Thy Geekdom Come Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:07 PM']RESPONSE: Again, lets observe the use of the passive rather than active voice in these passages: It might have been if Christ actually said that. See if you can find anything like it in the Synoptic gospels. Acts 2:2424 "But God RAISED him up, RELEASING HIM from the throes of death, because it was impossible for him TO BE HELD by it." Acts 4:10 "then all of you and all the people of Israel should know that it was in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazarean whom you crucified, whom GOD RAISED from the dead; in his name this man stands before you healed" Romans 4:24 "who believe in THE ONE WHO RAISED Jesus our Lord from the dead, " [right][snapback]635102[/snapback][/right] [/quote] First off, you can't just completely disregard an entire Gospel. Your first quote says that it was impossible for Him to be held. That philosophically means that it is a trait of Christ not to be held. This proves first that He is infinite, and thus God, because only an infinite thing cannot be held. Secondly, it proves that it is intrinsic to Him that He could not be held by death. It was a quality of Christ Himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 7 2005, 05:49 PM']No see, then we would have to go into this little ordeal over trying to disprove the book of John to a pile of nothing, because it is so clear, that its too clear for comfort for LittleLes [right][snapback]634870[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Yes, indeed. Textual criticism is important. Threshold questions: (1) Who wrote the Gospel we call John's Gospel? (2) When was it written? (3) Does it relate exactly what Jesus said? (4) How does it differ from the Synoptic Gospels in content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Raphael' date='Jul 7 2005, 09:11 PM']First off, you can't just completely disregard an entire Gospel. Your first quote says that it was impossible for Him to be held. That philosophically means that it is a trait of Christ not to be held. This proves first that He is infinite, and thus God, because only an infinite thing cannot be held. Secondly, it proves that it is intrinsic to Him that He could not be held by death. It was a quality of Christ Himself. [right][snapback]635109[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: (1) I'm not disregarding "an entire gospel." Only the parts that are doubtfully authentic, such as Jesus calling the Jews the sons of Satan. (2) "That philosophically means that it is a trait of Christ not to be held. This proves first that He is infinite, and thus God, because only an infinite thing cannot be held." Not at all. It means that it was God's intent to raise him from the dead. (Actually, I can't hold a number of things. Does this in itself make them "infinite"? ) (3) No again. Something that is raised is acted upon. Not the actor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 7 2005, 10:20 PM']RESPONSE: (1) I'm not disregarding "an entire gospel." Only the parts that are doubtfully authentic, such as Jesus calling the Jews the sons of Satan. (2) "That philosophically means that it is a trait of Christ not to be held. This proves first that He is infinite, and thus God, because only an infinite thing cannot be held." Not at all. It means that it was God's intent to raise him from the dead. (Actually, I can't hold a number of things. Does this in itself make them "infinite"? ) (3) No again. Something that is raised is acted upon. Not the actor. [right][snapback]635122[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1. Why would that be doubtful? Doesn't mean they were literal sons, nor does it necessarily mean of the devil...satan just means "enemy." 2. Just because you can't hold a number of things doesn't mean they're infinite. You are confusing your traits and the traits of the objects. You can't hold a star...but it's not infinite. The universe can hold it. The star is intrinsically holdable, just not to you. 3. Indeed, but if I help you up of the ground, chances are that you are cooperating with me (to cooperate literally means "to work with") by pulling back on my and probably pushing off the ground a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fidei Defensor Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 LittleLes, with all due respect, you are intelligent, but we hold 2,000 years of study against what you are saying. Length of time or number of people does not automatically make it correct, but many many people have studied these things, and the Catholic teachings have stayed the same [u]the whole time.[/u] Its you against the years and years of study by the great theologians. I have a pretty strong feeling on who i should put my bet on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 Les is just rehashing his same garbage which has already been dealt with in the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=33775&st=0"]Divinity of Christ thread.[/url] He just wants to keep repeating the same thing over and over in a bunch of threads. I however don't have time to keep refuting it over and over. I suggest that if he has anything new to say on this topic (which thus far he has not), he post it there, and stop hijacking threads with this obnoxious spamming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='fidei defensor' date='Jul 7 2005, 09:45 PM']LittleLes, with all due respect, you are intelligent, but we hold 2,000 years of study against what you are saying. Length of time or number of people does not automatically make it correct, but many many people have studied these things, and the Catholic teachings have stayed the same [u]the whole time.[/u] Its you against the years and years of study by the great theologians. I have a pretty strong feeling on who i should put my bet on. [right][snapback]635151[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE. Until about 1633 there was the common belief based on years of study of scripture that the sun revolved around the earth and the earth did not move. But that view is now held as being in error, isn't it? Except by some Christians who insist on scriptural inerrancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cam42 Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 7 2005, 02:03 PM']RESPONSE: I don't know about you sanity, but you are in error as to fact (at least regarding the writings of the New Testament.) Jesus did not claim that he rose from the dead, nor does Peter state that Jesus did. Jesus was said to have been raised by God: Acts 2: 24 "But God raised him up, having freed him from death,* because it was impossible for him to be held in its power." And as for the martyr arguments, do the actions of the fundamentalist suicide bombers prove the truth of their religious beliefs? Or does that only apply to Christians? [right][snapback]634538[/snapback][/right] [/quote] You have got to be kidding.....LittleLes....you are now hijacking fun threads to disseminate your foolish notions..... Sorry about this Mrs. Bro. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Raphael' date='Jul 7 2005, 09:27 PM']1. Why would that be doubtful? Doesn't mean they were literal sons, nor does it necessarily mean of the devil...satan just means "enemy." 2. Just because you can't hold a number of things doesn't mean they're infinite. You are confusing your traits and the traits of the objects. You can't hold a star...but it's not infinite. The universe can hold it. The star is intrinsically holdable, just not to you. 3. Indeed, but if I help you up of the ground, chances are that you are cooperating with me (to cooperate literally means "to work with") by pulling back on my and probably pushing off the ground a bit. [right][snapback]635131[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: 1. No. John's writings pretty much condemn the Jews so he has Jesus doing the same thing. This passage, along with others were cited by anti-semites as their justification. 2. You need to explain you reasoning that proves the "infinity" of Jesus. 3. So you don't think Jesus was really dead? Or that God needed some help in resurrecting him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Socrates' date='Jul 7 2005, 09:49 PM']Les is just rehashing his same garbage which has already been dealt with in the [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=33775&st=0"]Divinity of Christ thread.[/url] He just wants to keep repeating the same thing over and over in a bunch of threads. I however don't have time to keep refuting it over and over. I suggest that if he has anything new to say on this topic (which thus far he has not), he post it there, and stop hijacking threads with this obnoxious spamming. [right][snapback]635156[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: It must be recognized that some, because of a preconceived belief system or only being allowed to believe what their religious leaders tell them, cannot accept evidence regarding the nature of scripture. They have, at all costs, to maintain the inerrancy model. A by no means complete, but fairly accurate summation of the nature of John's Gospel can be found on-line at "Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Adam Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 8 2005, 08:02 AM']You have got to be kidding.....LittleLes....you are now hijacking fun threads to disseminate your foolish notions..... Sorry about this Mrs. Bro. Adam. [right][snapback]635532[/snapback][/right] [/quote] lol. The ignore feature is becoming tempting. I wouldn't even use it against Phazzan, but Littleles is completely unorginal and is only here to be antagonizing, and frankly, is only annoying. I don't know why people continue to respond. littleles proven a whole lot of nothing and its hardly worth taking the time to respond as this person is not looking for answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 8 2005, 07:02 AM']You have got to be kidding.....LittleLes....you are now hijacking fun threads to disseminate your foolish notions..... Sorry about this Mrs. Bro. Adam. [right][snapback]635532[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: Hijacking foolish threads to disseminate foolish notions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleLes Posted July 8, 2005 Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='Brother Adam' date='Jul 8 2005, 09:37 AM']lol. The ignore feature is becoming tempting. I wouldn't even use it against Phazzan, but Littleles is completely unorginal and is only here to be antagonizing, and frankly, is only annoying. I don't know why people continue to respond. littleles proven a whole lot of nothing and its hardly worth taking the time to respond as this person is not looking for answers. [right][snapback]635605[/snapback][/right] [/quote] RESPONSE: But he's here to be correct ,too. I think you are overlooking that fact! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Bro. Adam Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 8 2005, 09:39 AM']RESPONSE: Hijacking foolish threads to disseminate foolish notions. [right][snapback]635607[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1. Quit hijacking my thread. 2. Get thee to your local Catholic Church, for therein lies the complete Truth 3. Get a life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Bro. Adam Posted July 8, 2005 Author Share Posted July 8, 2005 [quote name='LittleLes' date='Jul 8 2005, 09:43 AM']RESPONSE: But he's here to be correct ,too. I think you are overlooking that fact! [right][snapback]635615[/snapback][/right] [/quote] 1. Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts