Did Jesus say he was God???

[1robin]

I've challenged Bible-believers in their thousands to offer a simple, clear definition of 'kind', but none has ever been able to do so.

Can you define 'kind' for me?

The most common biblical definition of kind is what defines fertility barriers. Whatever can breed is of a kind. Biblical terms are defined by the bible not science BTW.

And no you have not challenged thousands of Christians.

 

[1robin]

Not true. Not only does the fossil record clearly indicate otherwise, so does the current genome testing project. Also, you might want to check out this, and possibly connect with the links: Speciation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only observable fact contained in a fossil is that some creature died. The fossil record is not what evolution would suggest many times. For example all major body types appear fully formed at the same geological time. The Cambrian explosion has complex body types instantly appear without an developmental record and they are of every type that exists today. Again do not take my objections to an evolution claims with denial of genetic change. I think the truth lies in a combination of creative acts, natural mutation, and selection.

Simply put, the basic evolutionary process that has indeed produced new "kinds" has been well established in science beyond any shadow of doubt, but "creationism" is a religious belief and has not been established as scientifically accurate in any way. Sorry, but that's simply the case and not an opinion. Trouble is, the creationists don't see it that way because they don't want to see it that way.

I am not discussing what is a logical deduction for fragmented data. Sciences own criteria is observation not mine. Claiming one kind became another is evidenced based faith the same as my theological beliefs are, and there is almost no conflict between them. I know that no new kinds have been observed because they honestly admit it and point out no new kinds will ever be observed because the evolutionary time scales to change a kind into a new kind are far too long to observe. There is not only doubt here is persistent and uncontainable doubts with claiming evolution is alone an adequate explanation of life's history. You seem to be just winging it and bouncing around a lot. Let's start from the beginning and see if mature alone gets us to where we are at.

To claim evolution is an argument against God is to think the natural alone is an explanation for reality. If you are not using evolution this way I have no idea what the debate is.

To have evolution you first need a structured universe.
1. How do you get nothing to produce a universe? When I say nothing I mean nothing. No time, no space, no matter, not even the last forlorn hope of the quantum existed before the universe appeared on the scene.
2. How do you get an arbitrary expansion with respect to purpose to create the exact parameters (some on the order of 1 in billions of trillions, and which are a multiplicative probability) to allow for evolution of any type to occur?
3. How did you get life from non-life?

You cannot skip all these and throw some fossils on a table and yell evolution did it all.

You cannot (as you attempt to do) lump creationists in one barrel and shove it over board. Creationists come in all types. Most include the reality of evolution and agree with me that natural process alone cannot possibly account for reality in total.

These are tactics used to try and win word fights not arrive at reasoned conclusions.

BTW, to see the absurdity in the creationist account, you might check out the Dover, Pa., account of that modern "monkey trial". I read much from the court transcripts, and it just amazed me how such a supposedly religious-oriented group (the "Discovery Institute") lied through their teeth in the name of "God", and the Christian judge, who was appointed by Bush, just clobbered them verbally with his verdict. If you're not familiar with the case, you can start here, but then you can get the court transcript on-line: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have read the monkey trial arguments many times and think both sides (especially the Christian side) made terrible arguments. That is what we get for using a Christian political figure and lawyer to debate science. I think neither side made a conclusive cased but the Darrow made the better of the two. However he lost and when he faced an intellectual opponent of Chesterton's genius he was annihilated. I recommend that debate as far more meaningful than the monkey trial. The monkey trial in no way represents a modern creationists position as a whole. I also do not agree with the discovery institute (if it is the one headed by DR Morris). Despite the fact that terrible arguments have been made for evolution and against evolution there are drastic problems with evolution as a explanation for genetic reality alone. Instead of bouncing around to random events (and you linking me with random opinions of others). I suggest you begin at the beginning as my questions did above and we can discuss the problems as they chronologically appear.

 

[1robin]

BTW, we are getting far from the OP, so I'll stop at this point dealing with evolution.

You can't do this in a post following one that prompted me to provide many words in response to evolutionary claims. I call a penalty, technical foul, or something. At least transfer the discussion to a relevant thread or answer that post if no other.

 

[metis]

You can't do this in a post following one that prompted me to provide many words in response to evolutionary claims. I call a penalty, technical foul, or something. At least transfer the discussion to a relevant thread or answer that post if no other.

As just a point of two corrections and a final comment. After my last post, I looked up at what the OP was about, and this reinforced my suspicion that maybe I'd gotten too far away from it. Also, in my last post, the link was not to the "Scope's Monkey Trial" but to the Dover trial that was about 10 or so years ago.

The idea of evolution stopping at "kinds" is a religious interpretation, not a scientific one, and the overwhelming data in no way even gets even close to supporting your opinion that's based on your religion and not science.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The most common biblical definition of kind is what defines fertility barriers. Whatever can breed is of a kind.

OK. So you believe that donkeys and horses are the same 'kind.'

And you believe that wolves, dogs and coyotes are all the same 'kind.'

And modern humans and neanderthal... the same kind.

Interesting. I've never had a biblicist say that to me.

So when you claim that no new kinds have ever been observed to have evolved, you're claiming that no animal has ever dropped a baby which was unable to breed with its mother or father or other animals which its parents could breed with.

Is that your claim?

No new kinds have ever been observed to have evolved. I do not deny they could have occurred just that believing they have is based on faith.

Sure. And no one has ever observed the earth orbiting the sun, so you only believe in heliocentrism based on faith.

A curious use of the word 'faith', I think.

And no you have not challenged thousands of Christians.

I can't stop you from posting such falsehoods to the public board. I can only point out when you do so.

 

[1robin]

As just a point of two corrections and a final comment. After my last post, I looked up at what the OP was about, and this reinforced my suspicion that maybe I'd gotten too far away from it. Also, in my last post, the link was not to the "Scope's Monkey Trial" but to the Dover trial that was about 10 or so years ago.

The idea of evolution stopping at "kinds" is a religious interpretation, not a scientific one, and the overwhelming data in no way even gets even close to supporting your opinion that's based on your religion and not science.

I can't justify continuing a conversation that you do not wish to have. Evolution should never be mentioned unless much time is allowed to investigate it. It is a complex issue with countless gray areas and unknowns.

 

[1robin]

OK. So you believe that donkeys and horses are the same 'kind.'

And you believe that wolves, dogs and coyotes are all the same 'kind.'

And modern humans and neanderthal... the same kind.

Interesting. I've never had a biblicist say that to me.

I think that you have accurately named the general idea there. The bible does not get into much detail on the issue (it is not a scientific text) but in general kind is referring to fertility.

So when you claim that no new kinds have ever been observed to have evolved, you're claiming that no animal has ever dropped a baby which was unable to breed with its mother or father or other animals which its parents could breed with.

Something like that. I mean that no dog has ever produced a non-dog that was observed. Now this is kind of too convenient because even if they did it would take far too long for personal observation. It is a stacked deck. The point is that macro-evolution is based in part on faith. That is fine by mean as long as it is illustrated with that in mind.

Is that your claim?

It is close. I have never had to defend it as I rarely mention it but you have the general idea. The bible says that things change after their kind. This indicates things do not change into other kinds. However I am making educated guesses here.

Sure. And no one has ever observed the earth orbiting the sun, so you only believe in heliocentrism based on faith.

It is not my criteria. Science invented that criteria. As far as me and you are concerned we simply believe others claims about the earth. Seems reasonable, and without knowing one way or the other we believe it. As long as macro-evolution is claimed to be a belief I have no problem with it.

A curious use of the word 'faith', I think.

I do not see the curiosity. It is belief without certainty.

I can't stop you from posting such falsehoods to the public board. I can only point out when you do so.

I do not see any falsehoods, I do not know what a public board is, and have no idea what your talking about.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I can't justify continuing a conversation that you do not wish to have. Evolution should never be mentioned unless much time is allowed to investigate it. It is a complex issue with countless gray areas and unknowns.

Yeah, just like physics, astronomy, biology, mathematics, etc.

The only issue without gray areas and unknowns is religion.

 

[metis]

"Did Jesus say he was God?" I doubt it.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, just like physics, astronomy, biology, mathematics, etc.

The only issue without gray areas and unknowns is religion.

That is silly.

 

[1robin]

"Did Jesus say he was God?" I doubt it.

The reason I did not feel obliged to strictly follow the OP is that it is not a very good question. Do trees say they are trees? Did you tell me that you are a human being? Do our cars greet us with their identity every morning? We are not left in the dark concerning their identities are we. We do not dictate to historical figures that they state their full names, titles, nationalities, and personal ideas to know what they are and did. Christ made many claims about his divinity. What is meaningful about asking he do so in words we choose in an order we choose? He said he existed before the world did, is that the claim of a mortal man? He said everything was created through him, was that a moral man's claim? He said that only God can forgive sin and that he could forgive sin. Not pass on sins consequence as human priest did year by year but to remove it entirely. God or man? All men sin yet he never did, God or man? He claimed absolute authority over everything. God or man? I can go on but I am too lazy.

I personally do not think the debate important. I must do exactly the same thing to get to heaven whether he was man, divine being, or one with the father as he said. I usually only comment on the fault in arguments used to evaluate this. This question is a typical Islamic apologetic tactic and has no capacity to resolve anything.

Just as I know trees, cars, and you are trees, cars, and a human being by what they do I can claim Christ was at least not a mortal man. God or divine being I know not. The option that he was only a mere "Razul" as Lewis said so well, he did not leave open to us. Lunatic or divine messiah are the only options I see.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

That is silly.

A powerful refutation of my position. Small wonder that your reputation as a debater is what it is.

 

[metis]

Lunatic or divine messiah are the only options I see.

I don't. The "N.T." consists of various peoples' takes on Jesus, including trying to cite from memory or hear-say information what Jesus said. And as with Gandhi after he was assassinated, there may well have been a tendency to deify him, which could have been a rather logical tendency.

 

[Sees]

I don't. The "N.T." consists of various peoples' takes on Jesus, including trying to cite from memory or hear-say information what Jesus said. And as with Gandhi after he was assassinated, there may well have been a tendency to deify him, which could have been a rather logical tendency.

In Indo-Euro cultures the deification of heroes was intentional...now add with the Hellenism of the Jews at the time :areyoucra

In mystery cult tradition the movement survived by being "underground" for a few decades.

I wonder what the estimated numbers were for Christians 100 A.D. and 300 A.D.?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't. The "N.T." consists of various peoples' takes on Jesus, including trying to cite from memory or hear-say information what Jesus said. And as with Gandhi after he was assassinated, there may well have been a tendency to deify him, which could have been a rather logical tendency.

I'm pretty sure that Ghandi existed in the flesh, in the time and place as claimed for him.

Jesus? I doubt it. So he was even easier to deify.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I think that you have accurately named the general idea there. The bible does not get into much detail on the issue (it is not a scientific text) but in general kind is referring to fertility.

So a Great Dane and a Chihuahua are different kinds, since they can't mate?

Something like that. I mean that no dog has ever produced a non-dog that was observed.

You mean that no one has ever seen a dog give birth to an alligator? And that makes you hesitant about the truth of Evolution?

The point is that macro-evolution is based in part on faith. That is fine by mean as long as it is illustrated with that in mind.

Right. And heliocentrism. And Germ Theory. And plate tectonics. All based on faith -- at least in your usage of that word.

The bible says that things change after their kind. This indicates things do not change into other kinds. However I am making educated guesses here.

Right. The Bible says that dogs can't give birth to alligators. I understand.

I do not see the curiosity. It is belief without certainty.

So you can only have certainty if you see a thing with your own eyes? But what if you are hallucinating?

I do not see any falsehoods, I do not know what a public board is, and have no idea what your talking about.

You stated a falsehood -- that I have not challenged thousands of Christians.

This place where we are writing is called a board. In the early days, they were called 'Bulletin Board Services' or BBS. This is a public board, which means that anyone with a computer and an internet connection can see it. A private board would be a place where CIA and NSA guys talk to each other and have to flash their credentials before entering. Something like that.

 

[metis]

I wonder what the estimated numbers were for Christians 100 A.D. and 300 A.D.?

I have not seen numbers estimates, but at least a few theologians I have read have it quite low until Constantine. A Lutheran theologian, Martin Marty, hypothesizes that at three different times the church was in danger of being mostly or even entirely wiped out.

 

[Sees]

I have not seen numbers estimates, but at least a few theologians I have read have it quite low until Constantine. A Lutheran theologian, Martin Marty, hypothesizes that at three different times the church was in danger of being mostly or even entirely wiped out.

Thank you sir, I was looking for something half the night when I pull up something on Wikipedia (hoping for easy way out "research"), I end up getting sidetracked and reading about something else 10 pages and hours later...

 

[1robin]

A powerful refutation of my position. Small wonder that your reputation as a debater is what it is.

Would you stop referring to am imaginary army of people who live in your pocket and agree with you. Your original post was thoughtful and relevant. I knew that would not last. I answered the transitional post but gave up and just gave the post that resumed your normal insincerity the label it deserved.

 

[1robin]

I don't. The "N.T." consists of various peoples' takes on Jesus, including trying to cite from memory or hear-say information what Jesus said. And as with Gandhi after he was assassinated, there may well have been a tendency to deify him, which could have been a rather logical tendency.

So you are resting your case on later deification of a person within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses? Try and deify Ronald Regan or Margaret Thatcher and see if it will be accepted by anyone. This was not my point anyway. The story about existing before the universe was not in a text attempting to deify Christ. The same with the rest of them, and claiming he fed 5000 or healed the blind, deaf, and dumb, or said he could take away sin is simply not going to survive scrutiny recorded within eyewitness lifetimes. Yet not a single I was there and that did not happen claim exists at all.

Saying that much later some scribes for whatever reasons attempted to change a few texts here and there for specific purposes. Yet all are known to be later changes and are clearly marked in all modern bibles. So are no issue at all. Christ's divinity does not come from claims of divinity but from acts of divinity.