Battle Royale XIV discussion thread

[Dartman]

Hebrews states Jesus is God.

Hebrews quotes a text that uses the Hebrew word "elohiym" when discussing the kings of Israel, in a context proving that God elevated Jesus to be above the angels. In that same context God is stated to be Christ's God, making it blatantly obvious that Jesus is LOWER than his God, but on a par with the other kings of Israel.

John states He's God.

Never.

Paul states He's God.

Never.

Peter states He's God.

Never.

HE states He's God.

Never.

You just believe whatever you want, typical of a JW or a Mormon or whatever the heck kind of a ... Protestant thing you are.

My beliefs are those of the original Churches of God. My beliefs regarding God are exactly like Jesus and the other Jews believed:
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.

And Psalm 45 says His God is God----so what lol!

God doesn't have a God.
Jesus does.

You need a bishop instead of just making yourself out to be your own pope.

I am a bishop.
The New Testament prohibits popes:
Luke 22:25-26 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

 

[Idolater]

Hebrews quotes a text that uses the Hebrew word "elohiym" when discussing the kings of Israel, in a context proving that God elevated Jesus to be above the angels. In that same context God is stated to be Christ's God, making it blatantly obvious that Jesus is LOWER than his God, but on a par with the other kings of Israel.

Hebrews 1:10-12 you hand-wave but it remains. You're just obstinate and wrong, and sad.

Never.Never.Never.Never.

Yawn.

My beliefs are those of the original Churches of God.

lol you clown.

My beliefs regarding God are exactly like Jesus and the other Jews believed:
John 4:22 Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.


God doesn't have a God.
Jesus does.

I am a bishop.

You're a bishop? What kind of bishop.

The New Testament prohibits popes:
Luke 22:25-26 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. 26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

Non-sequitur.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The text repeatedly says God's words were with Him.,

Ok, so you believe that. Kt doesn't make you right or wrong. The next logical step is to apply that to the REST of the passage.

Go on, copy my quote of John 1 and put "God's words" in the blanks!

You won't! Prove me wrong!

Because you know that if you do, the entire passage becomes gibberish, which is good evidence that you're wrong!

Incorrect.

When someone plainly asks you a clear and unambiguous question, and you do not answer with a clear and unambiguous answer, it means you don't have a clear and unambiguous answer. Thus, "no response" is indeed correct.

You just didn't like my response.

You're right, I didn't like your "response," because your "response" did not answer the question, and clearly and simply shows you don't have one. Hence why I said, "You: [no response]".

In comparison to his "fellows", mankind ..... Jesus is the MOST good man that has ever lived.
In comparison to his GOD, no human, Jesus included, is good.

Jesus' own teachings, as well as Paul's and the rest of the Biblical authors', as well as the law of excluded middle (one is either good or not good, there is no in between) show this to be impossible, for "a little leaven leavens the whole lump" and "whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all."

Your inability to answer my challenges show you don't really believe Jesus, because if you did, you would believe His words, "Why do you call Me good? There is none good but God." If ONLY God is good, and if your belief that Jesus is not God is true, then by saying "Jesus was good" you contradict your own belief, that Jesus is not God, and therefore not good.

Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or He is LORD!

You believe that He is a liar, which is why you can't clearly and unequivocally state that Jesus was good or not good.

So again, I ask you, was Jesus good? Yes, or no.

Hebrews quotes a text that uses the Hebrew word "elohiym" when discussing the kings of Israel, in a context proving that God elevated Jesus to be above the angels. In that same context God is stated to be Christ's God, making it blatantly obvious that Jesus is LOWER than his God, but on a par with the other kings of Israel.

Again, you run into the problem where TWO individuals are being called God, the "Son," and "God."

This is why your beliefs are wrong.

 

[marke]

No, it is very plainly discussing Christ's God, "God, even THY God", mentioned in verse 9.

You fail to comprehend the full extent of God's nature. Jesus was with God in the beginning and Jesus was God in the beginning. That is not something humans can understand without spiritual enlightenment and you prove yourself unenlightened when you try to explain God in human terms.

 

[Right Divider]

You just believe whatever you want, typical of a JW or a Mormon or whatever the heck kind of a ... Protestant thing you are.

Cults are most definitely NOT Protestant.

 

[Clete]

The New Testament usage of "COSMOS" is always .... always .... about civilization.

You're a liar, Dartman! The best argument against your doctrine is that fact that you are incapable of debating it honestly.

What are you even doing here? What possible benefit could you think you're deriving from this?

WHY will you not respond to the things presented against your doctrine? Why do you think it legitimate not only to simply make a new post that is in response to no one so as to pretend like this issue hasn't already been addressed? If I ran this website, I'd delete posts 1652 and 1653 and force you to either directly respond to the things that have already been said in relation to this issue or leave. Alas, I am not running this website and so that won't happen but know that there are those of us here who have been doing this long enough to spot a liar when we see one. You don't respond because you have no response. All you can do is repeat your position as though nothing has been said against it hoping that people will just go along with you in resetting the "debate". You are to biblical theology as Adam Shiff is to American politics. State emphatically anything that you cannot rationally defend, just ignore anything of substance anyone says against you and repeat yourself as though nothing was said at all. Saul Alinsky could not do it any better than you do.

 

[Clete]

You fail to comprehend the full extent of God's nature. Jesus was with God in the beginning and Jesus was God in the beginning. That is not something humans can understand without spiritual enlightenment and you prove yourself unenlightened when you try to explain God in human terms.

Why do you keep saying this?

That isn't true at all! The incarnation isn't difficult to understand whatsoever.

Are there aspects of God's nature that we don't understand? Of course! But the idea that Jesus is God incarnate, isn't one of them. The first chapter of John isn't hard to follow at all. All you have to do is read it. Any sixth grader can understand it.

Why are you handing this heretic an excuse? This stuff isn't beyond his comprehension, he chooses not to believe it.

 

[Clete]

No you don't. Hebrews states Jesus is God. John states He's God. Paul states He's God. Peter states He's God. HE states He's God.

This is EXACTLY correct.

You just believe whatever you want, typical of a JW or a Mormon or whatever the heck kind of a ... Protestant thing you are.

You should, however, be careful not to be a hypocrite.

It's insulting in the extreme that you would equate his cultish manner of handling scripture with Protestantism. That displays a level of ignorance about the Reformation and what it was about that puts you in a similar category as Dartman. If there were any group of theologians who could make biblical arguments about the issues that the Reformation was about it was Martin Luther, John Calvin and several other "reformers". In fact, you yourself agree with the majority of their objections and the only things they got wrong are the very things that are not biblical and that they could not make rational arguments for and which YOU still believe as a Catholic! So don't get too big for your own britches.

 

[marke]

Why do you keep saying this?

That isn't true at all! The incarnation isn't difficult to understand whatsoever.

Are there aspects of God's nature that we don't understand? Of course! But the idea that Jesus is God incarnate, isn't one of them. The first chapter of John isn't hard to follow at all. All you have to do is read it. Any sixth grader can understand it.

Why are you handing this heretic an excuse? This stuff isn't beyond his comprehension, he chooses not to believe it.

I believe the deeper understanding of the word of God is hidden from those whose hearts are not humble before the Lord.

 

[Clete]

I believe the deeper understanding of the word of God is hidden from those whose hearts are not humble before the Lord.

Well, that's stupidity.

First of all, God becoming a man isn't anything close to being "the deeper understanding of the word of God". On the contrary, its the prima facia teaching of the New Testament and the core teaching of the entire Christian faith. I mean, you couldn't get any more introductory and basic if you tried! They literally teach this to toddlers!

There is exactly ZERO biblical reason to believe that Dartman doesn't get it because he CAN'T get it. He is choosing to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe no matter what the bible actually says against it. That isn't any sort of blindness other than the willful kind.

 

[Dartman]

Go on, copy my quote of John 1 and put "God's words" in the blanks!

You won't! Prove me wrong!

In the beginning was God's word, and God's word was with God, and God's word is God. God's word was in the beginning with God. All things were made through God's word, and without God's word nothing was made that was made. In God's word 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. 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. Jesus came to his own (obviously the Jewish portion of civilization), and his own did not receive him. 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: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 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. 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).’ ”And of his 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. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.

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

 

[Dartman]

Jesus is either a liar, a lunatic, or He is LORD!

Of course Jesus is Lord!!!
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.

So again, I ask you, was Jesus good? Yes, or no.

Sorry, your "yes or no" trap is an artifice. The answer depends on the context.... Just like Jesus' position as the head over men, while God is the head over Jesus (1 Cor 11:3)

Again, you run into the problem where TWO individuals are being called God, the "Son," and "God."

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.

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

So, there are three points here:
1) Jesus ABSOLUTELY did not agree with their conclusion
2) Jesus correctly pointed out that the term "god" CAN be used in the sense of "mighty ones", which fits him.
3) Jesus made it positively clear he is NOT God, he is THE SON OF GOD, like Adam (Luke 3:38) Like all believers (2 Cor 6:17,18).

 

[Dartman]

Thank you all for the correspondence and the interest. I appreciate the "iron sharpens iron" exchange.

Again, the background of this discussion is the clear reliance of the New Testament on the theology of the Jews. Jesus endorsed the Jewish knowledge of his God (John 4:20). The other NT writers consistently referred to "the God of our fathers", "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", "the God OF our Lord Jesus the Christ".

While this theology is the foundation of the New Testament, there are also dire warnings in the New Testament regarding "false Christs", "another Jesus", "antichrist" and "another gospel". Warnings to "hold fast" to the teachings of the New Testament because the leadership of the Church was going to produce "wolves" that would ravage the flock:

Acts 20:28-31 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the holy spirit hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. 31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

2 Cor 11:3-5 But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

In this context it is imperative that we cling to, and demand that our theology is exclusively New Testament .... rather than based on the teachings from the leadership of the Church that followed the writing of the New Testament!

Reliance is ONLY to be in the clear, simple statements of Scripture, and any questionable texts are to be interpreted BY those clear, simple statements of Scripture.

Those elements of the trinitarian position that are UNIQUE to the trinity have ZERO clear, simple statements on which to rely. All the trinitarian theory has are, texts worded in such a way that they COULD support those elements of the trinitarian position that are UNIQUE to the trinity. In fact, those elements of the trinitarian position that are UNIQUE to the trinity frequently require nonbiblical terminology to explain the theory. Instead of biblical language, terms and concepts that come from Greek theology or philosophy are used.

The trinitarian theory development was gradual, and was not the doctrine we see today. That doctrine wasn't complete until the end of the 4th century. In fact, the "early church fathers", whos writings are quoted as support for the trinity, would have been murdered as heretics a few centuries later! Those early writers were mostly poorly converted followers of Greek philosophy, and their writings prove there was great resistance to their doctrine from the Jewish members of the churches. From a political perspective, those adopting the trinity DID triumph over their enemies. And the bloodbath that resulted from that disagreement over the following centuries was horrific.

I truly appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues without fear.
Again, thank you.

 

[Idolater]

This is EXACTLY correct.

You should, however, be careful not to be a hypocrite.

I am a hypocrite. I tried being careful, it doesn't work. I am who I am.

It's insulting in the extreme that you would equate his cultish manner of handling scripture with Protestantism. That displays a level of ignorance about the Reformation and what it was about that puts you in a similar category as Dartman. If there were any group of theologians who could make biblical arguments about the issues that the Reformation was about it was Martin Luther, John Calvin and several other "reformers". In fact, you yourself agree with the majority of their objections and the only things they got wrong are the very things that are not biblical and that they could not make rational arguments for and which YOU still believe as a Catholic! So don't get too big for your own britches.

Incorrect. The problem the bishops got into was they were politicians. They weren't formally politicians, but they did hold political office of some kind, even as "advisors" or something like that. Martin Luther was going to be given the death penalty basically because Catholic bishops said so. It wasn't that this was right or wrong (John Calvin did the same thing, he approved of an execution over matters of faith and morals, over religion iow), politically, it's that the bishops shouldn't have had any political power at all, but they did. (This Church problem appeared sometime after Constantine in Western Civilization. (fwiw I still see some of this going on with the Eastern Orthodox Church, viz. recently Patriarch Kirill with his at least popular involvement in the Russian Ukrainian war.)

By now the only political power Catholic bishops wield is within the walls of the Vatican. They're all just private citizens now wrt policy, just like you and me (provided you're not a politician----I have no idea).

Doctrinally the bishops are as right today as they were then, Trinity, the nature of Christ, theology, ecclesiologically, etc. Their job isn't political, it is a teaching gig, and they are supposed to preserve, protect and transmit the deposit of faith ("the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" Jude 3), which includes the complete Scripture plus everything else the Apostles taught by word of mouth.

(For example the Trinity is contained in the deposit of faith as oral Apostolic tradition (2nd Thessalonians 2:2) but not explicitly in Scripture. This is the primary reason @Dartman is a clown. It's not that he's misinterpreting the Bible, everybody does that, it's that he ignores history as plain as the Civil War or the Russian Revolution. That's why I laugh at him. It's patently silly. As if the Apostles never had anything more to say about Jesus than what's recorded in the Bible----a joke!)

 

[Idolater]

Of course Jesus is Lord!!!

No, you don't believe that. You believe Jesus is "lowered" not Lord. The word Lord (if you were a real bishop, you would know this) comes straight out of the Septuagint, which was the Bible for many of the very first Christians. Some New Testament books (like Hebrews) even quote straight out of the LXX.

The Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible's "YHWH" was "Lord," always, as a matter of translation policy. It's the same policy the Jewish people still follow to this day, they never utter "YHWH" or try to, always instead substituting for it "Adonai." In Greek, Adonai means Lord. The Psalm to them said, "The Lord is my Shepherd," even though in Hebrew it is, "Yahweh is my Shepherd," and to Jewish people they read, "Adonai is my Shepherd."

So when the Bible says that Jesus is Lord, this is what the word Lord means. But you deny this, you instead believe Jesus is "Lowered." "Lowered" Jesus Christ.

iow tldr Jesus is Lord means Jesus is Adonai means Jesus is Yahweh. And "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." So you don't have the Holy Spirit. If you really think you're a Christian, then this should concern you tremendously sir.

 

[Dartman]

No, you don't believe that. You believe Jesus is "lowered" not Lord. The word Lord (if you were a real bishop, you would know this) comes straight out of the Septuagint, which was the Bible for many of the very first Christians. Some New Testament books (like Hebrews) even quote straight out of the LXX.

The Greek LXX translation of the Hebrew Bible's "YHWH" was "Lord," always, as a matter of translation policy. It's the same policy the Jewish people still follow to this day, they never utter "YHWH" or try to, always instead substituting for it "Adonai." In Greek, Adonai means Lord. The Psalm to them said, "The Lord is my Shepherd," even though in Hebrew it is, "Yahweh is my Shepherd," and to Jewish people they read, "Adonai is my Shepherd."

So when the Bible says that Jesus is Lord, this is what the word Lord means. But you deny this, you instead believe Jesus is "Lowered." "Lowered" Jesus Christ.

iow tldr Jesus is Lord means Jesus is Adonai means Jesus is Yahweh. And "no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost." So you don't have the Holy Spirit. If you really think you're a Christian, then this should concern you tremendously sir.

You're missing quite a bit of information, so your response is inaccurate.

Yes, the LXX translation, following Jewish tradition established AFTER the completion of the OT, does translate YHVH (which is Jehovah/Yehovah/Yahweh in English) as Kurios. But, they ALSO translated the Hebrew Adonai as Kurios, for example, in Gen 18:12 when Sarah calls Abraham Adonai. Sarah wasn't calling Abraham God, she was addressing him as her lord out of respect (as Peter points out in 1 Peter 3:6)

Lord/Kurios doesn't always mean God.
NT:2962 Supreme in authority, i.e. (as noun) controller; by implication, Mr. (as a respectful title):

(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

 

[marke]

Well, that's stupidity.

First of all, God becoming a man isn't anything close to being "the deeper understanding of the word of God". On the contrary, its the prima facia teaching of the New Testament and the core teaching of the entire Christian faith. I mean, you couldn't get any more introductory and basic if you tried! They literally teach this to toddlers!

There is exactly ZERO biblical reason to believe that Dartman doesn't get it because he CAN'T get it. He is choosing to believe whatever the hell he wants to believe no matter what the bible actually says against it. That isn't any sort of blindness other than the willful kind.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning, or you are misunderstanding mine. I do not believe the proud and unregenerate can understand spiritual truths anywhere as easily as I think you are suggesting.

 

[Clete]

I am a hypocrite. I tried being careful, it doesn't work. I am who I am.

You have a choice, Idolater. In fact, that is the first of Luther's 95 theses!

"Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said "Repent", willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance." - Martin Luther

Incorrect.

No, it's entirely correct.

Have you ever bothered to read the 95 Theses that Luther posted on the door of the church back on Oct. 31st 1517? Do you have ANY idea at all, what you're talking about?

The problem the bishops got into was they were politicians.

Nonsense.

They weren't formally politicians, but they did hold political office of some kind, even as "advisors" or something like that. Martin Luther was going to be given the death penalty basically because Catholic bishops said so.

Not until well after he posted the 95 thesis on the church door.

It wasn't that this was right or wrong (John Calvin did the same thing, he approved of an execution over matters of faith and morals, over religion iow), politically,

John Calvin was a tyrant and murdered people so I don't think you want to hold him up as someone I'd approve of as having done things properly. About the only thing he could do rightly is prove that the Roman Catholic church was doing things that there was no biblical nor moral sanction for. Things that you would not approve of yourself.

it's that the bishops shouldn't have had any political power at all, but they did.

This has almost nothing to do with Luther's objections that kicked off the Reformation. It wasn't about politics, except perhaps secondarily. It had to do with abuses of power that went well beyond politics. Ever heard of the Inquisition? Ever heard of indulgences, where priests asked for bribes in order to get someone's loved one out of a non-existent "purgatory"?

Tell me, Idolator, do you believe your local bishop has the right to charge you money so as to shorten your mother's time in purgatory? Or don't you actually agree with the reformers that such a practice is no different that when Al Capone charged businesses for his "protection" during 1920's Chicago?

(This Church problem appeared sometime after Constantine in Western Civilization.

LOL! Sometime after Constantine?

You mean at some point after 337 ad?

(fwiw I still see some of this going on with the Eastern Orthodox Church, viz. recently Patriarch Kirill with his at least popular involvement in the Russian Ukrainian war.)

Completely irrelevant.

By now the only political power Catholic bishops wield is within the walls of the Vatican.

You're so totally naive that it can hardly be expressed in words.

They're all just private citizens now wrt policy, just like you and me (provided you're not a politician----I have no idea).

This may be true in America but if you don't think the higher ups in the Catholic church are politicians, you just have blinders on.

Doctrinally the bishops are as right today as they were then, Trinity, the nature of Christ, theology, ecclesiologically, etc.

More evidence that you have no idea what the reformation was about. Try reading something that wasn't written by a Catholic priest on the subject. Maybe do a ten second Google search for "Luther's 95 Theses" and try actually reading them.

Their job isn't political, it is a teaching gig, and they are supposed to preserve, protect and transmit the deposit of faith ("the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" Jude 3), which includes the complete Scripture plus everything else the Apostles taught by word of mouth.

Wow. Catholic colored glasses, anyone?

(For example the Trinity is contained in the deposit of faith as oral Apostolic tradition (2nd Thessalonians 2:2) but not explicitly in Scripture. This is the primary reason @Dartman is a clown.

He is a clown, but not for that reason. He's a clown because he brings his doctrine to the text and interprets away anything that disagrees with what he brought with him to the table. You do the same thing (i.e. all Catholics do) because your first allegiance isn't to the word of God but to your priests and to the traditions of men.

It's not that he's misinterpreting the Bible, everybody does that, it's that he ignores history as plain as the Civil War or the Russian Revolution.

It's both and no, not everybody misinterprets the bible. There are some of us that allow the plain reading of the bible to dictate our doctrine rather than the other way around. Perhaps no one does so perfectly but that's not the same thing. Dartman is not making a accidental mistake, he is intentionally ignoring the plain reading of scripture to suit his doctrine.

That's why I laugh at him. It's patently silly. As if the Apostles never had anything more to say about Jesus than what's recorded in the Bible----a joke!)

Well, there's a line from your post that I agree with entirely.

 

[Clete]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning, or you are misunderstanding mine. I do not believe the proud and unregenerate can understand spiritual truths anywhere as easily as I think you are suggesting.

Okay, I can go with a potential misunderstanding. Let's talk it out. Think it through, as it were.

The phrase "spiritual truths" is pretty broad. What spiritual truths are you talking about?

Romans 1 makes it painfully clear that spiritual truths such as God's existence and right and wrong are well within the grasp of even reprobates as disgusting as homosexual and murders to the point that they are "without excuse".

Now, I agree that there are some spiritual truths that are outside the bounds of what an unbeliever can grasp but not because God has yet to sprinkle some wisdom dust on their head or perform some sort of super-natural miracle that transforms their mind into something substantively different such that it makes things understandable to them. It isn't that at all. It's simply that the requisite suppositions that certain truths are predicated upon are not present within the mind of an unbeliever. Indeed, this is true of many believers as well!

For example, it makes no sense to try to have some sort of substantive discussion, much less a debate, with an unbeliever about the idea that believers are identified in Christ and what that truth means for the daily life of a believer. There isn't any common ground upon which to base the discussion. There's no way for the unbeliever to have anything other than a very superficial idea what that topic is even about. It would be like discussing the penthouse suit at Trump Tower with someone who had never been within a hundred miles of a city. It isn't that they are incapacitated, its that they have nothing upon which to build the necessary premises that the subject is based on.

The concept of God becoming a man very simple does not fall into this category. As I said before, it is among the most basic principles of the whole Christian faith. It is literally the milk (see I Cor. 3:2 & Hebrews 5:12-13). You cannot even rightly present the gospel to an unbeliever without discussing the fact that God became a man so as to die for the sins that we are guilty of. Right?

Clete

 

[Clete]

In the beginning was God's word, and God's word was with God, and God's word is God. God's word was in the beginning with God. All things were made through God's word, and without God's word nothing was made that was made. In God's word 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. 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. Jesus came to his own (obviously the Jewish portion of civilization), and his own did not receive him. 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: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 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. 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).’ ”And of his 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. No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.

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

LOL!!!

Well, all I can say is, this clown isn't afraid to make a fool of himself! I can't tell if he's blind to it or if he just doesn't care.

He who is evil, let him be evil still.