'' pick whatever words you want). You give the gun to a person called lucifer. Let's say a criminal gang leader of a Mexican cartel. You chose your innocent daughter as the victim (Jesus was sinless and He was chosen Eph 1:4). Knowing that by choosing Lucifer your daughter would not just be shot but tortured and then shot. And you would not come to her aid even though she does try to call you and ask for help. (Jesus was sent as a lamb to the slaughter, He was abandoned, He asked God the Father for help, He was beaten and crucified). Do you think anyone on this planet with a working brain would think of you as a good, righteous and loving father?

3. Do you believe God cannot manifest Himself as three different beings?

If, yes, please explain to me how God came into existence.

4. Was Jesus dumb and lying when He angered the Pharisees all the more by making Himself equal with God? John 5:18

If, No, please explain why.

The explanation you received was to show the asininities of your position. It seems to me that you're a Modalist arguing for the Trinitarian position. That's like a Jehovah's Witness arguing in favor of Mormonism.

For the second time stop trying to change the topic from you needing to defend your belief. We can discuss my belief right after you deal with the above.

 

[Butch5]

Stop talking utter nonsense. These points are logical conclusions from a non-trinitarian belief. Lines you need to explain. Pretend you are trying to convert me.

1. Is worshipping and praying to Jesus fine for you?

If, Yes, please explain as scripture is crystal clear that there is one God and He is very jealous Exo 34:14. We must have no God's before Him Exo 20:3.

2. Is God just in that He ordained Jesus suffer a cruel and torturous death for sins He did not commit?

If, Yes, please explain. If you state that Jesus was a ransom as some do, please note that that does not answer the question, it is simply moving the goal posts.

Case study that you can edit as you wish - Let's say you made a gun (God made mankind).and knew that the gun would get no sales unless it was known to have killed someone (nobody would go to heaven unless Jesus was '''''ransomed'', '''punished'', ''paid penalty for sin'', ''volunteered'' pick whatever words you want). You give the gun to a person called lucifer. Let's say a criminal gang leader of a Mexican cartel. You chose your innocent daughter as the victim (Jesus was sinless and He was chosen Eph 1:4). Knowing that by choosing Lucifer your daughter would not just be shot but tortured and then shot. And you would not come to her aid even though she does try to call you and ask for help. (Jesus was sent as a lamb to the slaughter, He was abandoned, He asked God the Father for help, He was beaten and crucified). Do you think anyone on this planet with a working brain would think of you as a good, righteous and loving father?

3. Do you believe God cannot manifest Himself as three different beings?

If, yes, please explain to me how God came into existence.

4. Was Jesus dumb and lying when He angered the Pharisees all the more by making Himself equal with God? John 5:18

If, No, please explain why.



For the second time stop trying to change the topic from you needing to defend your belief. We can discuss my belief right after you deal with the above.

They're logical conclusions from a false premise. But since you're unwilling to address the false premise we will never make any progress.

Once again, if you're going to make a claim please support it with Scripture.

Incorrect. God made mankind. God made Jesus. God sent Jesus to the cross.

God sent Jesus to the cross? Can you provide Scripture please?

 

[B-A-C]

Let's look at the version that Jesus and the apostles used.

Nice try, heard this before, it's still nonsense. They read and spoke Hebrew.


John 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes.
John 19:13 Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
John 19:17 They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.
John 19:20 Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.
John 20:16 Jesus *said to her, "Mary!" She turned and *said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).
Acts 21:40 When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,
Acts 22:2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he *said,
Acts 26:14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Php 3:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
Rev 9:11 They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon.
Rev 16:16 And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.

 

[KingJ]

As I've stated an untold number of times, it doesn't incriminate God.

As I have proven in the post above, it does.

As I have stated a number of times you move the goal posts and change the topic. Fortunately any person reading here can see this with you three.

Your misunderstanding of Scripture and theology "DOES NOT" validate your statement. Sadly, you're too obsessed with your little scenario to see anything else. Also, you incessant obsession with Justice leaves no room for forgiveness.

Oh spare me your lecture and just answer the above post.

God made Jesus? That's not Modalism or Trinitarianism. Are you also part Arian? I've never seen this combination before. You're definitely not Trinitarian because one of the major tenets of Trinitarianism is from the Nicene Creed and states plainly that the Son was begotten "NOT:" made.

God made literally everything. Are you disputing God made Jesus? Really?

God sent Jesus to the cross? Can you provide Scripture please?

Sure, right after you answer post # 83. I need to confirm you are more than an ai bot.

Really? It's not my arguments that are laced with fallacies.

Prove your accusation. Imagine making an accusation with no evidence.

If God punished Himself who raised Him from the dead?

If you attempt to deal with my post # 83 to you this will become obvious.

_________________________

More brain rot drivel Butch. I am starting to think you are an AI bot.

 

[KingJ]

They're logical conclusions from a false premise. But since you're unwilling to address the false premise we will never make any progress.

The premise is your belief. Oh my word. Talk about evasion.

YOU BELIEVE Jesus is NOT God.

YOU NEED to explain if God is UPSET with us SERVING and PRAYING to Jesus.

YOU NEED to explain how God is good if He ordained Jesus suffer a cruel death for sins He did not commit.

YOU NEED to explain why you can't accept Him making Himself as three when you cannot even grasp how He came to be.

YOU NEED to explain if Jesus was mentally handicapped when He made Himself equal with God.

Can you troll harder?

 

[Butch5]

Nice try, heard this before, it's still nonsense. They read and spoke Hebrew.


John 5:2 Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheep gate a pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porticoes.
John 19:13 Therefore when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out, and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Pavement, but in Hebrew, Gabbatha.
John 19:17 They took Jesus, therefore, and He went out, bearing His own cross, to the place called the Place of a Skull, which is called in Hebrew, Golgotha.
John 19:20 Therefore many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city; and it was written in Hebrew, Latin and in Greek.
John 20:16 Jesus *said to her, "Mary!" She turned and *said to Him in Hebrew, "Rabboni!" (which means, Teacher).
Acts 21:40 When he had given him permission, Paul, standing on the stairs, motioned to the people with his hand; and when there was a great hush, he spoke to them in the Hebrew dialect, saying,
Acts 22:2 And when they heard that he was addressing them in the Hebrew dialect, they became even more quiet; and he *said,
Acts 26:14 "And when we had all fallen to the ground, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew dialect, 'Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.'
Php 3:5 circumcised the eighth day, of the nation of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the Law, a Pharisee;
Rev 9:11 They have as king over them, the angel of the abyss; his name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in the Greek he has the name Apollyon.
Rev 16:16 And they gathered them together to the place which in Hebrew is called Har-Magedon.

What they spoke is irrelevant. The LXX was the primary text in the Mediterranean world. Not many outside of Jerusalem spoke Hebrew by NT times. Greek was the primary language as it was the language of trade. The LXX is what was used in the synagogues. As I pointed out the LXX was the text that Jesus and the apostles used. The Masoretic text is the text of Rabbinic Judaism, i.e. the unbelieving Jews. One can choose to believe whatever they want to believe. If one wants to believe that God punished and killed His Son, they can. I find that idea asinine, and it impugns God's character. The Bible is replete with statements that God will forgive sins, It doesn't say God requires payment for sins. The idea of a legal justice needing to be met is not a Biblical doctrine, rather it is a Reformation doctrine, The Penal Atonement doctrine is only about 500 years old. Since I believe you're one of the few that I've found that is interested in getting to truth let me suggest a book called "Christus Victor." In it the author looks at how Christ's atonement was understood at the first and then looks at how things changed over the centuries. The first Christians did not see Christ's death as a payment to satisfy God. That idea became formalized by the Catholic theologian Anselm of Canterbury around 1100 A.D and was later turned into the Penal Atonement model by the Reformers. And actually, it was the later Reformers, because Luther actually held the view that the earliest Christians held. The book is available online at various places. However, it's also available from here.

Christus victor : an historical study of the three main types of the idea of atonement : Aulén, Gustaf, 1879-1977 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xvi, 163 pages ; 20 cm

archive.org

 

[Butch5]

The premise is your belief. Oh my word. Talk about evasion.

YOU BELIEVE Jesus is NOT God.

YOU NEED to explain if God is UPSET with us SERVING and PRAYING to Jesus.

YOU NEED to explain how God is good if He ordained Jesus suffer a cruel death for sins He did not commit.

YOU NEED to explain why you can't accept Him making Himself as three when you cannot even grasp how He came to be.

YOU NEED to explain if Jesus was mentally handicapped when He made Himself equal with God.

Can you troll harder?

No, the premise is that you believe Christ suffered at God's hand.

 

[KingJ]

No, the premise is that you believe Christ suffered at God's hand.

That is a separate premise. A separate discussion. Try deal with my accusation of YOUR belief first.

YOU believe Jesus is not God. That is the premise of my questions. ''DUH''????

And, by stating what you have above, you seem to think the suffering Jesus endured caught God off guard. He did not expect it. He did not plan it. He did not foresee it. If your answer to my second question in the post you quoted is that '''Jesus did not suffer at Gods hand'', that is simply moving the goal posts. Jesus suffered FACT. God created all FACT. God ordained that all suffering is linked to our sin to maintain being good and just. FACT. Explain....without moving the goal posts.

-------------

Butch, I want you to imagine what sane thinking rational non-Christians will gather when you espouse the fact that Jesus is not God.

For the love of God, stop evading my accusations of YOUR belief.

If I had to post YOUR explanations, cough cough evasive replies, on the atheist sites I am on, I am telling you that all will use colourful words for your brain matter.

Try understand that fact and be a better Christian. Do a better job at defending what you espouse.

 

[Butch5]

As I have proven in the post above, it does.

As I have stated a number of times you move the goal posts and change the topic. Fortunately any person reading here can see this with you three.

No, you've simply refused to assess your argument.

Oh spare me your lecture and just answer the above post.

Do you mean the lecture that shows your argument is flawed?

God made literally everything. Are you disputing God made Jesus? Really?

Yes, I'm disputing that God made Jesus. Scripture tells us that the Son is begotten.

You should check the Scriptures. They also tell us that all things were made By Christ. This is the point I'm making about your understnadnig of Scripture

Sure, right after you answer post # 83. I need to confirm you are more than an ai bot.

That would a no. So once again, you're making an assumption and then demanding that someone take the time to disprove you assumption. Now can you see why people are answering it?

Prove your accusation. Imagine making an accusation with no evidence.

Imagine that! It's not like your whole argument is an accusation without proof. Where does Scripture say that God sent Jesus to the cross?

If you attempt to deal with my post # 83 to you this will become obvious.

_________________________

More brain rot drivel Butch. I am starting to think you are an AI bot.

Another sidestepping. If God punished Himself who raised Him from the dead?

 

[KingJ]

No, you've simply refused to assess your argument.

Do you mean the lecture that shows your argument is flawed?

Yes, I'm disputing that God made Jesus. Scripture tells us that the Son is begotten.

You should check the Scriptures. They also tell us that all things were made By Christ. This is the point I'm making about your understnadnig of Scripture

That would a no. So once again, you're making an assumption and then demanding that someone take the time to disprove you assumption. Now can you see why people are answering it?

Imagine that! It's not like your whole argument is an accusation without proof. Where does Scripture say that God sent Jesus to the cross?

Another sidestepping. If God punished Himself who raised Him from the dead?

I will respond to these once....

YOU DEAL WITH MY ACCUSATIONS OF YOUR BELIEF!.................

For crying out aloud, stop trolling!

 

[KingJ]

Another sidestepping. If God punished Himself who raised Him from the dead?

So, I gather that since you have not got a rational answer for this you have to push a belief that completely and utterly incriminates God, mocks Jesus and all of Christianity.

As if you have a rational answer for where God comes from? You are demanding a rational argument to something that is not rational. It is science and biology that is mostly beyond us.

But as I have already said, what is not beyond us, is grasping what is good and evil Gen 3:22. As such, I expect and demand you explain why you push a belief that does most certainly incriminate God, mocks Jesus and all of Christianity.

I do understand that you need to evade dealing with my accusations as a direct reply to this painful logic will only but incriminate you and get you banned. I suppose I am asking you to type, ''YES, I believe Jesus must not be worshipped and prayed to. 2.4 billion Christians on earth are completely deceived and out of line. The Holy Spirit is quite bad at His one job''.

------------------------

When we look at scripture on the topic. We see it teaches that God separated Himself from Himself. He became two Lords. See scripture in post # 36 in this thread.

 

[Butch5]

That is a separate premise. A separate discussion. Try deal with my accusation of YOUR belief first.

YOU believe Jesus is not God. That is the premise of my questions. ''DUH''????

And, by stating what you have above, you seem to think the suffering Jesus endured caught God off guard. He did not expect it. He did not plan it. He did not foresee it. If your answer to my second question in the post you quotes is that '''Jesus did not suffer at Gods hand'' that is simply moving the goal posts. Jesus suffered FACT. God created all FACT. God ordained that all suffering is linked to our sin to maintain being good and just. FACT. Explain....without moving the goal posts.

-------------

Butch, I want you to imagine what sane thinking rational non-Christians will gather when you espouse the fact that Jesus is not God.

For the love of God, stop evading my accusations of YOUR belief.

If I had to post YOUR explanations, cough cough evasive replies, on the atheist sites I am on, I am telling you that all will use colourful words for your brain matter.

Try understand that fact and be a better Christian. Do a better job at defending what you espouse.

My friend, seriously, I am beginning to get embarrassed for you. If you don't even know what the premise of your argument is how can you possible attempt to make a logical argument? I'm seriously.

• Arguments are a set of statements (premises and conclusion).
• The premises provide evidence, reasons, and grounds for the conclusion.
• The conclusion is what is being argued for.
• An argument attempts to draw some logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
• And in doing so, the argument expresses an inference: a process of reasoning from the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion.

Logic and the Study of Arguments – Critical Thinking

If we want to study how we ought to reason (normative) we should start by looking at the primary way that we do reason (descriptive):…

open.library.okstate.edu

Your argument is that if God punishes an innocent one, He is unjust. Therefore, He must punish Himself to avoid being unjust. That argument is based on the idea that God must punish someone. This a premise that you have not established but rather have assumed. Another premise that you bring to the argument is the Trinity, that there is one God in three persons. This is another premise that you have not established, This premise makes you argument circular, i.e. The fallacy of Begging the Question or Circular Reasoning. The premise assumes the conclusion.

One fact we know Jesus is the one who suffered. Therefore, according to what you've said Jesus must punish Himself. This is your claim that Jesus is God and proves a trinity. However, the problem with you argument is that you claim the Father is God and that the Spirit is God and that there is one God. Well, if God punished Himself Then your argument requires that the Father and Spirit also punished Jesus. However, according to your other premise, this is unjust. Alos, if God punished Himself, it requires that the Father and the Spirit were also punished and punished each other. And it would require that Jesus punished both the Father and the Spirit. Can you not see how asinine this is? This is why I am embarrassed for you. Please for your ow sake, stop posting these ridiculous scenarios. It's not becoming of Christian.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves a false premise:

• If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
• The streets are wet. (premise)
• Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false — a street cleaner may have passed, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained and that the streets are wet. This does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships.

False premise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[KingJ]

My friend, seriously, I am beginning to get embarrassed for you. If you don't even know what the premise of your argument is how can you possible attempt to make a logical argument? I'm seriously.

• Arguments are a set of statements (premises and conclusion).
• The premises provide evidence, reasons, and grounds for the conclusion.
• The conclusion is what is being argued for.
• An argument attempts to draw some logical connection between the premises and the conclusion.
• And in doing so, the argument expresses an inference: a process of reasoning from the truth of the premises to the truth of the conclusion.

Logic and the Study of Arguments – Critical Thinking

If we want to study how we ought to reason (normative) we should start by looking at the primary way that we do reason (descriptive):…

open.library.okstate.edu

1. Cringe
2. I made four statements. You are focusing on one. Completely and utterly avoiding the others.

Your argument is that if God punishes an innocent one, He is unjust.

Yes.

Therefore, He must punish Himself to avoid being unjust.

Yes.

That argument is based on the idea that God must punish someone.

Yes.

This a premise that you have not established but rather have assumed.

No.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death.

Another premise that you bring to the argument is the Trinity, that there is one God in three persons.

Yes

This is another premise that you have not established,

Incorrect.

See post # 36. Scripture makes the argument for the trinity.

I am glad to see you acknowledge it is a separate premise. Now, try and separate the discussion of the trinity from my accusations of your personal belief of no trinity.....

This premise makes you argument circular, i.e. The fallacy of Begging the Question or Circular Reasoning. The premise assumes the conclusion.

Don't agree. Inserted a claim with no example or support.

One fact we know Jesus is the one who suffered.

Yes.

Therefore, according to what you've said Jesus must punish Himself.

God the Father punishes God the Son. You are typing half the line. But high level, yes.

This is your claim that Jesus is God and proves a trinity.

Not 'the' claim. But, yes, one of many.

However, the problem with you argument is that you claim the Father is God and that the Spirit is God and that there is one God. Well, if God punished Himself Then your argument requires that the Father and Spirit also punished Jesus. However, according to your other premise, this is unjust. Alos, if God punished Himself, it requires that the Father and the Spirit were also punished and punished each other. And it would require that Jesus punished both the Father and the Spirit. Can you not see how asinine this is? This is why I am embarrassed for you. Please for your ow sake, stop posting these ridiculous scenarios. It's not becoming of Christian.

Kudo's to you for at least trying to rationalise it.

It is not asinine. What you need to do is look at an example of parents having a child.

If we state as fact that two are one. Both husband and wife are ''one spirit''. The wife commits to pain in childbirth. Is it correct to say the wife punishes herself? Is it correct to say the husband punished the wife? As both agree and it is for the purposes of a child, it is not silly.

It would only be 'asinine' if the 'wife' endured pain in childbirth for no child.

A false premise is an incorrect proposition that forms the basis of an argument or syllogism. Since the premise (proposition, or assumption) is not correct, the conclusion drawn may be in error. However, the logical validity of an argument is a function of its internal consistency, not the truth value of its premises.

For example, consider this syllogism, which involves a false premise:

• If the streets are wet, it has rained recently. (premise)
• The streets are wet. (premise)
• Therefore it has rained recently. (conclusion)

This argument is logically valid, but quite demonstrably wrong, because its first premise is false — a street cleaner may have passed, the local river could have flooded, etc. A simple logical analysis will not reveal the error in this argument, since that analysis must accept the truth of the argument's premises. For this reason, an argument based on false premises can be much more difficult to refute, or even discuss, than one featuring a normal logical error, as the truth of its premises must be established to the satisfaction of all parties.

Another feature of an argument based on false premises that can bedevil critics, is that its conclusion can in fact be true. Consider the above example again. It may well be that it has recently rained and that the streets are wet. This does nothing to prove the first premise, but can make its claims more difficult to refute. This underlies the basic epistemological problem of establishing causal relationships.

False premise - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Cringe.

------------------

Please try focus on my accusations of your belief.

You believe Jesus is not God.

You need to explain the questions I have raised. Your 'premises' I assume are:

1. God is not evil.... because He sent Jesus as a ''ransom'' for sin He did not commit? Sending your daughter as a ransom for a debt you owe to a Mexican cartel exonerates you of being evil?
2. God does not hate us serving Jesus......as He mistyped that He is jealous?
3. Jesus is not God.....Jesus was just extremely silly to make Himself equal with God? He had the intellect of a Japanese kamikaze pilot?
4. God is not evil.....as Jesus sinned as all humans do, He said only God is good Mark 10:18, so He deserved His punishment.

More dancing incoming? Can you not see how asinine your belief is?

 

[Butch5]

1. Cringe
2. I made four statements. You are focusing on one. Completely and utterly avoiding the others.



Yes.



Yes.



Yes.



No.

Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death.

Wages. Wages are not a punishment; they are something earned. Please establish your premise that God must punish someone.

Yes



Incorrect.

See post # 36. Scripture makes the argument for the trinity.

I am glad to see you acknowledge it is a separate premise. Now, try and separate the discussion of the trinity from my accusations of your personal belief of no trinity.....



Don't agree. Inserted a claim with no example or support.



Yes.



God the Father punishes God the Son. You are typing half the line. But high level, yes.

But yet you claim this is unjust.

Not 'the' claim. But, yes, one of many.



Kudo's to you for at least trying to rationalise it.

It is not asinine. What you need to do is look at an example of parents having a child.

If we state as fact that two are one. Both husband and wife are ''one spirit''. The wife commits to pain in childbirth. Is it correct to say the wife punishes herself? Is it correct to say the husband punished the wife? As the 'punishment' is part and parcel of 'having a child', the A-Z is not only 'punishment'. It is 'punishment + child'.

It would only be 'asinine' if the 'wife' endured pain in childbirth for no child.

The problem here is that having a child is not required. Forgiveness of sin is. Also, the pain is not being administered by the husband.

Cringe.

------------------

Please try focus on my accusations of your belief.

You believe Jesus is not God.

You're not paying attention. I am arguing that the Trinity doctrine is not so. I am not arguing that Jesus is not God, as the word God is used in Scripture NOT as it is used in the Trinity doctrine.

You need to explain the questions I have raised. Your 'premise' is that (I assume)

1. God is not evil.... because He sent Jesus as a ransom for sin He did not commit?
2. God does not hate us serving Jesus......as He mistyped that He is jealous?
3. Jesus is not God.....Jesus was just extremely silly to make Himself equal with God?

More dancing incoming? Can you not see how asinine your belief is?

I don't have to explain it. It's based on your false premise. God did not harm His Son, Satan did.

It's sad that you think that proper reasoning is Cringe.

 

[KingJ]

Wages. Wages are not a punishment; they are something earned.

Correct, you earn punishment if you sin.

Please establish your premise that God must punish someone.

You are moving the goal posts. Let me know what word you want to use for God dropping sulfur and brimstone on Sodom.

But yet you claim this is unjust.

Lie, I have not claimed this.

The problem here is that having a child is not required. Forgiveness of sin is.

Incorrect. God made mankind for the sole purpose of having children in His house. The childbirth example is 100% inline with scripture.

John 1:12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.

Jesus and the cross was planned from before the foundations of the world. Eph 1:4.

Also, the pain is not being administered by the husband.

One thing you right on is that God did not directly administer the pain. But God did expect and 'ordain' it.

You're not paying attention. I am arguing that the Trinity doctrine is not so. I am not arguing that Jesus is not God, as the word God is used in Scripture NOT as it is used in the Trinity doctrine.

Joy, so you do not even know what you believe.

I don't have to explain it. It's based on your false premise. God did not harm His Son, Satan did.

Butch, this line, is 100% brain rot drivel. Surely you can do better.

''God did not harm His Son, Satan did.'' ....

= Butch did not harm his daughter, when he made her and sent her to be a ransom for his son's debt to the Mexican drug cartel. The Mexican cartel are to blame.

It's sad that you think that proper reasoning is Cringe.

What's sad is that 1. Thinking my lines are not proper reasoning and 2. After fifty posts over two threads still unable to provide direct replies to them.

You are so evasive and now you claim to not even be a non trinitarian.

 

[B-A-C]

What they spoke is irrelevant. The LXX was the primary text in the Mediterranean world. Not many outside of Jerusalem spoke Hebrew by NT times

No.

 

[Butch5]

No.

You can deny it. It doesn't change the facts.

 

[KingJ]

@Butch5

It is forgivable to not at first grasp or believe in the trinity. But you need to meditate and pray on it a lot more. You are swimming against the tide of many scriptures and pushing a belief that does incriminate God and mock Christianity.

These are facts of a non - trinitarian belief that any person on the planet with a working brain will conclude. If you disagree, type ''KingJ I disagree with point 1 for this reason.

1. God is not evil.... because He sent Jesus as a ''ransom'' for sin He did not commit. Sending your child as a ransom for a debt you owe to a Mexican cartel exonerates you of being evil!!. Obviously.

2. God does not hate us serving Jesus.....He mistyped that He is jealous and accidentally killed all the Hebrews worshipping the golden calf!!

3. Jesus is not God.....Jesus was just extremely silly to make Himself equal with God? He had the intellect of a Japanese kamikaze pilot!!

4. God is not evil.....Jesus sinned as all humans do, He even said that only God is good Mark 10:18, so He deserved His punishment.

5. So what if 2.4 billion Christians worship and serve Jesus as Lord....the Holy Spirit is quite bad at His one job of teaching us the truth.

---------------------------------

Your comebacks are troll like. Namely:

1. Avoiding direct replies to the direct accusations for fifty posts and still counting.
2. Replying with 'Let's talk about your belief, how does God raise God?'.
3. Google and post the definition of a premise.
4. Try to make the case that God dropping fire and brimstone on Sodom is not God punishing Sodom. Thereby implying that God is unjust and his wrath is random.

--------------------------------

I have dropped a nuclear bomb on your belief and you pick up a tennis racket thinking you are in a tennis match returning a tennis ball. You have turned the discussion into a comedy show.

 

[Garee]

The Messiah would be the Son of God

Psa 2:6-9 "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain." (7) "I will surely tell of the decree of the Lord: He said to Me, 'You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. (8) 'Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession. (9) 'You shall break them with a rod of iron, You shall shatter them like earthenware.'"

A virgin would give birth to one who is 'God with us'

Isa 7:14 "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel.

I would offer.

The dynamic dual the Father, eternal God not seen made know demonstrated by the son of man Jesus seen. The Holy Father and Son team.

The Messiah (not seen) is Christ the anointing Holy Spirit of the Farther. as Lord of lords is called the one good teaching master or Rabbi.

Luke 18:17-19And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?;And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.

Christ the mediator works in sons of God his virgin bride the church.

In that way Paul suffered in pains of born again preaching the gospel hoping Christ will be formed in Timothy.

Galatians4:19 My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

2 Corinthians 11:2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.

Christian sons of God the chaste virgin bride the church.

Revelation 12:1-2And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

Remember as sons of God we are not what we will be.

No reincarnation.

One incorruptible body the chaste virgin (not married) bride the two literally becoming one .

Chaste virgin not having to do with human sex..

Satan the father of the lust of the flesh drawing to lust of the eye the two building blocks of false pride .

Not of our Holy Father in heaven but the lust of this world. the cause of the fall. four words of false prophecy "neither shall you touch"

Therefore, in that parable the tree hidden in the center of the garden. . . the lust of the flesh (I want it now!) moved them to the center opening the eyes by its lust. . touching, not dying both ate from the same what I call almond tree the fruit of rebellion