[Vision2020] The Divinity of Christ

[Ron Smith]

That's "berry, berry" sneaky of you Ms. Opyr. Either your response does not speak to the issue at hand, or you changed the issue on me while my head was turned. I wasn't speaking to you as a believer in the gospels. My response was to your previous and fallacious claims that the first three gospels do not speak to the deity of Jesus. "They sing a different tune" I believe is what you said. My response was simply to refute that notion. All four gospels sing loudly and in unison the same tune: "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God."

 

Then, you go on to say, "You have taken four texts, four gospels, all written by followers of Jesus in the century or so after his crucifixion.  These gospels have one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to spread the belief that Jesus was lord, messiah, and Christ." (emphasis mine)

 

You need to make up your mind. Do all four of the gospels all speak to the divinity of Jesus or just John? Again, this has been my point from the beginning of all this. I have sought to point out your inconsistencies with regard to statements you made about the New Testament. The fact that I deem these texts holy is irrelevant to this discussion. You have made false statements about these texts and all I have been doing is critisizing those false statements. Your subsequent example of how I would not be convinced of non-biblical theology by the use non-biblical texts is thus, pointless to this discussion. Of course, I would not.

 

Then you're all: "I'm also not willing to say that your faith is wrong" 

 

This is so laughable and bursting with contradiction. I say Christ is God. You say He is not. Christ being God is the cornerstone of my faith. By you saying He is not God, you are saying my faith is wrong. Don't feel bad about it. We can't all be right. That would be silly.

  

"Sincerely (and, for the sake of my friend Brad, my final word on the subject)"

Thanks so much for giving me the final word, Ms Opyr. That's awful "O'Reilly" of you. =) It's been fun, seriously.

 

Happy New Year,

Ron Smith/Billie the Goat

________________________________

From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com on behalf of Joan Opyr
Sent: Thu 12/30/2004 5:27 PM
To: Vision2020 Moscow
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] The Divinity of Christ


Ron writes: 

 

"It is clear as well, Ms. Opyr that you are well versed in anti-Christian rhetoric, but you failed to handle Jesus' other claims to deity. Who else is called "Lord", "Messiah" or "the Christ"?  Who else is to be worshiped other than God? Who else has the authority to forgive sin?"

 

Don't be silly, young man.  If there's one thing I expect from Biblical literalists, it's a thorough knowledge of scripture.  If you'll re-read Acts, I think you'll find that the high priest lists several other possibilities for the title of messiah.  And let's not forget that Jesus preached in an occupied Jerusalem -- an occupation that, not unlike our current occupation of Iraq, was not universally welcomed by the locals.  The Jews were on the lookout for a messiah to free them from Rome, as well as from Rome's Sanhedrin puppets.

 

But that's all beside the point.  Your questions to me are frankly silly.  They can only be asked by one believer of another.  I'm not a believer.  The New Testament is meaningless to me.  You ask who else is called Lord, Messiah, or Christ?  I don't know -- David Koresh?  Jim Jones?  The Grand High Llama of the Purple and White Garter?  You have taken four texts, four gospels, all written by followers of Jesus in the century or so after his crucifixion.  These gospels have one purpose and one purpose only, and that is to spread the belief that Jesus was lord, messiah, and Christ.  It's impossible to use them as you're attempting to do -- as part of a logical, cohesive argument.  You cannot turn faith into fact by quoting scriptures that you deem holy.  

 

Let me give you an example: I'm guessing that you don't believe in the Upanishads.  If I quoted from them in order to prove the existence of Brahma the creator, Agni the god of fire, or Vishnu the preserver, you'd throw those babies out along with their email bathwater.  And yet one billion Hindus can't be wrong, can they?  Perhaps you're willing to say that they are.  I'm not.  I'm also not willing to say that your faith is wrong, or Keely's faith, or anyone else's faith.  I don't have that kind of hubris -- just the kind that makes me question your pillars certainty (and consequent criticism of others) and ask you to defend them in their historical and contextual context.  As you and your pal Dale clearly feel quite cock-sure of yourselves, you ought to be willing and able to do that.  In spades.   

 

Which brings me to my final point (and to the happy release of Brad Neuman's delete key.)   I am not well-versed in anti-Christian rhetoric.  I am not anti-Christian.  Be Christian all you like.  Have at it, with my blessings upon you.  I don't care what religion you practice or what articles of faith you believe.  I am, however, anti-ignorance; I am anti-unexamined, unfettered, and indefensible Biblical literalism; and I am utterly opposed to shoddy argumentation and cheesy scriptural one-upsmanship.  If you want to play the Bible quote game, then try explaining Luke 3:38, in which Adam is described as "son of God."  (A tricky character, Adam -- no mother, only God, his father.  And what about Eve, born of the virgin Adam?)  Try also Job 38, which tells us that the "sons of God" shouted for joy at the earth's creation, or Job 1:6, or Genesis 6:2, which again make reference to "sons of God."  Learn something about the history and source of your faith before you toss out bits of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John with such wild and reckless abandon.

 

It's fine with me that you believe in the divinity of Christ.  It should be fine with you that I don't.  On matters of faith, we should live and let live.  What isn't fine is to accuse those who believe differently of atheism, and then to make an argument in your favor that goes something like this: some of Jesus' followers believed him to be the only begotten son of God, they recorded this belief in writing, and sometime between the second and fourth centuries, the texts that supported this view were gathered together into the four canonical gospels.  So, now we've got a New Testament; the early Christian Church has accepted it; ergo, Jesus is the son of God.  That's circular reasoning at its worst.  I have greater respect for those Christian Bookstore bumper stickers that say, "God said it, I believe it, that's the end of it."  

 

And so it is  As my grand-dad used to say, why go around your ass to get to your elbow?

 

Sincerely (and, for the sake of my friend Brad, my final word on the subject),

Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment 


________________________________

Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20041230/9cb3c06c/attachment-0001.htm