Toxic Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 How about a common apologetic arguments and how to counter them thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RHEMtron Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 i think there should be a forum dedicated to that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotter Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 How about the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, Son of God? Christians can cite all the Trinitarian dogmatics, and Church Fathers from Tertullian, Origen, how Athanasius rebutted against Arius.... but so far none has been able to answer this question, quoted from the Gospel about the 2nd Coming of the Son of Man, ".....only the Father knows, not even the Son knows..." If Jesus the Son is God, how come the Son did not know? Evangelicals, I actually agree with you there are indicative statements: e.g. Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega...." My point is: in believing someone as God, you cannot do since "there are more pros and cons, then you take Jesus as God", my argument is it has to be 100% indicative, no compromise. Christians, I like to see your answer to this question itself, not with other metaphysical arguments. Refer to my above point of "more pros than cons" that is unacceptable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotBlinded Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 How about the Trinity, divinity of Jesus, Son of God? Christians can cite all the Trinitarian dogmatics, and Church Fathers from Tertullian, Origen, how Athanasius rebutted against Arius.... but so far none has been able to answer this question, quoted from the Gospel about the 2nd Coming of the Son of Man, ".....only the Father knows, not even the Son knows..." If Jesus the Son is God, how come the Son did not know? Evangelicals, I actually agree with you there are indicative statements: e.g. Thomas exclaimed "My Lord and my God!" Jesus said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega...." My point is: in believing someone as God, you cannot do since "there are more pros and cons, then you take Jesus as God", my argument is it has to be 100% indicative, no compromise. Christians, I like to see your answer to this question itself, not with other metaphysical arguments. Refer to my above point of "more pros than cons" that is unacceptable to me. I'm not a Christian, but I would like to give my understanding. The trinity to me represents cause, medium and effect. The way god/being/whatever works and how all of reality works. There is the source, action and result. Or in biblical terms: Father, holy ghost and son. Or, God, energy and creation. I think though the trinity was a later addition. Next to the son of god. The only reference to Jesus claiming to be the son of god is John 10:36. But, I would like to put it into context (for Chrisitians also ). Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one. Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? And the verse in which Jesus was referencing: Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High. What I see here is Jesus indeed claiming he is the son of god but no more than anyone else that understands their divine nature. He is saying that everyone is sons of god (masculine sense for the time period). I see Jesus trying to tell them that they are just as divine as he is. They cannot accept that because their understanding was not as such. He was trying to get them to understand their own religion, IMO. Jesus references this in the bolded area above where he says, "If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came..." This is not just applicable to him. (The word of god = the wisdom of god) Since I don't believe that Jesus is the son of god anymore than anyone else, it's easy to answer your question about why he didn't know when his second coming was. He didn't know how long it would take for everyone to realize they are also divine and to live as such. Once everyone understands what he was teaching and lived by it, the second coming has arrived. It is not a physical coming of 'Christ', but the awakening of the Christ-nature in mankind or when the "Word of God" becomes acknowledged in themselves. To me (this is convoluted, but bear with me), the Jews were right when rejecting Jesus as the messiah because he was trying to show them the error of their understandings. The Jews were also wrong because they didn't understand the very message their bible was portraying. Jesus even said, "Is it not written in your law..." "Your" law. Christians were wrong to think he was the Jewish messiah but they were right to understand that he and god were one and there is only one god (according to Jesus). But Jesus said this one god is everyone's god. They were wrong to claim that that god is only the Jewish god. This isn't what Jesus proclaimed. Someone came along and decided that he was the Jewish messiah and tried to tie him in with the Jewish religion. Power or misunderstanding? I don't know, maybe both. It would be like someone today that understands the old testament in a different light and then trying to show others how it means something else and then someone else claiming this person is the messiah. I don't think it could happen today because of the enormity of the world's population and the availablity of communication and knowledge. I think the time was ripe for someone to be called the messiah and Jesus just happened to be the one. If Buddha would have been alive then and born in the area, Buddha may have replaced Jesus' name in the bible. I think Jesus used the Jews undersandings and preached to them about their religion, using the words of their religion just like others might in order to get a Chrisitian (or other) to understand. We do that here...we will reason Christianity from within the Christian religion. This naturally tied him into it. If there was someone that was familiar with all the major religions, that person could reason that religion from within all those religions. It doesn't tie that person in to being a follower of any specific religion. It doesn't follow, and it shouldn't have followed with Jesus. If Jesus had the means available to him today that we have now, he would have preached the same thing to other religions...not just the Jews. He was trying to bring a universal understanding to people about god just as many philosophers and other ancient teachers were, IMO. That is...if he lived at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest GodzPoet Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Well... I think I am gonna take a shot at answering this. First off: To be completely honest I do not truly know. But I do have an idea as to why this is so. I believe that the reason Jesus doesn't know the hour of His return is related at least in part to the old marriage customs from that time in Jewish history. Throughout the bible there are references about the church being the bride of Christ, to the marriage supper, being prepared for when the bridegroom comes and to numerous other remarks related to different wedding customs from that time. The custom I am refering to is when the bridegroom is preparing for the wedding, part of his responsibility is to prepare the couples' "wedding chamber" which is in essence the home or sometimes even the bedroom. Now before the groom can go to bring his bride "home" he has to have his father's approval and make sure that it is an acceptable home. This is where I believe the origin of Jesus' remark that "no one knows the day... except the Father" comes from. This would fall in line with the marriage customs and follow the pattern of the teachings of Christ on the position of the Church in relation to Himself. I know this is probably not what you were looking for, but it is most likely something that not many people have considered. At one time I did some fairly decent study on the old Hebrew wedding customs to help me understand the many references to marriage in Christ's teachings. GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts