Trinity

[Bad Writer]

If the Holy Ghost of the Bible is just god in a spirit form, then why do the authors go to great lengths to distinguish it from the guy on high? What's the difference between saying "the Holy Spirit" dwelt in him and "god dwelt in him"?

[Minimalist]

Actually your boy never claims to be god. The closest he gets - and for this one has to accept the shit written in your gospels - is in gjohn - worst of the 4 for silliness - where he equates himself to god.

Have you ever read this shit? Doesn't seem like it.

Your godboy calls himself the "son of man." Which seems like a huge step down. Fuck. I'm the son of man and you know what I think of your bullshit.

He called himself Son of Man to show that He was both God and man, Christ also said He and the Father were one, seems rather clear to those who can see.

GC

25 Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all[c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30 I and the Father are one.”

--john 10

The repeated references to "my father" and then the spurious claim that he and the father are "one" seem contradictory. However, one thing is crystal clear. YOU are one of the sheep.

Of course, when he's hanging on the cross he says - in one version - "Father why have you forsaken me?" You would have us read that as:

"Me - why have I forsaken me?" Sounds pretty silly but it never takes much to impress a xtian.

[Tonus]

Even more notable are the verses that follow.

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’d ? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

You wind up with a confusing mish-mash of claims, that can be produced out-of-context to "prove" pretty much anything about Jesus and god. The Jews accuse him of claiming to "be god." Jesus' reply seems to acknowledge that he is not claiming to be god, by pointing out that the word is also used to describe mere mortals, and clarifies his stance by re-interpreting his own statement to read "I am god's son." He ends with the cryptic statement that the father is "in him" (I can imagine that this part sends chills up the spine of many a Catholic priest) and he is in the father. Reading it gives the distinct impression that Jesus recognizes god as a separate individual, greater than himself.

[Minimalist]

Hercules was the "son" of a god and a mortal, too. Big fucking hairy deal.

A common literary motif in antiquity.

[Bad Writer]

I'd like to see Jesus try and accomplish all that Hercules did in the accounts of his lifetime. If ever there was a savior of mythical proportions, it would be Hercules.

[Minimalist]

Hercules had some smart Greek writers. Jesus had a bunch of pussy xtians. No contest.

[FifthElement]

[Godscreated]

Go read the Bible, Jesus is the creator, the Holy Spirit was active in creation, the creation was spoken into existence by the Father, God as the Trinity has always existed.

Where is your evidence?

You are another broken record, go skip somewhere else.

GC

[Minimalist]

Says the man who has no evidence beyond his stupid fucking bible.

You are truly representative of the pathetic, G-C.

[Godscreated]

Jesus said in Luke 16:17 "But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one dot of the Law to become void.

OK but below it says:

Jesus said in Matthew 12:6 "..8) For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath."
Jesus said in Mark 2:27 And he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. 28) So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath."
Jesus said in John 7:23 If on the Sabbath day a man receives circumcision, so that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with Me because on the Sabbath I made a whole man's body well?.."
These are verses in which Jesus the Lord of the Sabbath spoke about the law and the Sabbath.

These verses add exceptions to the law, which is definitely adding more that a dot or "tittle". He is simple saying that he is authorized to make these changes as he is god. The old testament says otherwise.

Those verses add nothing to the law, they do however show who the Master of the Sabbath is and that He should be worshiped. The OT shows He is the Giver of the law, the law is His to do with as it pleases Him if He so decided. You are arguing a lost cause because you don't want to be wrong, to bad you are wrong.

Deut. 13:1-4, you missed on this big time too. These verses speak of a person who prophesies and the prophecy comes true yet says, let's follow a false god in not a true prophet.

The verses mean that anyone who does not follow the Jewish law cannot be a true prophet regardless of the accuracy of their predictions. Ergo, jesus violated jewish law and thus cannot be a prophet.

There's no way you could have read those verses and assumed they were speaking about the law, the verses say that it would be a test from God. The verses say that no matter what someone told them they were to never follow another so called god. You need to get real here the net is lying to you, surely you can't believe that much truth comes from the net.

Furthermore:
Christians foremost believe the messiah came to save us personally from damnation. To back this up, they quote Isaiah 53, often called the
“suffering servant” passage:
Controversial Text
...He [the servant] was despised, and forsaken of man, a man of pains, knowing disease...Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried;...Smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed because of our sins; The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed...But the Eternal chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, He might see offspring and have long life (JPS).

Christians believe this is a description of the messiah and it perfectly fits the life and death of Jesus.

Hey, you ever read anything that you get off the net, do you really trust everything from it. You have posted bits and pieces of a chapter that you haven't even read. If you had any sense you would see that it describes Christ's life, but all you can do is copy from the net and not give one thought to what you copied. You fit into this phrase perfectly," the blind (net) leading the blind (you). The one word you want to focus on is not translated disease, the best translation is [i]grief, though sickness could be used, but sickness can be used in many different and relative ways beside disease. The offspring are those of us who accept what He did for us through His work, we are reborn into Christ our savior.

How Jews Respond to this Claim

Here are the problems:
•
The name “Jesus” does not appear in this text, so applying this to Jesus is a mere supposition.

O' boy now your really smokin' that brain, get real, please.

•
The words “messiah,” “House of David” or “Son of Jesse” do not appear in this text, so claiming this describes the messiah is also a mere supposition. No one really knows who the servant is because the text does not tell us. He certainly doesn’t have to be either Jesus or the messiah.

It's a prophecy that describes a future person, that person needs to fit the prophecy and Christ did, He fulfilled it.

•
In fact, the servant doesn’t have to be an individual. In the chapters leading up to this passage, Isaiah repeatedly identifies the whole Jewish people as God’s ‘servant’ (41:8-9; 44: 1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3), so it is likely the servant isn’t even a person, only a symbol for Jews.

In this case it is a person, you really need to read the chapter and quit quoting the net.
In Isaiah 44:1-2 God does call Israel His servant, then in Isaiah 44:6 God says,"Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and His Redeemer (Christ), the LORD of host: 'I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me. Here God the Father and Son are speaking to the servant Israel.'"
Isaiah 45:4 refers to Jacob the man and then Israel the nation, it is Jacob the man that is being called servant. If you would have read down through verse 7 you would have seen God was telling Israel through Isaiah that He formed them to glorify His name and show the world He is God the creator.
Isaiah 48:20 says Israel is God's servant and, after two more verses, starting at chapter 49:1-13 the Christ is revealed again, reading and studying scripture leads to truth, copying from the net leads to.... well not much.

•
The servant is repeatedly described as stricken with disease (vs. 3-4; 10). There is no report of Jesus having any diseases, either literally or metaphorically.

The translation disease is not correct, like I stated earlier it translates grief or sickness and both fit perfectly with Christ when He took the sins of all man on Himself.

•
The servant will not die until he has children (v. 10). We have no report that Jesus ever had children.

Again as I explained earlier, the children represent all who chose Christ as their savior, this really isn't as hard as you're trying to make it.

•
The servant will live a long life because of his self-sacrifice (v. 10); Jesus died young, probably at 33[/i]
http://dracontius.net/ragwad/challlenges.pdf

Praise God the Father, Christ is alive and will live forever more to reign at the Fathers right hand. Jesus probably did die at age 33, as you said died of his self sacrifice and then was raised by the Father to live for eternity.

GC

---

Even more notable are the verses that follow.

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’d ? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”

You wind up with a confusing mish-mash of claims, that can be produced out-of-context to "prove" pretty much anything about Jesus and god. The Jews accuse him of claiming to "be god." Jesus' reply seems to acknowledge that he is not claiming to be god, by pointing out that the word is also used to describe mere mortals, and clarifies his stance by re-interpreting his own statement to read "I am god's son." He ends with the cryptic statement that the father is "in him" (I can imagine that this part sends chills up the spine of many a Catholic priest) and he is in the father. Reading it gives the distinct impression that Jesus recognizes god as a separate individual, greater than himself.

That argument might just fly, I mean the part you say that Jesus saw the Father to be greater than Himself. Jesus power came from the Father, but Jesus did not see them as separate Gods. On several occasions Jesus states that He and the Father are One.

GC

---

If the Holy Ghost of the Bible is just god in a spirit form, then why do the authors go to great lengths to distinguish it from the guy on high? What's the difference between saying "the Holy Spirit" dwelt in him and "god dwelt in him"?

God is described as spirit, He is not flesh as we are.

GC