Jesus = Fact

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 285
#211
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Honesty = Truth = Fact = Indisputable = Verifiable = Quantifiable.

This is not true


If a statement is disputable, it may be Sincere, but it is not True
This is an admission that the above statement is not true.


If you really love God, you will strive towards purity of heart. If you do not do this, you do not truly love God, but are simply puffed up in your own pride and understanding. 
Topic's author
#212
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Honesty = Truth = Fact = Indisputable = Verifiable = Quantifiable.
This is not true
Please challenge my axioms and or point out a specific logical error and or provide a counter-factual.

If your definition of "Honesty" is merely "not that" (gainsaying) then you are making an appeal to ignorance and you de facto have no definition.

If a statement is disputable, it may be Sincere, but it is not True
This is an admission that the above statement is not true.
Your dispute must have some logical merit.  Merely gainsaying a statement is meritless. [LINK]

If you really love Brahma, you will strive towards purity of heart. If you do not do this, you do not truly love Brahma, but are simply puffed up in your own pride and understanding. 
#213
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Are you taking this discussion seriously, or are you simply using this as a way of mocking?


I am personally having trouble believing that you are being honest, but I will at least take your word for it. If I am wasting my time and efforts trying to help you understand, plesse tell me.

Topic's author
#214
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Are you taking this discussion seriously, or are you simply using this as a way of mocking?
I am not mocking anyone.  I am merely pointing out the logical incoherence of your statements.

I am personally having trouble believing that you are being honest, but I will at least take your word for it. If I am wasting my time and efforts trying to help you understand, plesse tell me.
I was pretty sure we discovered the limitations of our common ground when it diverged at "faith" (appeal to ignorance/mystery/special knowledge).

If you believe you can support your assertion that "god = the YHWH" with logic, please continue.
#215
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Are you taking this discussion seriously, or are you simply using this as a way of mocking?

If you have to ask.


appeal to ignorance/mystery/special knowledge

Bigot
#216
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I am telling you what the church teaches in a way that is intended to NOT be mysterious. 
So if you believe what I am saying, well....


The Ultimate Reality is God. 


If you want to see The Truth, purify your intentions, rid yourself of vices, and love the truth above all else. If there is any way to see The Truth, this is it. What other alternative is there? 

Reason is not going to compensate for perversity. In fact, it is very easy to rationalize anything, which in itself is evidence against reason being propped up as an idol before God. Is the effectiveness of sophistry and rhetoric not clear evidence of this?

What more is there really for me to say? We are at the top of the slide. If you don't have the faith to go down the slide, you are never going to know what it is like to experience going down the slide.

Topic's author
#217
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
We are at the top of the slide. If you don't have the faith to go down the slide, you are never going to know what it is like to experience going down the slide.
Sure, now which slide was it again?  If I don't like the "YHWH" slide, can I try the "Brahman" slide or the "Taoism" slide instead?

I have said before that "Brahman" might be an appropriate translation of God in India. Likewise, Tao might be an appropriate translation of God in China.

The concepts mean the same thing even if maybe they are understood differently in these diverse cultural manifestations.
Nice, so I can pick my personal favorite?
#218
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Seems we have a sock puppet. 
#219
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I would recommend Orthodox Christianity.

You of course can choose whatever you want. You have free will, after all.


#220
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Interestingly enough, the Greek word for heresy(it is actually a Greek word) literally means choice, used specifically in the context of self choice in favor of contention or strife.



#221
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Proof that you only "know" what you've been indoctrinated with. Your Jesus was a socialist.
#222
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
That would get a laugh in your stage act.
#223
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
I don't think any of us are fighting your god, that would be akin to fighting Caspar.
#224
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Save us from what? Your fictional god?
#225
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so he saw a ghost and made sure his stories didn't conflict with the other unverifiable stories.
He met a Person who he recognized and worshiped as God. He testifies to have seen Him and spent time with Him.
So, just like Joseph Smith?
Joseph Smith did not claim to be God. His followers never claimed to see him alive after his death. His teaching contradicts the Bible. 


So they knew exactly as much as we do.
Logically speaking, they would have access to much more information than we have today. 
Like what, for example?


Like libraries such as Caesarea, letters, and writings that are no longer available. 

***

Caesarea played an important role in early Christian history. Here the baptism of the Roman officer Cornelius took place; (Acts 10:1-5, 25-28) from here Paul set sail for his journeys in the eastern Mediterranean; and here he was taken prisoner and sent to Rome for trial. (Acts 23:23-24)...
The Church Father Origen founded a Christian academy in the city, which included a library of 30,000 manuscripts. At the beginning of the 4th century, the theologian Eusebius, who served as Bishop of Caesarea, composed here his monumental Historia Ecclesiastica on the beginnings of Christianity and the Onomasticon, a comprehensive geographical-historical study of the Holy Land.

Origen of Alexandria lived around 184 –  253 A.D., where he founded a Christian school there which included 30,000 manuscripts. Origin was originally from Alexandria so if anything was left of the writings of the Library of Alexandria he could have seen some of those texts, for according to Eusebius, Origin's father left him a small library of books. 

Origen sold the small library of Greek literary works which he had inherited from his father for a sum which netted him a daily income of four obols. 

***

The Royal Library of Antioch
The Royal Library of Antioch was destroyed in 363 AD by the Christian Emperor Jovian, who "at the urging of his wife, burned the temple with all the books in it with his concubines laughing and setting the fire",...


***

The Library of Pergamum
Pergamum was home to a library said to house approximately 200,000 volumes [in its prime]

***

The Libraries of Trajan’s Forum
Contained around 20,000 scrolls, still mentioned into the 5th-century.

The Library of Celsus
Completed in 120 A.D., and contained around 12,000 scrolls. 

The Imperial Library of Constantinople
Came into existence during the 4th-century and was said to contain, at its peak, 120,000 scrolls and codices. 

***


#226
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The Letters
The letters to the churches would have been copied and circulated shortly after they were received and read. What is more, the originals would have been preserved for as long as possible and the church would have known who wrote the letters. Paul addressed his letters to specific churches, such as Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, Galatia, as well as to specific people like Timothy and Tius. 

1 Corinthians 1:1-3 
1 Paul, called as an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, 
2 To the church of God which is at Corinth,...

Galatians 1:1-3 
1 Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead), 2 and all the brethren who are with me,
To the churches of Galatia:...

***

The early church fathers would have known who these letters were from and which churches they were sent to. When they wrote listing who wrote what gospel they would have either had first-hand knowledge, per people like Polycarp, who was a said to be taught by the Apostle John.

Ignatius, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome, Papias, mention Polycarp and his acquaintance with the Apostle John. 

Polycarp was acquainted with the Synoptic Gospels and The Acts...

He is well versed in the Pauline Epistles, and his references include Hebrews and the Pastorals. His special favorite, however, is I Peter; and of the other catholic epistles he knows James and I and II John. Revelation is not cited by him, but its chiliastic point of view was not congenial to him. He makes much use of I Clement, and there are allusions to the Ignatian letters of the sort one would expect from fairly recent acquaintance with them...
Irenaeus repeatedly states that Polycarp had received his tradition of faith from John, the disciple of the Lord, and other apostles,...There is certainly no reason to distrust the information that Polycarp had enjoyed personal converse, as did also his contemporary Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, with companions of Jesus, including a disciple named John;

There is reasonable evidence that Clement of Rome was a contempoary of Paul since Clement is mentioned by Paul.

The general opinion is, that he is the same as the person of that name referred to by St. Paul (Phil. iv. 3). The writings themselves contain no statement as to their author. The first, and by far the longer of them, simply purports to have been written in the name of the Church at Rome to the Church at Corinth. But in the catalogue of contents prefixed to the ms. they are both plainly attributed to one Clement; and the judgment of most scholars is, that, in regard to the first Epistle at least, this statement is correct, and that it is to be regarded as an authentic production of the friend and fellow-worker of St. Paul. 

Indeed, true companion, I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

So, the evidence is that these people knew who wrote what. They had access to the early source material. 

 



Topic's author
#227
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Joseph Smith did not claim to be God. His followers never claimed to see him alive after his death. His teaching contradicts the Bible.
Joseph Smith claimed to have special knowledge given to him by an angel, just like Saul/Paul.

If I claimed to have seen an angel, would you believe me?

If I claimed to be god, would that be easier or harder for you to believe?

If I claimed to know the one, true interpretation of the ancient holy scriptures, (illuminated by an angelic messenger) would you believe me?
#228
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL

Joseph Smith did not claim to be God. His followers never claimed to see him alive after his death. His teaching contradicts the Bible. 
Joseph Smith claimed to have special knowledge given to him by an angel, just like Saul/Paul.
Lots of people claim special knowledge. What Paul said was confirmed by the Apostles, those closest to Jesus. The Bible gave measures on how to determine if a prophet was from God and Joseph Smith does not meet the measure.

Deuteronomy 18:20-22 (NASB)
20 But the prophet who speaks a word presumptuously in My name which I have not commanded him to speak, or which he speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ 21 You may say in your heart, ‘How will we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ 22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not come about or come true, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken. The prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him.

What Joseph Smith said was contrary to what the Bible says. Therefore, logically, either Joseph Smith or the Bible or both, would be wrong because they say contrary things. 



If I claimed to have seen an angel, would you believe me?
What is an angel? In the cases of received revelation from God, they are a messenger. Since you are putting the onus upon me and what I think, no, I would not believe you. The biblical written revelation is closed. My opinion is that we have everything we need for our salvation. 


If I claimed to be god, would that be easier or harder for you to believe?
Again, if you put the onus on me, no, not in the least. Logically there is only one God. I believe the biblical God is God - period. 


If I claimed to know the one, true interpretation of the ancient holy scriptures, (illuminated by an angelic messenger) would you believe me?
No, unless what you said was logically consistent with the biblical revelation, and once you put in the caveat emptor "illuminated by an angelic messenger" I would be doubly cautious of anything you said.
.
 

Topic's author
#229
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If I claimed to know the one, true interpretation of the ancient holy scriptures, (illuminated by an angelic messenger) would you believe me?
No, unless what you said was logically consistent with the biblical revelation, and once you put in the caveat emptor "illuminated by an angelic messenger" I would be doubly cautious of anything you said.
That's what I like to hear.
#230
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I would go a step further and say that because you are against The Orthodox Church, your interpretation would always be suspect. Really, it is our book to interpret.

All of the heretics claim to believe in the bible. Many these days even claim to believe in it alone! They say it interprets itself. Yes, there are even those who say they have been taught by angels.


Well, that is something heretics have had in common even in the earliest days. Not much has changed. Heretics rarely accept yhat this is what they are, and only in recent times have the especially prideful taken this as a badge of honor.

But The Orthodox Church is THE Church, and so if you aren't with us..... well....

#231
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
You have supplied claims to such knowledge, not evidence. Evidence is a word you and your kind are at a loss to understand. When someone claims that someone else claimed something that is not evidence.
Topic's author
#232
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
I would go a step further and say that because you are against The Orthodox Church, your interpretation would always be suspect. Really, it is our book to interpret.
I remain unconvinced of your claims.  I am glad you are skeptical of modern claims of "divine revelation".  I am equally skeptical of ancient claims of "divine revelation".
#233
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Yet, what I am telling you is a truth you can confirm.


The Ultimate Reality is God

Wisdom is God's Son, The Word of God, who is God

The enlivening spirit of Truth who fills all things is The Holy Spirit, who is God


And these three consubstantial, of the same essence, 1 and undivided. The Father being the unknowable essence of God, and the Son and The Spirit being how God is manifested in creation.

And this is truth of a certainty, but if you would rather embrace arbitrariness by making all these claims "fill in the blank", do so at your own detriment. Wisdom comes to those who seek it, and discernment is the crown of wisdom.





#234
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
.
You have supplied claims to such knowledge, not evidence. Evidence is a word you and your kind are at a loss to understand. When someone claims that someone else claimed something that is not evidence.
I have done both, many times. If someone wants to make a claim, rather than take the time to lay down the evidence (which takes time) sometimes I just reply by disagreeing (a claim). If I get challenged more then sometimes I will take the time and lay down the evidence for my position to counter their own claim. 

I would charge that you are more guilty of this behavior of claiming without evidence, but it is a common occurrence on this forum that you are trying to single me out on. I think many others would agree with me that your posts are full of claims (so look in the mirror). 

Also, many times when I lay down evidence (an example of laying down evidence is Post 226) the evidence is left undisputed, so either the person agrees with it or they can't be bothered to reply. I'm not sure if that was the case with #226 however. I did not check. I just used it as an example of a post that included evidence to support my argument. 
Topic's author
#235
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Yet, what I am telling you is a truth you can confirm.
This statement is provably false.

You have personal testimony (new and unverifiable and logically incoherent).

You have ancient writings and traditions (old and unverifiable and logically incoherent).

I have no hope of converting you to Hinduism.

I have no hope of converting you to Hinduism because no matter how coherent and old the ancient Hindu scriptures are and no matter how many events they predicted and no matter how much factual historical evidence confirms the people and events described within its pages actually existed...

And no matter how many generations of Hindus profess how much the gods have made their lives richer and fuller and better and more meaningful...

None of that matters to you.  The same is true for me.

You are an inconvincable skeptic on Hinduism.  Send me an angel with a flaming sword and a talking donkey and I might reconsider.
#236
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
My religion is Truth Worship.


You can't see past images.


And you don't even believe in "Hinduism" as if that was a real religion anyway. There is no "Hinduism", it is a label made up by the British to describe the myriad of beliefs found in India.

Topic's author
#237
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
You are an inconvincable skeptic on Hinduism.  Send me an angel with a flaming sword and a talking donkey and I might reconsider.
#238
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
In other words, you are demanding a miracle because can't believe in Wisdom or living out the truth on their own merits.


How depraved.

Topic's author
#239
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Have fun in Naraka.
#240
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL

Funny how we Orthodox know better that it is God who is the judge of these things, not us.

Yet here you are, mocking me by saying things you don't even believe in.