Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[JudgeRightly]

That's not a problem at all. God's words ARE life, and light:

John 6:63 .... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And, Jesus made it exquisitely clear the SOURCE of words he spoke:

John 12:48-50 "For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me."

Who are you replying to?

 

[Dartman]

Who are you replying to?

I quoted your point:
... this verse is where trouble begins for you, because you've now defined "God's word" as life, and being the light of men.

 

[Right Divider]

Who are you replying to?

Themselves?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Completely brilliant from start to finish.

Thank you, sir!

Don't expect any sort of answer of any substance from Dartman.

I think post #1719 was an attempt... Not sure, because @Dartman seems to be quoting my quote of his post, but not using the "+Quote" button, and put @Right Divider's name within the quote tags... whereas properly quoting me would put my name at the very top of his post so that he would know who he's talking to...

But don't tell him I said that! ;P

I wonder if he allows any of his congregation, of which he a supposed "bishop", to read this thread?

Well, if any of them visit here, they should know that I would be more than happy to engage them in discussion on this topic, if they're interested.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I quoted your point:
... this verse is where trouble begins for you, because you've now defined "God's word" as life, and being the light of men.

My name is not Right Divider. That's @Right Divider 's name.

My name is JudgeRightly, and if you're going to quote someone, use the Quote button. It's not hard, and it makes it easier 1) for the person your quoting to know that they've been quoted (I almost missed your post) and 2) lets everyone else know who you're quoting, and 3) a minor benefit is that it tells YOU, the one quoting, who it is you're quoting so that you don't make the mistake you did.

 

[Dartman]

My name is not Right Divider. That's @Right Divider 's name.

My name is JudgeRightly, and if you're going to quote someone, use the Quote button. It's not hard, and it makes it easier 1) for the person your quoting to know that they've been quoted (I almost missed your post) and 2) lets everyone else know who you're quoting, and 3) a minor benefit is that it tells YOU, the one quoting, who it is you're quoting so that you don't make the mistake you did.

Thank you! Sorry for my lack of familiarity with the mechanics of this site.

 

[Dartman]

... within the greater context, you've now severed the tie-in between "LOGOS" and "reason" as opposed to "darkness" being related to "incomprehension," damaging the scripture.

There is no "sever". The majority of civilization is in darkness, meaning they do not comprehend God's words.

 

[Clete]

Thank you, sir!



I think post #1719 was an attempt... Not sure, because @Dartman seems to be quoting my quote of his post, but not using the "+Quote" button, and put @Right Divider's name within the quote tags... whereas properly quoting me would put my name at the very top of his post so that he would know who he's talking to...

But don't tell him I said that! ;P



Well, if any of them visit here, they should know that I would be more than happy to engage them in discussion on this topic, if they're interested.

I have little doubt that he'd "allow" them to come here but I very much doubt that he advertises his participation on the web forum.

Although, you never know! I keep having to remind myself that people who throw reason to the wind have no fence between what makes sense and what doesn't.

 

[Clete]

There is no "sever". The majority of civilization is in darkness, meaning they do not comprehend God's words.

Why, if your doctrine is true, do you dance around the point? Why not just address that actual point of the argument?

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's not a problem at all. God's words ARE life, and light:

John 6:63 .... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And, Jesus made it exquisitely clear the SOURCE of words he spoke:

John 12:48-50 "For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me."

There is no "sever". The majority of civilization is in darkness, meaning they do not comprehend God's words.

How about addressing my full post, rather than just snippets. Maybe you'll actually understand the points I'm making then, because neither of these posts address what I actually said.

 

[Dartman]

Why, if your doctrine is true, do you dance around the point? Why not just address that actual point of the argument?

My answer is a direct address of the actual point.
If you don't think so, please explain.

 

[Dartman]

How about addressing my full post, rather than just snippets. Maybe you'll actually understand the points I'm making then, because neither of these posts address what I actually said.

I have already addressed the entire text.
Your reply was built upon errors, and the only way to unravel this disagreement is by taking it one point at a time.
The specific error I addressed was your rejection of God's words being enlightening, and the world/cosmos/civilization of mankind failing to comprehend God's words.
Once we get past that point, I will be happy to address any other point you wish to discuss.

 

[JudgeRightly]

My answer is a direct address of the actual point.

No, it's not. Not even close.

If you don't think so, please explain.

What Clete thinks has nothing to do with it.

I have already addressed the entire text.

Liar. Quoting a few lines from a post that is several paragraphs long does not qualify as "addressing the entire text."

Your reply was built upon errors,

Saying it doesn't make it so.

PROVE IT. Address what I said directly, IN FULL.

and the only way to unravel this disagreement is by taking it one point at a time.

Which is exactly what I did, showing you why your position was inconsistent with what the Bible says.

The specific error I addressed was your rejection of God's words being enlightening, and the world/cosmos/civilization of mankind failing to comprehend God's words.

Had you actually read what I said, instead of jumping to conclusions, you would know that that's not at all what I said. Not even close.

This is why you read through a post BEFORE responding to it, or at least, address the post in its entirety as you read through it.

Once we get past that point, I will be happy to address any other point you wish to discuss.

Go read through my post, and respond to it. Otherwise you're wasting my time with straw men.

 

[Dartman]

Quoting a few lines from a post that is several paragraphs long does not qualify as "addressing the entire text."

You demanded I "fill in the blanks" for a specific portion of John 1. I addressed that ENTIRE TEXT. Calling me a "liar" is in contrast to your rules. Don't do it again.

Address what I said directly, IN FULL.

I will address each of your errors independently.

Which is exactly what I did, showing you why your position was inconsistent with what the Bible says.

I proved that my point IS consistent with what the Bible says;

John 6:63 .... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And, Jesus made it exquisitely clear the SOURCE of words he spoke:

John 12:48-50 "For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me."
I was correct in replying to your complaints:

There is no "sever". The majority of civilization is in darkness, meaning they do not comprehend God's words.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You demanded I "fill in the blanks" for a specific portion of John 1. I addressed that ENTIRE TEXT.

The context is "my entire post" not "John 1."

Again, I said:

"How about addressing my full post, rather than just snippets. Maybe you'll actually understand the points I'm making then, because neither of these posts address what I actually said."

Calling me a "liar" is in contrast to your rules. Don't do it again.

One more thing you didn't read fully...

Saying:

I have already addressed the entire text.

When we're talking about "my entire post" which you DID NOT ADDRESS IN ITS ENTIRETY does not qualify as truthful.

I will address each of your errors independently.

Begging the question that I am in error does not mean that my posts contain errors.

Quit using fallacies.

I proved that my point IS consistent with what the Bible says;

No, you didn't, as I explained in my post, nor have you addressed anything other than a few lines from my post.

John 6:63 .... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

And, Jesus made it exquisitely clear the SOURCE of words he spoke:

John 12:48-50 "For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me commandment, what to say, and what to speak. 50 "And I know that His commandment is eternal life; therefore the things I speak, I speak just as the Father has told me."

Red herring.

Address the points I made, please.

I was correct in replying to your complaints:

There is no "sever". The majority of civilization is in darkness, meaning they do not comprehend God's words.

Again, read my post again, and you'll quickly realize your errors.

Then, if you still disagree, make a counter-argument. Until then, stop coming up with straw men.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@Dartman here is my post again. I want you to read through it, and respond to ALL of the points I made in it, not just one at a time. If you think something I said is in error, respond directly to it in-line.

I will not respond to any posts that do not address my points, except to tell you to read or reread my post again if it seems you did not sufficiently understand my point.

_________________

I quoted my challenge here. The rest of my post is below.

Keep in mind that what- or whoever you put in, must be consistently applied to the rest of the passage, and that everything that is said about it must fit the context.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.____ was in the beginning with God.All things were made through ____, and without ____ nothing was made that was made.In ____ was life, and the life was the light of men.And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.____ was in the world, and the world was made through ____, and the world did not know ____.____ came to His own, and ____ own did not receive ____.But as many as received ____, to them ____ gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in ____ name:who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld ____ glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.John bore witness of ____ and cried out, saying, “This was ____ of whom I said, ‘____ who comes after me is preferred before me, for ____ was before me.’ ”And of ____ fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through ____ ____.No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, ____ has declared Him. - John 1:1-18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:1-18&version=NKJV

So go ahead, fill in the blanks with ONE entity that you think fits, EXCLUDING "He" or "Him" or "Jesus Christ."

You cannot, nor will you, because the entire passage (barring the passage talking about John) is talking about Jesus Christ, and thus, "He" and "Him" are CORRECTLY used.

In the beginning was God's word, and God's word was with God, and God's word is God.

You're already not doing what I asked. Currently you're just rewriting scripture to make it conform to your beliefs.

I didn't ask you to replace whatever you felt like replacing with whatever you felt like replacing it with.

I asked you to replace the pronoun "houtos" ("He") (because that's where your contention is, as you stated) and all of the following where relevant with either "she," "it," "this same," or any of the other GIVEN pronouns (from my post I quoted above), since your contention was that "he" in verse 2 was a mistranslation. So I asked you to provide your correction, to see if it hold up to scrutiny. So far, you've rewritten almost the entire first verse of the chapter.

God's word was in the beginning with God.

Well at least this time, there's not much for you to mess up.

All things were made through God's word, and without God's word nothing was made that was made.

Ok.

In God's word was life, and the life was the light of men.

Alright, so far, your proposal has God's word being in the beginning, and being with God and being God, and that all things were made through God's word, and without God's word, nothing was made that was made. Fair. But this verse is where trouble begins for you, because you've now defined "God's word" as life, and being the light of men. You continued:

And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

AKA, God's word shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Nothing wrong with saying this, on it's own, but within the greater context, you've now severed the tie-in between "LOGOS" and "reason" as opposed to "darkness" being related to "incomprehension," damaging the scripture.

Strike one.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

Nothing changed here, good.

This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe.

According to you, John was a witness of the light, which you have defined as "God's word," that all through John might believe.

He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Same as before, John wasn't the light he came to bear witness of, that being "God's word."

That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

Again, according to you, the "true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world" is "God's word."

The light (Jesus) was in the world (civilization(, and the world (civilization) was made through Jesus, and the world (civilization obviously NOT the universe) did not know Jesus.

Woah! Why are you talking about Jesus all of a sudden?

Your interpretation has John talking about John and "God's word," not Jesus. Why change everything else up until this point to "God's word" but make this verse talking about Jesus? There's no point! Jesus isn't even a part of the discussion! It would be like me telling you about a speech I had to give at an event, and how important it was that my pastor was there to be a witness of it, and then suddenly stating that John Smith was serving drinks and meat to his family from his grill across the street in his backyard. Who the heck is John Smith? I don't know, some random person! But needing mentioning, but not getting an introduction...

Second, you've already stated your contention with using "He/Him" (referring to Jesus) in previous verses, so why change that now?

Third, you've already defined "the light" as "God's word." You don't get to just change the definition of it midway through the paragraph. That's not how ANY language works, and if you tried to do that in any civilized conversation, people would have absolutely zero idea what you were even talking about most of the time.

In other words, this is strike two.

If you were at all consistent, you would have said "God's word was in the world, and the world was made through God's word, and the world did not know God's word." Which wouldn't have made any sense, but at least it would have been consistent!

Jesus came to his own (obviously the Jewish portion of civilization), and his own did not receive him.

Supra, and this is where it falls apart for the most part, mainly because of your desire to interpret scripture according to your beliefs and reading your beliefs into the text, rather than the other way around, and letting scripture inform your beliefs, but also because of your inconsistency.

If you had been consistent like I said to be, you would have quickly realized, or maybe you already did, that using "God's word" instead of the "He/Him" pronouns throughout the passage doesn't work in this verse, because it reads as:

"God's word" came to "God's word's" own, and "God's word's" own did not receive "God's word."

Do you see the problem yet? But wait, it gets worse!

But as many as received him, to them him gave the right to become children of God (Just like Jesus is a child of God), to those who believe in his name:

Corrected to be consistent with your beliefs:

"But as many as received "God's word", to them "God's word" gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in "God's word"'s name:"

It keeps adding up!

who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

Nothing changed here.

And now for the final nail in the coffin:

And God's word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

So "God's word," which you have defined as "the light," and both WITH God and BEING God Himself, in the beginning, has now become flesh. Huge problem, because the only one who "became flesh" was Jesus Christ. But that would make Jesus "God's word."

OOPS!

Guess you can't get away from Him being God that easy!

Strike three! You're OUT! ... as the umpire would say. But wait, there's more!

John bore witness of him and cried out, saying, “This was him of whom I said, ‘ he who comes after me is preferred before me, for he was before me (in God's word).’ ”

Corrected so that it's consistent with your position:

John bore witness of "God's word" and cried out, saying, “This was "God's word" of whom I said, ‘ "God's word" who comes after me is preferred before me, for "God's word" was before me (in God's word).’ ”

Er, what?

Given the context of the surrounding books (not to mention the second half of this chapter!) we know that John was preaching and baptizing Bethabara beyond the Jordan. He's literally talking about Jesus here! But your position (if you were at all consistent with your beliefs) has John talking about "God's word" instead!

This is He of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me.’ - John 1:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John1:30&version=NKJV

He's talking about JESUS! That makes YOU, WRONG.

Guess what though! It's not over yet!

And of his fullness we have all received, and grace for grace.

Same as above:

"And of "God's word"'s fullness we have all received, and grace for grace."

For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus the Christ.

Again, why Jesus Christ if that isn't who was being spoken about through ALL of the previous verses in this chapter!?

No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.

According to your position, that last "he" should be "God's word," no?

Or could it be strike four, because again your position has no need for Jesus Christ, despite Him being the focus of the entire chapter, and renders the last sentence of this passage (not the chapter, of course) meaningless.

Notice, the son DECLARED God ..... NOT "the son IS God"!

Notice how you completely missed the fact that verse 14 has your "God's word" being Jesus, and Him being God, completely destroying your position?

Of course Jesus is Lord!!!

I used "LORD" for a reason, because I was referring to the Tetragrammaton, as Idolater explained to you.

His God MADE him, EXALTED him to be both Lord and the Christ;

Acts 2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

Acts 5:30-31 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. 31 Him hath God exalted with His right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.

Acts 2:36 isn't saying God made Jesus, period. It's saying God made Jesus both Lord and Christ. You were distracted by the "whom ye have crucified."

Sorry, your "yes or no" trap is an artifice.

It's a trap only if your position is inconsistent with itself.

You claim Jesus was not God, but cannot bring yourself to admit that He was, in fact, good. Jesus said only God is good. Thus, your problem is not with my question, Dartman, but with your recognition of Jesus' goodness.

Is Jesus good?

I can answer that question with a simple and unequivocal YES!

Jesus was good, in EVERY way, shape, form, deed, action, etc.

No matter how you look at Him, He was good, and the ONLY way He could be so good is if He's God.

So, Dartman, Is Jesus good?

The answer depends on the context....

What context makes Jesus "not good"?

Why, in that context, is He "not good"?

Do you even HAVE an answer for that question? Or are you stubbornly not answering it because you know answering the question consistent to your beliefs makes Jesus out to be a liar, or worse, a lunatic?

Just like Jesus' position as the head over men, while God is the head over Jesus (1 Cor 11:3)

Red herring.

There are WAY more than two:
Heb 1:8,9 quotes Psa 45 which applies to ALL the Kings of Israel, so there are WAY more than TWO called "god" in that sense.

Except that there's only one throne being discussed in BOTH passages.

Also, the Jews jumped to erroneous assumption (surprise, surprise),

Why do you assume they were in error? They knew the law, and blasphemy was a stonable offence, worthy of the death penalty. And what had just said was, in fact, blasphemy. He claimed to be the one to give eternal life (the only one who can promise that is God), and that no one can snatch His sheep out of His hand. And on top of that, He even made the claim "I and My Father are one."

and in Jesus' correction of their error, he quotes Psa 82:

John 10:33-36 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. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 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?

You should have kept reading. For He then says that if he doesn't do the works of His Father, that they shouldn't believe Him, but if He does, even if they don't believe Him, they should believe the works, that they may know and believe that the Father is in Him, and He in the Father. (Which is also blasphemy, by the way, and their reactions confirm it.)

So, there are three points here:
1) Jesus ABSOLUTELY did not agree with their conclusion

On the contrary, Jesus made claims to deity intentionally, in order to rile them up, working towards His goal of the cross.

2) Jesus correctly pointed out that the term "god" CAN be used in the sense of "mighty ones", which fits him.

On the contrary, Jesus tempered His claims to deity so that any who would listen and believe would come to Him,

3) Jesus made it positively clear he is NOT God,

On the contrary, Jesus made it clear enough that He was God, but not so clear that He would face an early trial for it. In addition, you seem to forget that Jesus is called the rock... "the Rock of Offence" and "a stumbling stone." He spoke in parables to hide the meaning of the stories from those who refused to hear. His divinity being one of those things He hid...

he is THE SON OF GOD, like Adam (Luke 3:38) Like all believers (2 Cor 6:17,18).

But unlike Adam, He was perfect, sinless. Good.

But you can't admit that, because then you would have to admit that He is God.

 

[Clete]

My answer is a direct address of the actual point.
If you don't think so, please explain.

No way you're that stupid. Is being a liar a qualification for Bishop at your church?

Any sixth grader could read post 1718 (and now post 1736 as well) and understand the argument it's making about you abruptly switching from talking about "God's words", whatever that even means, to "Jesus".