Total posts: 6
-->
@BrotherDThomas
So, finally, there is also a case that can be made in the New Testament. What it tells us is that the era in question—through the Old Testament, that is—is one of moral ignorance. A lot of acts were permitted but regulated.
It states in Acts of the Apostles, 17:30-31, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
It also says in the Gospel of Matthew, albeit regarding divorce, "“He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’” (Matthew 19:8). It made divorce, previously permissible, impermissible. In a similar manner, St. Paul states: "Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called." (1 Corinthians 7:23)
While he said this to those that were slaves or could become slaves, since Christians were becoming slaves to proselytise and serve others, this also applied to everyone: Being the slave of another meant dedicating themselves to someone else instead of God, and restricted us that were made in the Image of God. This was not how we were made to be nor how things were intended to be.
Continuing, in Philemon 1:8-16, Paul makes a plea for a slave named Onesimus, and noted that Philemon, the slave owner, should see Onesimus as more than a slave, but a brother. The reason being is, yes, so Onesimus could help Paul’s ministry, but also because it is, indeed, true that Onesimus became a “beloved brother” in Christ.
However, additionally, since the time period the ministry began permitted and had in commonality slaves and masters, regulations were still maintained on how slaves should act (for various reasons, like appealing to their masters through behaviour and saying). So, slaves were to, yes, obey their masters, because the ultimate master of them was God. Masters were not to threaten or treat them harshly because God has no favouritism. Masters were to treat them well. (Ephesians 6:5-9) Colossians 4:1 gives the same message concerning God having no favouritism. Galatians 3:28 reinforces the notion that God has no favouritism.
Slaves, given that they are part of the same church as the ones they are serving, should do so respectfully and with enthusiasm because they are giving help, thus showing brotherly love according to 1 Timothy 6:2. According to 1 Clement 55:2, an early church writer, Christians had started giving themselves into slavery as a means of providing for others.
Titus 2:9-10 specifies the behaviour of a slave. Not pilfering, not argumentative, harbouring good faith. Colossians 3:22 gives the same notion.
It states in Acts of the Apostles, 17:30-31, "Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
It also says in the Gospel of Matthew, albeit regarding divorce, "“He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so’” (Matthew 19:8). It made divorce, previously permissible, impermissible. In a similar manner, St. Paul states: "Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it. For he who is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord's freedman. Likewise he who is called while free is Christ's slave. You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. Brethren, let each one remain with God in that state in which he was called." (1 Corinthians 7:23)
While he said this to those that were slaves or could become slaves, since Christians were becoming slaves to proselytise and serve others, this also applied to everyone: Being the slave of another meant dedicating themselves to someone else instead of God, and restricted us that were made in the Image of God. This was not how we were made to be nor how things were intended to be.
Continuing, in Philemon 1:8-16, Paul makes a plea for a slave named Onesimus, and noted that Philemon, the slave owner, should see Onesimus as more than a slave, but a brother. The reason being is, yes, so Onesimus could help Paul’s ministry, but also because it is, indeed, true that Onesimus became a “beloved brother” in Christ.
However, additionally, since the time period the ministry began permitted and had in commonality slaves and masters, regulations were still maintained on how slaves should act (for various reasons, like appealing to their masters through behaviour and saying). So, slaves were to, yes, obey their masters, because the ultimate master of them was God. Masters were not to threaten or treat them harshly because God has no favouritism. Masters were to treat them well. (Ephesians 6:5-9) Colossians 4:1 gives the same message concerning God having no favouritism. Galatians 3:28 reinforces the notion that God has no favouritism.
Slaves, given that they are part of the same church as the ones they are serving, should do so respectfully and with enthusiasm because they are giving help, thus showing brotherly love according to 1 Timothy 6:2. According to 1 Clement 55:2, an early church writer, Christians had started giving themselves into slavery as a means of providing for others.
Titus 2:9-10 specifies the behaviour of a slave. Not pilfering, not argumentative, harbouring good faith. Colossians 3:22 gives the same notion.
So, to summarise, I disagree.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I'll segment this off into sections. First is a sort of introduction.
Slavery as a concept is notorious, and rightly so. Human beings are kidnapped (condemned in Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10) and sold into slavery. This often resulted in abuse. Even the Israelites themselves, according to Scripture, were slaves. Eventually, they were taken out of it and told to remember this time as slaves (Deuteronomy 15:15). So, if they were to take on slaves, they were to listen to their concerns. In the book of Job, it also shows this. It's written:
"If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant (could also be slave) when they complained against me, what then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him?" (Job 31)
So, compassion was necessitated. Since God is compassionate (Deuteronomy 13:18) and we are to be like God (Deuteronomy 28:9), it is required. We find this quite a bit through the Old Testament alone. Proverbs (3:3-4; 11:7; 12:10). Micah 6:8 states: "He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Justice is not mistreating others. Presupposing consistency between the Old Testament and New (as that isn't what this discussion is about), we can also see that in the parable you offered and in the various verses you listed.
Nevertheless, because of this, slavery arose as a practice. The Hebrews/Israelites would sell themselves for economic purposes. So, they'd be treated akin to hired labourers. (Leviticus 25:39-42, 46) While working off debts or poor, they would be taken care of, and after six years the slave owners would be required to free them (as debts would be cancelled). (Deuteronomy 15:1-2) They would be given resources to start anew. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14) The only way they could be kept indefinitely is at the choice of the Hebrew/Israelite. Some chose not to leave because of the benefits of the situation or care that would occur with the family. (Deuteronomy 15:16)
In some cases, he had the potential to marry. Most Jews, if not all of them, would understand the regulations to marriage. If, through the master, they are wedded, then he could not leave with them if he chose to leave, because the wife would have been provided by the master for his sake. (Exodus 21:3-6) However, if a man entered with his wife, he would leave with her also. They would not be ignorant of the consequences, and marriage was their choice as it is a sacramental decision, and the Torah is studied on the Sabbath by everyone.
The practice of slavery was also used as restitution. (Exodus 22:23)
Slaves could be taken from surrounding nations, not through kidnapping and may be kept indefinitely, rather than released by governmental force after six years. (Leviticus 25:44-45) When being brought into Israel, they would be circumcised to enter into the Lord's covenant. (Genesis 17:13; Exodus 12:40-46) This would make them brothers of the Israelites and subject, especially, to the same treatment. They could participate in religious festivals, (Deuteronomy 16:11) like Passover. (Exodus 12:44) They would even partake of the Sabbath rest. (Exodus 20:10)
Slavery as a concept is notorious, and rightly so. Human beings are kidnapped (condemned in Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, and 1 Timothy 1:9-10) and sold into slavery. This often resulted in abuse. Even the Israelites themselves, according to Scripture, were slaves. Eventually, they were taken out of it and told to remember this time as slaves (Deuteronomy 15:15). So, if they were to take on slaves, they were to listen to their concerns. In the book of Job, it also shows this. It's written:
"If I have despised the cause of my male or female servant (could also be slave) when they complained against me, what then shall I do when God rises up? When He punishes, how shall I answer Him?" (Job 31)
So, compassion was necessitated. Since God is compassionate (Deuteronomy 13:18) and we are to be like God (Deuteronomy 28:9), it is required. We find this quite a bit through the Old Testament alone. Proverbs (3:3-4; 11:7; 12:10). Micah 6:8 states: "He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God?"
Justice is not mistreating others. Presupposing consistency between the Old Testament and New (as that isn't what this discussion is about), we can also see that in the parable you offered and in the various verses you listed.
Nevertheless, because of this, slavery arose as a practice. The Hebrews/Israelites would sell themselves for economic purposes. So, they'd be treated akin to hired labourers. (Leviticus 25:39-42, 46) While working off debts or poor, they would be taken care of, and after six years the slave owners would be required to free them (as debts would be cancelled). (Deuteronomy 15:1-2) They would be given resources to start anew. (Deuteronomy 15:12-14) The only way they could be kept indefinitely is at the choice of the Hebrew/Israelite. Some chose not to leave because of the benefits of the situation or care that would occur with the family. (Deuteronomy 15:16)
In some cases, he had the potential to marry. Most Jews, if not all of them, would understand the regulations to marriage. If, through the master, they are wedded, then he could not leave with them if he chose to leave, because the wife would have been provided by the master for his sake. (Exodus 21:3-6) However, if a man entered with his wife, he would leave with her also. They would not be ignorant of the consequences, and marriage was their choice as it is a sacramental decision, and the Torah is studied on the Sabbath by everyone.
The practice of slavery was also used as restitution. (Exodus 22:23)
Slaves could be taken from surrounding nations, not through kidnapping and may be kept indefinitely, rather than released by governmental force after six years. (Leviticus 25:44-45) When being brought into Israel, they would be circumcised to enter into the Lord's covenant. (Genesis 17:13; Exodus 12:40-46) This would make them brothers of the Israelites and subject, especially, to the same treatment. They could participate in religious festivals, (Deuteronomy 16:11) like Passover. (Exodus 12:44) They would even partake of the Sabbath rest. (Exodus 20:10)
Because of the practice of slavery, there were civil laws put in place. It was spiritually condemned to mistreat slaves, socially condemned, and governmentally condemned. So, for example, a man could not beat his slave to death; if he were to do so, he would be put to death since slaves were also made in the image of God. (Exodus 21:20-21) Damaging the slave, such as stabbing of the eye or even knocking a tooth out (meant to express the spectrum of injury; severity to not as severe), would result in the slaves being set free. (Exodus 21:26-27)
This does not mean that, should the slave survive, that they would be given back to the master; the slave had the opportunity to be provided sanctuary anywhere, and this applied universally. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) When rulings applied only to specific demographics, it'd state so; this does not.
On the other side of things, regulations sometimes varied. For example, slavery for females were another form of arranged marriages. They stop being "slaves" and become wives or daughter-in-laws usually. (Exodus 21:7-11) There is a fornication sin which occurs with a man having sexual relations with a woman, who is a slave and could not otherwise choose, that is betrothed. (Leviticus 19:20-21)
This does not mean that, should the slave survive, that they would be given back to the master; the slave had the opportunity to be provided sanctuary anywhere, and this applied universally. (Deuteronomy 23:15-16) When rulings applied only to specific demographics, it'd state so; this does not.
On the other side of things, regulations sometimes varied. For example, slavery for females were another form of arranged marriages. They stop being "slaves" and become wives or daughter-in-laws usually. (Exodus 21:7-11) There is a fornication sin which occurs with a man having sexual relations with a woman, who is a slave and could not otherwise choose, that is betrothed. (Leviticus 19:20-21)
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
My response is going to be considerably long since I'll be going through the entire Bible. And as the thread has thus far confuzzled me, I'll respond to the original post.
The use of parables use existing ideas already in a society. It doesn't mean it translates exactly as is into reality. You say that's not true because Jesus said it, but the whole point of using parables was to make the Apostles think about what He was saying and, instead, grasp the spiritual meaning behind it. Symbolism has always been massively important in the Faith. Parables were a teaching tool. E.g., in John 15, it doesn't mean Jesus is literally a vine. There's an underlying message to it. Additionally, it's meant to divide the true believing from the lukewarm.
The point in my saying so is not to negate the reality of slavery. There are verses which dabble with it, like in St. Paul's epistles. But interestingly, St. Paul is also the one that attempted to remove the "master" tones from "slave" tones in equating both as brothers, and therefore should be treated as such.
The idea of slavery, given its prevalence in the era, is used in a lot of figurative senses, and since everyone understood it, was used to emphasise spiritual ideas. St. Isaac the Syrian wrote: "He who is master of possessions, is the slave of passions. Do not estimate gold and silver only as possessions, but all things thou possess for the sake of the desire of thy will" (Six Treatise on the Behaviour of Excellence", IV). So, it being used as a parable is no more indicative of endorsement than if I were to use tragic hypotheticals as if to say I'd support it in reality.
In the verse you used, it states: "And that servantwho knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."
It is preceded by "But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."
So far, the one that beats his servants is the same servant that will be punished harshly. In reality, this verse deals eschatologically, in that they will be judged, not about slavery, though the attitude applies in that mistreating others is never permissible, no matter the institution. The ones that act out of ignorance (v. 48) will still be punished, but not to the same degree as someone that knew.
So, it reads altogether as:
"But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."
This doesn't deal with your overall argument, which I will cover in the next post.
The point in my saying so is not to negate the reality of slavery. There are verses which dabble with it, like in St. Paul's epistles. But interestingly, St. Paul is also the one that attempted to remove the "master" tones from "slave" tones in equating both as brothers, and therefore should be treated as such.
The idea of slavery, given its prevalence in the era, is used in a lot of figurative senses, and since everyone understood it, was used to emphasise spiritual ideas. St. Isaac the Syrian wrote: "He who is master of possessions, is the slave of passions. Do not estimate gold and silver only as possessions, but all things thou possess for the sake of the desire of thy will" (Six Treatise on the Behaviour of Excellence", IV). So, it being used as a parable is no more indicative of endorsement than if I were to use tragic hypotheticals as if to say I'd support it in reality.
In the verse you used, it states: "And that servantwho knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes.But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."
It is preceded by "But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers."
So far, the one that beats his servants is the same servant that will be punished harshly. In reality, this verse deals eschatologically, in that they will be judged, not about slavery, though the attitude applies in that mistreating others is never permissible, no matter the institution. The ones that act out of ignorance (v. 48) will still be punished, but not to the same degree as someone that knew.
So, it reads altogether as:
"But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant who knew his master's will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more."
This doesn't deal with your overall argument, which I will cover in the next post.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
Claim: Even the Pope declared the cross was a failure of God.
Proof: Pope Francis said during his whirlwind U.S. tour. "And if at times <ins><strong>OUR EFFORTS AND WORKS SEEM TO FAIL AND PRODUCE NO FRUIT, we need to REMEMBERthat <ins><strong>WE ARE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS ... and <ins><strong>His LIFE</strong></ins>, humanly speaking, ENDED IN FAILURE, THE FAILURE OF THE CROSS" When you don"t understand something, when desperation hits you then look at the <ins><strong>CROSS. THAT IS THE GREAT FAILURE OF GOD, THAT IS THE DESTRUCTION OF GOD, AND IT'S A CHALLENGE TO OUR FAITH
Objection: I'm not even Roman Catholic and that smells supremely fake. Even if it's not, the Pope's proclamation ultimately means nothing—even Popes can fall into heresy and have fell into heresy. It'd be an issue for Catholics if he was speaking ex cathedra.
Claim: If there is no resurrection of Jesus then Jesus did not die for anyone's sins on the cross. Dattaswami said Jesus was saved by his disciples and smuggled to India where he lived to 85 years in Kashmir.
Proof: Dattaswami believes Jesus's resurrection never happened.
Reply: Bhavishya purana"
Dattaswami wrote: When Jesus was crucified based on simple emotional slogans. His death was not justified and therefore He rose and walked out. When the soldier was leaving finally, He pierced the stomach of Jesus with his weapon. Then blood came out. Blood will not come out from dead body. Jesus was alive and He was brought down by His disciples. Then He was kept in the cave. He knew the protection of His life. He walked into India and met the king Salivahana and talked with him. His conversation was recorded in "Bhavishaya Purana" of Vyasa. This scripture speaks about the future. Vyasa wrote this long back.
The verse in scripture is "Esa Putram Cha Mam Viddhi, Kumari Garbha Sambhavam, Mlechcha Dharmasya Vaktaram"', Which means "I am the son of the father of heaven. I was born to unmarried girl. I preached spirituality to Muslims. ' Thus spoke Jesus to Salivahana. He stayed in India till He attained the age of eighty-five years and died in Kashmir. You can find the buried tomb of Jesus there even today. On the tomb it is written "Jesus" in Hebrew language.
Jesus disappeared from home at the age of 16 years. He returned at the age of 30 years. He was crucified in 32nd year. From 16th year He was in Himalayas in the association of several sages. He was a good Sanskrit scholar. He studied all the Hindu philosophy and this is the reason why the Christian and Hindu philosophies are almost similar in concepts.
Objection: I don't know whst relevance this has. Roman, Jewish, and Christian writings confirm the crucifixion of, in the least, someone named Jesus who had a multitude of followers, and that on the day of the crucifixion, if I recall correctly, there was a darkness. Some of those writers attempted to explain the phenomenon away.
Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.
^ This also smells like a lie, to be honest.
Proof: Pope Francis said during his whirlwind U.S. tour. "And if at times <ins><strong>OUR EFFORTS AND WORKS SEEM TO FAIL AND PRODUCE NO FRUIT, we need to REMEMBERthat <ins><strong>WE ARE FOLLOWERS OF JESUS ... and <ins><strong>His LIFE</strong></ins>, humanly speaking, ENDED IN FAILURE, THE FAILURE OF THE CROSS" When you don"t understand something, when desperation hits you then look at the <ins><strong>CROSS. THAT IS THE GREAT FAILURE OF GOD, THAT IS THE DESTRUCTION OF GOD, AND IT'S A CHALLENGE TO OUR FAITH
Objection: I'm not even Roman Catholic and that smells supremely fake. Even if it's not, the Pope's proclamation ultimately means nothing—even Popes can fall into heresy and have fell into heresy. It'd be an issue for Catholics if he was speaking ex cathedra.
Claim: If there is no resurrection of Jesus then Jesus did not die for anyone's sins on the cross. Dattaswami said Jesus was saved by his disciples and smuggled to India where he lived to 85 years in Kashmir.
Proof: Dattaswami believes Jesus's resurrection never happened.
Reply: Bhavishya purana"
Dattaswami wrote: When Jesus was crucified based on simple emotional slogans. His death was not justified and therefore He rose and walked out. When the soldier was leaving finally, He pierced the stomach of Jesus with his weapon. Then blood came out. Blood will not come out from dead body. Jesus was alive and He was brought down by His disciples. Then He was kept in the cave. He knew the protection of His life. He walked into India and met the king Salivahana and talked with him. His conversation was recorded in "Bhavishaya Purana" of Vyasa. This scripture speaks about the future. Vyasa wrote this long back.
The verse in scripture is "Esa Putram Cha Mam Viddhi, Kumari Garbha Sambhavam, Mlechcha Dharmasya Vaktaram"', Which means "I am the son of the father of heaven. I was born to unmarried girl. I preached spirituality to Muslims. ' Thus spoke Jesus to Salivahana. He stayed in India till He attained the age of eighty-five years and died in Kashmir. You can find the buried tomb of Jesus there even today. On the tomb it is written "Jesus" in Hebrew language.
Jesus disappeared from home at the age of 16 years. He returned at the age of 30 years. He was crucified in 32nd year. From 16th year He was in Himalayas in the association of several sages. He was a good Sanskrit scholar. He studied all the Hindu philosophy and this is the reason why the Christian and Hindu philosophies are almost similar in concepts.
Objection: I don't know whst relevance this has. Roman, Jewish, and Christian writings confirm the crucifixion of, in the least, someone named Jesus who had a multitude of followers, and that on the day of the crucifixion, if I recall correctly, there was a darkness. Some of those writers attempted to explain the phenomenon away.
Harikrish biblical scholar and spiritual leader.
^ This also smells like a lie, to be honest.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
Claim: His discipiles all tried to save their own lives and did not want to lose it for Jesus.
Proof Text: [Luke 17:33] Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.
Objection: They're recognised in Christianity to have been martyred for their faith. Losing your life recklessly and desiring to do so is suicide, which destroys the temple of the Holy Spirit, and isn't what martyrdom is. But firstly, in context, Luke 17 is about the distinguishing between the lukewarm and evil and those that live godly lives. In order to truly follow Christ, you have to die and be born again. It's fundamental Christianity. The entire chapter of Romans 6 covers this. "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin."
Claim: The one time offer for salvation ended with Jesus. Jesus has not returned to make a similar offer to future generations. But God has sent another prophet Mohammad in his place.
Objection: No idea what you're talking about. Salvation in relation to the world, otherwise dubbed objective salvation, is what the crucifixion managed. Personal salvation, or subjective salvation, pertains to our independent decision to choose God. The offer has been made and we have the choice to accept it or reject it. Muhammad isn't factored into the situation. If you're describing Christianity, adding external factors doesn't make a case.
Claim: Jesus spoke to his generation. Repeating his words does not carry the same promise. His promise ended on the cross.
Proof Text: [Matthew 27:46] About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"
Objection: The proof text doesn't relate to what your claim states. The Pauline epistles and the resurrection recorded in the Gospels nullifies your argument. You apparently didn't even know He was quoting a psalm.
Proof Text: [Luke 17:33] Whoever tries to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it.
Objection: They're recognised in Christianity to have been martyred for their faith. Losing your life recklessly and desiring to do so is suicide, which destroys the temple of the Holy Spirit, and isn't what martyrdom is. But firstly, in context, Luke 17 is about the distinguishing between the lukewarm and evil and those that live godly lives. In order to truly follow Christ, you have to die and be born again. It's fundamental Christianity. The entire chapter of Romans 6 covers this. "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin."
Claim: The one time offer for salvation ended with Jesus. Jesus has not returned to make a similar offer to future generations. But God has sent another prophet Mohammad in his place.
Objection: No idea what you're talking about. Salvation in relation to the world, otherwise dubbed objective salvation, is what the crucifixion managed. Personal salvation, or subjective salvation, pertains to our independent decision to choose God. The offer has been made and we have the choice to accept it or reject it. Muhammad isn't factored into the situation. If you're describing Christianity, adding external factors doesn't make a case.
Claim: Jesus spoke to his generation. Repeating his words does not carry the same promise. His promise ended on the cross.
Proof Text: [Matthew 27:46] About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"
Objection: The proof text doesn't relate to what your claim states. The Pauline epistles and the resurrection recorded in the Gospels nullifies your argument. You apparently didn't even know He was quoting a psalm.
Created:
-->
@Harikrish
Claim: Liar.
Proof Text: [John 10:33] "We are not stoning You for any good work," said the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God."
Objection: The verse itself demonstrates that Jesus was making statements and acting as though He were God, example being the prominent "Before Abraham was, I AM" among others. So, this throws out your "Jesus nevyeer claimed to be God" assertion. The Apostles and disciples, who interacted with Jesus directly, came to this understanding, and St. Thomas after the resurrection directly called Jesus his God. In fact, in Acts 20:28, the Greek itself demonstrates it and is translated into English as "Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."
Προσέχετε (take heed) ἑαυτοῖς (to yourselves) καὶ(and) παντὶ(to all) τῷ(the) ποιμνίῳ(flock) ἐν (among) ᾧ(which) ὑμᾶς (you) τὸ(the) Πνεῦμα (Spirit) τὸἍγιον (Holy) ἔθετο (has set) ἐπισκόπους (overseers), ποιμαίνειν (to shepherd) τὴν (the) ἐκκλησίαν (church) τοῦΘεοῦ(of God), ἣν (which) περιεποιήσατο (he purchased) διὰ(with) τοῦαἵματος (blood) τοῦ(the) ἰδίου (own).
Claim: Lunatic.
Proof Text: [Mark 3:21] When His family heard about this, they went out to take custody of Him, saying, "He is out of His mind." [John 10:20] Many of them said, "He is demon-possessed and insane. Why would you listen to Him?"
Objection: What is this intended on proving? The opinion of others outside those willing to listen didn't believe in Him, same with the pagans at the time. The Gospels as well as epistles were written to those already believing.
Claim: They demanded Jesus be crucified.
Proof Text: [Luke 23:21] but they kept shouting, "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"
Reply: Yep. Believe it or not, but many Christians have, in fact, read the Bible.
Claim: The Romans crucified Jesus.
Proof Text: [John 19:23] When they crucified him, the Roman soldiers took his clothes and divided them up four ways, to each soldier a fourth. But his robe was seamless, a single piece of weaving ...
Reply: Mhm.
Claim: Even Jesus blamed God for forsaking him on the cross.
Proof Text: [Matthew 27:46] About the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?"
Objection: Actually, no. This goes back to Psalm 21 as a psalmic prophecy of the Suffering Servant. It reads: "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?Why are You sofar from helping Me,and fromthe words of My groaning?My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;And in the night season, and am not silent." It goes on to describe: "For many dogs surrounded me; an assembly of evildoers enclosed me; they pierced my hands and my feet. I numbered all my bones, and they look and stare at me. They divided my garments among themselves, and for my clothing they cast lots. But You, O Lord, do not remove Your help from me; attend to my aid. Deliver my soul from the sword and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog;"
Since the Hebrew scriptures weren't separated into chapters and verses, you'd quote something by repeating the lines. He was confirming He was the Suffering Servant and that such was fulfilled. At least research the point before you make it.
Claim: Jesus's call to his disciples failed too. No one followed Jesus or joined him in his crucifixion. Therefore no one was saved or worthy of Jesus.
Proof Text: [Matthew 10:38] and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me.
Objection: Huh? His Apostles made disciples and founded churches. Sts. Peter and Paul established the church in Rome, St. James became bishop of Jerusalem, St. Thomas, I beliweve, went to India. Carrying one's cross isn't a call to suicide, it's a call to struggle to remain faithful despite one's circumstances which can lead to martyrdom. Tradition tends to state that the majority of the Apostles were martyred alongside many followers.
So, struggling and being born again. Romans 6 covers this. "Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin."
Created: