Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Masihi

Theological Discussion

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

@Masihi

 

Well, an aspiring apologist with goals of one day moving to the west and becoming a theologian may as well step into the ring with everyone here and get a taste for what he will be up against going forward. Masihi's toughest audience will likely be former christians. Not just Masihi, but all aspiring and accomplished apologist's and theologians.

 

 Big hint: what you have is a foundation of apriori assumption and presupposition, like every other apologist and theologian in the world. 

 

That's it. Nothing more. And these are inadequate for establishing truth in any hard or absolute sense. So that's that. You'll always be done before even stepping off the starting line. You may want to ask yourself, 'how powerful is that? I thought christianity was absolutely powerful.' 

 

That was the lesson awaiting you in the link to the last debate. I allowed LuthAMF to make a fool of himself for purpose of example. And so that newbie apologist's like yourselves coming to visit us can stand back and see the "heads on pikes," surrounding our encampment. Be ye warned! Here lies the head of William of christforums. Here lies the head of LuthAMF from youtube.......

 

😂

 

 

So far the toughest audience I ever had were Jews not Muslims or ex Christians. Also I would be an apologist and theologian that focuses on Islam mainly and Judaism rather then Athiesm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

 

This line is utterly hilarious given the context of your reasons for believing Christianity over in the thread where I asked you directly why you believed.

 

Literally your answer is basically "I had a personal experience therefore I believe Christianity". How is that a rational argument? 

 

And we've been pointing out plenty of rational reasons why Christianity is nonsense, but you can't see them through your apologetic filter you have on.

 

According to you, God, the father, had a son (You know like all the Greek and Roman gods did) by impregnating a virgin human by the holy ghost (WTF is the holy ghost?) so that the son could be sacrificed to provide salvation to humanity. And you say that is rational?? It reads like bad Greek mythology. (Probably because the early Christians 'borrowed' from the religions around them, melding it to Judaism, much like how Islam borrowed from Judaism and Christianity)

 

We haven't even properly discussed the illogical position you hold that God who created everything somehow didn't create all the circumstances necessary for evil and sin.

You didn’t wait for my response which I will reply to on the other thread about why I believe in Christianity, I have both personal and rational arguments, I only gave you the personal one. You know Christianity is way different to Roman and Greek Paganism, God had an uncreated Word that was begotten of his essence, Roman and Greek gods had half man half human sons of women they decided to rape upon visiting earth. God didn’t have sex with Mary and then have Jesus. So far I’ve been responding to most of the assertions coming up here. I’m going to take it to the other thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sdelsolray said:

 

You are not "discussing".  You are preaching.  Learn the difference.

I’m not preaching I’m allowing you guys to say what you want and hopefully give the proper response, if I was preaching then I’d be proclaiming Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Masihi said:

So far the toughest audience I ever had were Jews not Muslims or ex Christians. Also I would be an apologist and theologian that focuses on Islam mainly and Judaism rather then Athiesm.

 

Another tough crowd is obviously Jews. Mainly because christian theology is utter nonsense to well informed jews who know and understand their own scriptures, the context of their own scriptures, and exactly what's wrong with christian theologians trying to hijack their own ethnic religion with horrible quote mining attempts and completely out of context assertions. Isaiah 7:14 is only the tip of the ice burg. 

 

But then again, most well informed atheist's are abreast to all of this as well so you two fronts to deal with in terms of ethnic well informed jews and well informed ex christians and atheists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Another tough crowd is obviously Jews. Mainly because christian theology is utter nonsense to well informed jews who know and understand their own scriptures, the context of their own scriptures, and exactly what's wrong with christian theologians trying to hijack their own ethnic religion with horrible quote mining attempts and completely out of context assertions. Isaiah 7:14 is only the tip of the ice burg. 

 

But then again, most well informed atheist's are abreast to all of this as well so you two fronts to deal with in terms of ethnic well informed jews and well informed ex christians and atheists. 

Michael Brown is pretty good at  demolishing most Jewish arguments against Jesus and Christianity though. I’m just not experienced in dealing with Judaism due to my lack of knowledge  the Old Testament. Muslims are generally very easy for me deal with the majority of times to me, since it’s always the same objections divinity of Christ, Trinity, reliability of the Bible, Mohammed in the Bible (although most Muslims moved away from trying to prove Mohammed is in the Bible due to its failings). Not to mention the divinity of Christ was something the early Christian community believed in, Bart Ehrman states that the disciples started preaching that Jesus was God after they claimed to have seen him risen from the grave. Either way it doesn’t boat to well for Islamic theology which states the disciples of Christ were Muslims and were blessed by God. As for Atheism and proving the existence of a God I think William Lane Craig and John Lennox rank as the top apologists on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Masihi said:

 

The term Xianity is meant to be a derogatory term in modern usage, also it’s not the proper word for Christianity in English, Christ is the English translation of Christos, as is Christianity, Xianity comes from the practice of removed the Christ and replacing it with the first letter of Christ’s name in Greek. So that isn’t the proper academic term for Christianity or Christians.

     You should look into Christograms and monograms in general.  But, tell you what, when I write my academic paper I'll go ahead and change up my terminology.

 

18 hours ago, Masihi said:

The divine Logos creates and is not created, the Angels do not create anything and are created, yes do they both serve similar functions as messengers yes, but they’re clearly not the same. There’s a sharp contrast between created Angels and the uncreated Logos who assumes the role of an Angel to the Father, this is pretty clear in Philo’s writings. Michael is a created archangel, the Logos is the uncreated speech and Wisdom of God that assumes the position of an archangel, it’s not rocket science. Just some information for you, the Gospel of John doesn’t use the definite article for the Logos either to make the Logos distinct with God the Father and not conflate the two, yet no one would doubt that the Word (spelled theos without the definite article) is divine and also God in the Gospel of John. Early Christians also avoided using the definite article for the Logos to not confuse it with the Father, I think Saint Justin the Martyr did so, but I’d have to check back on my information. Anyhow Philo saying not to use theos with the definite article for the Logos pretty much doesn’t really contradict the Christian understanding of the trinity at all. It’s pretty obvious that Philo believed in the divinity of the Logos, pretty much no one doubts that.

     Are you sure the logos was created?  Or is Philo just not consistent?  Because I see him saying things like (and I know I must have posted some of this before):



(206) And the Word rejoices in the gift, and, exulting in it, announces it and boasts of it, saying, “And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and You;”{69}{Numbers 16:48.} neither being uncreate as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties: a hostage to the Creator, as a pledge and security that the whole race would never fly off and revolt entirely, choosing disorder rather than order; and to the creature, to lead it to entertain a confident hope that the merciful God would not overlook his own work. For I will proclaim peaceful intelligence to the creation from him who has determined to destroy wars, namely God, who is ever the guardian of peace.

     The highlighting is mine (which I hope is obvious).  Philo has the word being neither created nor uncreated.  Right away this is a problem for you since this is not uncreated and he specifically has the word stating it is not uncreated as god is uncreated.  But elsewhere he says other things about the word:

 



(175) And God also causes us hunger, not that which proceeds from virtue, but that which is engendered by passion and vice. And the proof of this is, that he nourishes us with his own word, which is the most universal of all things, for manna being interpreted, means “what?” and “what” is the most universal of all things; for the word of God is over all the world, and is the most ancient, and the most universal of all the things that are created. This word our fathers knew not; I speak not of those who are so in truth, but of those who are grey with age, who say, “Let us give them a guide, and let us turn Back”16) unto passion, that is to say, to Egypt.

     The word of god here is the most ancient of created things.

 

     While I enjoyed your speculation on the archangels I'm pretty certain there's no source that mentions their origins or really any great detail about them at all (correct me if I am wrong).  What I mean by that is there is only mention of the creation of angels.  I do enjoy the idea that all archangels are created, and the logos, even though it is referred to as an archangel cannot be created as well or all archangels are the same sort of thing as this logos.  It's a nice bit of special pleading.

 

          mwc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mwc said:

     You should look into Christograms and monograms in general.  But, tell you what, when I write my academic paper I'll go ahead and change up my terminology.

 

     Are you sure the logos was created?  Or is Philo just not consistent?  Because I see him saying things like (and I know I must have posted some of this before):

 

 

     The highlighting is mine (which I hope is obvious).  Philo has the word being neither created nor uncreated.  Right away this is a problem for you since this is not uncreated and he specifically has the word stating it is not uncreated as god is uncreated.  But elsewhere he says other things about the word:

 

 

 

     The word of god here is the most ancient of created things.

 

     While I enjoyed your speculation on the archangels I'm pretty certain there's no source that mentions their origins or really any great detail about them at all (correct me if I am wrong).  What I mean by that is there is only mention of the creation of angels.  I do enjoy the idea that all archangels are created, and the logos, even though it is referred to as an archangel cannot be created as well or all archangels are the same sort of thing as this logos.  It's a nice bit of special pleading.

 

          mwc

 

Philo doesn’t say the Logos is created like other beings, so it doesn’t refute my understanding, as I believe God the Father is unbegotten while the Son is begotten. There seems to be confusion on what Philo seems to define as being uncreated and the Logos being neither created like creation nor uncreated like God, once you insert the words unbegotten and begotten, it makes sense to see what he was going for. By saying the Word or Logos is not uncreated like God what he meant was that it is begotten of God while God is unbegotten this is evident in his writings:

 

The Logos has an origin, but as God's thought it also has eternal generation. It exists as such before everything else all of which are secondary products of God's thought and therefore it is called the "first-born." The Logos is thus more than a quality, power, or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions. The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the Uncreated Father: "For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns" (Conf. 63). This picture is somewhat confusing because we learn that in the final analysis the Creative Power is also identified with the Logos. The Creative Power is logically prior to the Regent Power since it is conceptually older. Though the powers are of equal age, the creative is prior because one is king not of the nonexistent but of what has already come into being (QE 2.62).  These two powers thus delimit the bounds of heaven and the world. The Creative Power is concerned that things that come into being through it should not be dissolved, and the Regent Power that nothing either exceeds or is robbed of its due, all being arbitrated by the laws of equality through which things continue eternally (QE 2.64). The positive properties of God may be subdivided into these two polar forces; therefore, the expression of the One is the Logos that constitutes the manifestation of God's thinking, acting (Prov. 1.7; Sacr. 65; Mos. 1.283). According to Philo these powers of the Logos can be grasped at various levels. Those who are at the summit level grasp them as constituting an indivisible unity. At the two lower levels, respectively, are those who know the Logos as the Creative Power and beneath them those who know it as the Regent Power (Fug. 94-95; Abr. 124-125). The next level down represents those limited to the sensible world, unable to perceive the intelligible realities (Gig. 20). At each successively lower level of divine knowledge the image of God's essence is increasingly more obscured. These two powers will appear again in Plotinus. Here Undefined or Unlimited Intelligible Matter proceeds from the One and then turns back to its source (Enneads 2.4.5; 5.4.2; 6.7.17)

 

https://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/#SH9b

 

Also it’s more accurate to say that Philo believed the Word was begotten rather then created, the confusion seems to be here is the Philo viewed the act of begetting something as creation, either way from a Christian and theological standpoint it doesn’t, either way Philo viewed the Logos as distinct from the rest of creation due to it being begotten from the mind of God thus is preeminent over all creation as his first born son: 

 

Transcendent Power(s)
The Logos that God begat eternally because it is a manifestation of God's thinking-
acting,54 is an agent that unites two powers of the transcendent God. Philo relates that in an inspiration his own soul told him that in the one living and true God there were two supreme and primary powers, Goodness [or Creative Power] and Authority [or Regent Power]; and that by his Goodness he had created everything; and by his Authority he governed all that he had created; and that the third thing which was between the two, and had the effect of bringing them together was the Logos, for that it was owing to Logos that God was both a ruler and good.
And further Philo states that biblical cherubim are the symbols of the two powers of God but the flaming sword (Gen. 3.24) is the symbol of the Logos.55
53 Plato, Timaeus, 29.
54 Provid. 1. 7; Sacr.65; Mos. 1. 283.
55 Cher. 1. 27-28. Cf. Sacr.59; Abr. 124-125; Her.166; QE 2.68.
 
21
Philo's description of the Logos (the Mind of God) corresponds to the Greek concept of mind as hot and fiery.56 There are other powers of the Father and his Logos in addition to these two main powers including merciful and legislative:
Perhaps we may say that the most ancient, and the strongest and the most excellent metropolis ... is the divine Logos, to flee to which first is the most advantageous course of all. But the other five, ebbing as it were colonies of that one, are the powers of Him who utters the Word, the chief of which is his creative power, according to which the Creator made the world with a word; the second is his kingly power, according to which he who has created rules over what is created; the third is his merciful power, in respect to which the creator pities and shows mercy towards his own work; the fourth is his legislative power by which he forbids what may not be done ....57
Also the Logos has an origin, but as God's thought it also has eternal generation. It exists before everything else all of which are secondary products of God's thought, and therefore it is called the “first-born.”
The Logos is thus more than a quality, power or characteristic of God; it is an entity eternally generated as an extension, to which Philo ascribes many names and functions. The Logos is the first-begotten Son of the uncreated Father:
For the Father of the universe has caused him to spring up as the eldest son, whom, in another passage, he [Moses] calls the first-born; and he who is thus born, imitating the ways of his father, has formed such and such species, looking to his archetypal patterns.58

 

https://snsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Philos-Logos-Doctrine.pdf

 

The Jewish scriptures pretty much tell us that angels and arch angels are created beings subject to God, the book of Enoch describes fallen or evil angels as existing just as Christianity does, strangely present day rabbinical Judaism doesn’t believe in fallen angels for some reason. It’s pretty clear that the Logos performs the function of archangels, yet still being distinct to all created being due to it existing in the mind of the Father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/21/2019 at 12:01 AM, Masihi said:

I’m not preaching....

 

Just not in any way you can demonstrate, Mr. Preacher Man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.