Okay. You guys will actually probably not believe this, but this is all about pragmatics. [this may sound like the typical atheistic questioning about Jesus being really the son of God, but I promise you, it is not. It is more philosophical, in that it is just all about the pragmatics.]
If Jesus is not the son of God (to Minimalist), that's proof
Take that and sit with it for a minute please. Now... I will insert the obvious missing.
It is clear to all persons that if questioned, Jesus Christ must not be the son of God!!!!! How is that you say? Say the Christians. It IS clear that Jesus Christ is CALLED the son of God, however, we know that all he is is a person who is called the son of God! That is pretty much the proof that Jesus Christ is not the son of God. [Sorry readers, my typing is a little blury to me, so I may have missed that one. Ignore this if I didn't....]
Now, if you accept ^this, at it is practically universal from a matter of fact point of view, you are accepting the proof that Jesus Christ is not the son of God is "practically proof that the son of God does not abide by the name of "the son of God"". [again, my typing is a little blury, so ignore this if you still understand everything]
Ok, that is very self evident. But it becomes a POPULARITY to ALL PERSONS!!!! That should be in bold! Nevertheless, it is a popularity to all persons that the son of God is to be questioned in the sense that he is "NOT THE SON OF GOD" (or whatever.... right?). Since this is enough proof for the thread--- FOR THE MEANTIME btw---I will make this post the official "evidence" that RealJoeFish asked for earlier. And I would like to state a little further. Does this not equate proof that Jesus Christ is not the "son of God?". Yes it does. It was asked for by the audience and it was given. Does this necessarily mean something else? Yes it does.
It means, quite simply, that the topic of the son of God is one to be questioned.
Ok, you follow me so far.
Basically, WE KNOW that Jesus Christ is applicable to standards of "being of the son of God". Or so I will call it. So, what standards does he expect us to deal with? The self evident obvious from this pragmatic examination is the "equals" for what was debated. So I will simply post this as an update, allowing every reader to know that this thread is serious....
If Jesus is not the son of God (to Minimalist), that's proof
Take that and sit with it for a minute please. Now... I will insert the obvious missing.
It is clear to all persons that if questioned, Jesus Christ must not be the son of God!!!!! How is that you say? Say the Christians. It IS clear that Jesus Christ is CALLED the son of God, however, we know that all he is is a person who is called the son of God! That is pretty much the proof that Jesus Christ is not the son of God. [Sorry readers, my typing is a little blury to me, so I may have missed that one. Ignore this if I didn't....]
Now, if you accept ^this, at it is practically universal from a matter of fact point of view, you are accepting the proof that Jesus Christ is not the son of God is "practically proof that the son of God does not abide by the name of "the son of God"". [again, my typing is a little blury, so ignore this if you still understand everything]
Ok, that is very self evident. But it becomes a POPULARITY to ALL PERSONS!!!! That should be in bold! Nevertheless, it is a popularity to all persons that the son of God is to be questioned in the sense that he is "NOT THE SON OF GOD" (or whatever.... right?). Since this is enough proof for the thread--- FOR THE MEANTIME btw---I will make this post the official "evidence" that RealJoeFish asked for earlier. And I would like to state a little further. Does this not equate proof that Jesus Christ is not the "son of God?". Yes it does. It was asked for by the audience and it was given. Does this necessarily mean something else? Yes it does.
It means, quite simply, that the topic of the son of God is one to be questioned.
Ok, you follow me so far.
Basically, WE KNOW that Jesus Christ is applicable to standards of "being of the son of God". Or so I will call it. So, what standards does he expect us to deal with? The self evident obvious from this pragmatic examination is the "equals" for what was debated. So I will simply post this as an update, allowing every reader to know that this thread is serious....
