How would the resurrection prove that Jesus is God anyway?

[Wootah]

Argument from contradiction applies here.

If Jesus is not God then he cannot justly pay for crimes against God.

Jesus does justly pay for crimes against God.

Therefore Jesus is God.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Oh...there is plenty to debate. A cloud covered them ....the "voice"'said this is my son hear him.
Did the voice point to jesus? We know God said to listen to Moses. To obey the laws given to Moses.
Truth is you want tvto be Jesus so that's what you say. The fact is the voice didn't tell you which one he was talking about. However God has told us whobto listen Tom. The answer is Moses. Or don't you believe God when he said to listen to Moses?

I don't see where your objections are meaningful.

What sense would it make for a God to say "This is my son, hear him" and not bother to point out who he is talking about?

Truth is you want it to be Jesus so that's what you say.

I'm pretty sure the stories have Jesus being pointed out. Not only this, but who else was claiming to have been sent by God and to be speaking on behalf of God?

There simply isn't anyone else competing for that position in these stories.

By the way Avoice, this isn't going to help your argument in any case. These stories still have God speaking about his "Son" who he wants us to hear. He didn't say, "This is my prophet, hear him"

So this is also in keeping with the Gospel idea that Jesus was the virgin born demigod son of Mary.

By the way, I don't want this to be Jesus. In fact, as far as I'm concerned the whole thing is nothing more than cultural folklore or religious/political dogma.

I already have extremely compelling reasons to reject the fables of Yahweh, so the idea that Yahweh is speaking from the clouds proclaiming anyone to be his Son is already without any merit.

If theology is going to be taken as a serious academic subject it absolutely has to be open to consideration that its nothing more than a cultural myth.

Demanding that this is not permitted (as this forum's rules suggest) is to reduce it from a valid academic subject to nothing more than religious Bible School propaganda.

In fact, how many "Theologians" question the validity of this theology? Basically NONE. Why? Because the moment they question the validity of the theology they are cast out of the theology club as "skeptics".

This is why theology is not a valid academic subject. To question it is considered heresy. So anyone who sees through it is kicked out of the theology department assuring that only "believing" theologians remain.

That's not a valid way to study any subject.

[Divine Insight]

The problem is that if it's assumed that the Bible is true then this renders this entire forum meaningless.

Well, meaningless to you, for sure.

It's meaningless to everyone who cares about truth. If you aren't permitted to question the validity of something then there's no point in studying it.

Even theists within a single denomination have disagreements over the details.

But they don't disagree on whether what they're reading is true or not.

To you and Tcg both, if you want to argue about whether the Bible is true or not, the Apologetics sub-forum is geared specifically for that. You know that, I'm sure. Have at it.

Exactly. This forum is nothing more than "Bible School" where anyone who questions the validity of the topic is kicked out.

It makes it a nice little club for people who want to pretend that their theology could potentially be meaningful. Just kick out anyone who dares to question its validity.

So this forum should really be renamed to "Bible School - No Skeptics Permitted".

At least that title would be more accurate.

A skeptic most certainly should be able to question a theology. In fact, any theology that needs to be protected from skeptics is already displaying an inability to address those questions.

So yeah, this is a "Bible Study" thread for believers only, apparently.

It may as well be a church.

[PinSeeker]

It's also odd that in your attempt to defend this odd attempt to start a discussion, you couldn't explain what it is attempting to discuss either. It will remain a mystery until the author of the O.P attempts to clarify, if that indeed happens.

I didn't think that was necessary, because:

• 1. I wasn't attempting to start a discussion; Wootah did that in the OP
  2. It's no "mystery" in any sense
  3. I was thinking you were at least a fairly smart fella

So, he said:

• Argument from contradiction applies here.
  If Jesus is not God then he cannot justly pay for crimes against God.
  Jesus does justly pay for crimes against God.
  Therefore Jesus is God.

Very simply, this is a proof of sorts... deductive reasoning. In effect, Wootah is saying disprove his conclusion -- which is that Jesus is God, as denoted by the "therefore" -- and offer support for this disproof.

It's quite simple (though not simple-minded). The challenge for debate is there, which is the clear purpose of this sub-forum.

[PinSeeker]

It's meaningless to everyone who cares about truth.

We all care about the truth. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

If you aren't permitted to question the validity of something then there's no point in studying it.

I didn't make the rules of this sub-forum, DI. You're a mod. If you don't like the rules and refuse to adhere to them, then I respectfully invite you (and Tcg) to leave.

This forum is nothing more than "Bible School" where anyone who questions the validity of the topic is kicked out. It makes it a nice little club for people who want to pretend that their theology could potentially be meaningful. Just kick out anyone who dares to question its validity.

Well, asked to adhere to the rules or leave. You're a mod. Surely you understand that.

So this forum should really be renamed to "Bible School - No Skeptics Permitted". At least that title would be more accurate.

That would be fine with me. Feel free to lobby for that...

A skeptic most certainly should be able to question a theology.

He or she can certainly do that, but in this sub-forum -- according to the rules -- must assume that what is being said in Scripture is true.

In fact, any theology that needs to be protected from skeptics is already displaying an inability to address those questions.

Nothing needs "protection." But there should be places to discuss it where unbelief is not a hurdle that has to be bridged before any discussion can take place. Surely you would not deprive folks of that opportunity. And like I said, the Apologetics sub-forum is wide open so skeptics/unbelievers.

So yeah, this is a "Bible Study" thread for believers only, apparently.

Yep, pretty much. Like I said, I didn't make the rules.

It may as well be a church.

Well no, because they're no praying, confessing of sin, or administration of the sacraments (baptism, communion) going on.

Grace and peace to you, DI.

[Divine Insight]

I didn't make the rules of this sub-forum, DI. You're a mod. If you don't like the rules and refuse to adhere to them, then I respectfully invite you (and Tcg) to leave.

I don't believe that the rule say that you need to accept the Bible is TRUE. All the rules say is that when discussing the theology you need to accept what is say as "authoritative" with respect to the dogma. That doesn't mean that you need to accept that it's TRUE.

Also why single out Tcg and me? There are at least two "Theists" who have posted to this thread who reject the idea that Jesus was the Son of God. Yet according to "Christian Theology" God himself proclaimed Jesus to be his Son.

Also, where does this forum demand that this is about "Christian Theology"?

It just says, Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma. That would certainty include Islam and the Qur'an.

So now if the rules state that we must accept the dogma as "Authoritative" how's that going to work? Christianity and Islam have totally different and incompatible authoritative doctrines. I believe we can even toss the Jews in there as well as they reject both Christian and Islamic doctrines. So even the theists can't agree on which doctrine is "Authoritative".

Catholicism and them many diverse disagreeing Protestantisms also disagree on which doctrines represent "authority".

So exactly which specific faction of the Biblical-based religions get to claim "Authority"?

~~~~

By the way. I'm not a moderator. Where did you get that idea?

We all care about the truth. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

If that's true when why don't theological seminaries allow non-believers to be valid theologians who simply recognize the TRUTH that these ancient dogmas are clearly false?

[PinSeeker]

I don't believe that the rule say that you need to accept the Bible is TRUE.

au·thor·i·ta·tive /əˈTHôrəˌt�div/ able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Also why single out Tcg and me?

Only because I am addressing you two specifically and engaging with you Tcg individually, that's all. You and he addressed me specifically, and I am returning the favor and not ignoring you. Why? Because you're worth it.

By the way. I'm not a moderator. Where did you get that idea?

Thought I remembered you being one, maybe from the Apologetics sub-forum... Oh, well. Sorry; my bad.

We all care about the truth. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

If that's true when why don't theological seminaries allow non-believers to be valid theologians who simply recognize the TRUTH that these ancient dogmas are clearly false?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a sub-forum where Christians can debate what certain passages really mean without having to waste time and energy arguing with someone about whether what is written is true or not. By the same token, in the political realm:

• a.) conservative-minded individuals should be able to debate conservative principles with other conservative-minded individuals without having to deal with liberal opposition.
  b.) liberal-minded individuals should be able to debate liberal principles with other liberal-minded individuals without having to deal with conservative opposition.

In all these examples, there is a place for opposition, and it seems perfectly reasonable to expect people to be content with that and go to those places to... oppose to their heart's content.

Grace and peace to you, DI.

[Divine Insight]

I don't believe that the rule say that you need to accept the Bible is TRUE.

au·thor·i·ta·tive /əˈTHôrəˌt�div/ able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Who said that it had to refer to that kind of "authority"?

It could simply be referring to the same kind of "authority" that talking about the Lord of the Rings would require.

In other words, if you're discussing the Lord of the Rings it's not going to make any sense to bring quotes from Harry Potter into the mix. But that doesn't mean that the Lord of the Rings represents any actual truth. It's only an "authority" relative to the contents of that particular fictional novel.

As I see it that's really all that's meant by "authority" here as well. It doesn't mean that the Bible needs to be taken as speaking TRUTH.

It simply means that if we're going to argue with the theology we must do so using the theology against itself. And actually that's quite easy to do. This theology shoots itself in its own feet on a continual basis.

For example, why would a God need to ask us to hear Jesus if this God can speak for himself from the clouds?

The Bible tells us that this God spoke from the clouds. Therefore if we accept this statement as being "authoritative" then no one can claim that this God is incapable of speaking from the clouds.

That's all that means. It doesn't mean that we need to accept that there actually exists a real God who spoke from the clouds. All we need to do is acknowledge that the Bible makes this claim. And I believe I have already acknowledged that.

[PinSeeker]

I don't believe that the rule say that you need to accept the Bible is TRUE.

au·thor·i·ta·tive /əˈTHôrəˌt�div/ able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Who said that it had to refer to that kind of "authority"?

So you want to debate the purpose of the forum now? Bless your heart...

[Divine Insight]

I don't believe that the rule say that you need to accept the Bible is TRUE.

au·thor·i·ta·tive /əˈTHôrəˌt�div/ able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable.

Who said that it had to refer to that kind of "authority"?

So you want to debate the purpose of the forum now? Bless your heart...

You're the one who's complaining. As far as I'm concerned my posts have been totally compatible with the purpose of this forum.

I can debate theology accepting the "authority" of what it says as I just described. The Bible says that God spoke from the clouds proclaiming Jesus to be his Son.

Did I question that?

It seems to me that I've been agreement with that all along. I agree that the theology says this.

[PinSeeker]

You're the one who's complaining.

You can't be serious. LOL!!! That's all you've been doing, here; complaining. Like:

• "Why, oh why do we have to assume the Bible is true? Oh, it hurts so bad! Why?"

LOL! My only thing is, why are you so hurt? What's to complain about? LOL!!!

Like I said, bless your heart. So long for now, DI.

By the way, on the moderator thing, I think I had you mixed up with EJ (Elijah John). You guys seem so much alike, after all...[/quote]