Did Jesus say he was God???

[Shermana]

1Robin, you have absolutely no intent to have an honest moderated debate on the matter, and I can just go ahead and say you are misinterpreting and twisting scriptures all the same, which is the only thing you're capable of doing. Don't pretend like you're actually interested. I have no good words for you. May the truth come your way one way or another.

 

[1robin]

1Robin, that is some of the blatant dodging and dancing and incoherency I've seen yet, I'm not even going to respect you with an adequate reply. I have made it quite clear that I'm in it for the long run. You're the one who's looking for one excuse or another, or to set it up in a way which caters to your preconceived views apart from an objective playing field before the debate even begins. I have said let's do it over and over again, but you only want to do it your way in your terms, when I'm saying let's do it in an open field manner. You have refused a simple challenge to have a 1x1 moderated debate, and you're using fancy excuses which don't even make any sense to get out of it. It's quite obvious. You're being more than hypocritical, you didn't come even close to addressing what I said in coherent terms, you act as if your view is such a solid concrete one when it is in fact a historically controversial, complex issue debated among the scholars and christian thinkers for centuries, and you have not supported your claim. If anyone thinks you have actually defended your view and made a solid case of why I have to make preconditions to have such a debate, more power to them.

Until then, have an interesting life.

I doubt you had time to read what I said and know you did not have time to read it carefully and still type anything in response. I have no interest in your personal commentary on the quality of arguments that have stood up for over a thousand years and have been used by the most brilliant theological minds in history. My position is the concrete one because the competing positions are absolutely impossible. The fact debate exists, as it does for virtually every facet, of every subject, ever covered, in the history of man is not indicative of anything. I guess we can conclude at least who became silent on that issue, though I can't imagine ever praying that God do that to anyone on my request alone.

 

[Shermana]

Oh no Robin, I'm not silent. You're the one who is silent because you have used one excuse after another to get out of having an actual moderated debate and you are simply asserting the other side is wrong as matter of fact without even debating. Your dishonesty is overwhelming and I'm certainly not having good wishes for you right now. You are presenting nothing but thinly-masked cowardice and arrogance at the same time.

Take the debate challenge, or remain silent. Because all your babble is nothing but noisy silence.

 

[1robin]

1Robin, you have absolutely no intent to have an honest moderated debate on the matter, and I can just go ahead and say you are misinterpreting and twisting scriptures all the same, which is the only thing you're capable of doing. Don't pretend like you're actually interested. I have no good words for you. May the truth come your way one way or another.

That was certainly typical. Give up, yet make sure to blame the other person for your capitulation. We were going to arrive at this point the short way or the long way, either way I suppose. Selah,

 

[Shermana]

That was certainly typical. Give up, yet make sure to blame the other person for your capitulation. We were going to arrive at this point the short way or the long way, either way I suppose. Selah,

1Robin, you are the one who gave up, you are the one who refused the offer to a moderated debate.

May you get yours.

 

[1robin]

Oh no Robin, I'm not silent. You're the one who is silent because you have used one excuse after another to get out of having an actual moderated debate and you are simply asserting the other side is wrong as matter of fact without even debating. Your dishonesty is overwhelming and I'm certainly not having good wishes for you right now. You are presenting nothing but thinly-masked cowardice and arrogance at the same time.

Take the debate challenge, or remain silent. Because all your babble is nothing but noisy silence.

I was joking about your being silent but your serious claim that I am silent, the more silent of the two, or even the one who is not making more effort at dialogue is adding a level of absurdity to already over strained credibility. What moderated debate are you talking about? The one you will not provide the necessary basis for? I can't debate the strength of an argument without necessary foundations. My claims as far I can tell have no potentiality to be dishonest. They are either statements that have no possibility of being countered by anything, especially without even the attempt being made or were interpretation claims which you have no access to my motivations for and there by not the slightest capacity of claiming dishonesty for. I do not even have an idea of what statement you could possibly be thinking was dishonest in theory. I am not interested in you wishes for me, but I have no ill will for you. In fact I am pretty much lost for why your claiming anything you have in the last 3 or 4 posts and have tired of the personal commentaries.


What exactly is the challenge? Is it something besides the debate here that I have been trying so hard to get you to commit to?

 

[1robin]

1Robin, you are the one who gave up, you are the one who refused the offer to a moderated debate.

I have no idea what your talking about. Are you referring to some debate beyond what we have been discussing up until 4 posts ago anyway? What moderator? I have made every effort to get you to provide the bare essentials to debate your position. It seems it can'rt be done and no debate can be had if it is not. Beyond that you instead asked me the reverse questions which were instantly responded to with rational criteria. If anyone has impeded debate (any debate) it was not me. Just out of curiosity can you tell me three things?

1. What debate separate from this thread are you referring to?
2. Where did I ever refuse it?
3. What here recently did I say to merit the statement of yours below? (I criticized your argument not you, and I never wished any will for you).

May you get yours.

The thin veneer of your obedience standard did not survive very long. One person launches into a serious disagreement and hope for vengeance is coughed up. T His is not an example that inspires confidence in your claims to be Godly. I am not saying I know you aren't but that statements like this make it hard to have confidence in.

Now one last time will you provide what is NECESSARY to debate your claim or is trivial sarcasm all that is left? Regardless I do not return your wish for your opponent to come to grief.

 

[Shermana]

I made the "necessary basis", you're the one adding all kinds of unnecessary goalposts to tailor fit it to your own position, and then running away from the argument about the quantitative necessity your own logic entails of your position. I'm tired of you simply resorting to saying that I'm twisting and misinterpreting Scripture each time I ask you to have a moderated debate, and saying that your view is indestructible and that mine is a "Smoldering crater". You're the one who basically brushed off the entire concept that you need to quantify your faith and stated that I need to somehow quantify just how much works are necessary, regardless of what Jesus or Paul actually said on the matter. It doesn't work that way. You ignored my question about how we quantify what level of obedience the Jews were required to follow to not be struck by the plagues of Deuteronomy 28. Your entire position is nothing but dishonest, and that's why you brush off and dance around my rebuttals to your pre-condition screening.

The only basis we would need is whether Jesus and Paul taught that works and personal effort are a part of this "Salvation" concept.

You are vastly overcomplicating it before it even begins, I'm assuming because you know that the plain text reading demolishes your own case, including those who have had your historic interpretation like Matthew Henry, and that you have to read much into the text that's not there, and ignore vast swaths or use a verse or two to trump such vast swaths, to get to your conclusion.

When you agree to a moderated debate, without any preconditions except a basic premise, then I'll take you seriously.

 

[Shermana]

. What debate separate from this thread are you referring to?

Wait, hold on here, now you don't even remember me challenging you to a 1x1 moderated debate? Are you serious? Do you even know what pre-conditions and "goalposts" you're even talking about to begin with?

 

[1robin]

Wait, hold on here, now you don't even remember me challenging you to a 1x1 moderated debate? Are you serious? Do you even know what pre-conditions and "goalposts" you're even talking about to begin with?

I do not remember that. That is not to say you did not challenge me to one but if you did I was distracted and lost or did not notice it. I have no idea what you mean a moderated debate. I know what a 1 on 1 debate is and have never refused one I recognized but beyond that I am unfamiliar with what your asking.

 

[1robin]

I made the "necessary basis", you're the one adding all kinds of unnecessary goalposts to tailor fit it to your own position, and then running away from the argument about the quantitative necessity your own logic entails of your position. I'm tired of you simply resorting to saying that I'm twisting and misinterpreting Scripture each time I ask you to have a moderated debate, and saying that your view is indestructible and that mine is a "Smoldering crater". You're the one who basically brushed off the entire concept that you need to quantify your faith and stated that I need to somehow quantify just how much works are necessary, regardless of what Jesus or Paul actually said on the matter. It doesn't work that way. You ignored my question about how we quantify what level of obedience the Jews were required to follow to not be struck by the plagues of Deuteronomy 28. Your entire position is nothing but dishonest, and that's why you brush off and dance around my rebuttals to your pre-condition screening.

The only basis we would need is whether Jesus and Paul taught that works and personal effort are a part of this "Salvation" concept.

You are vastly overcomplicating it before it even begins, I'm assuming because you know that the plain text reading demolishes your own case, including those who have had your historic interpretation like Matthew Henry, and that you have to read much into the text that's not there, and ignore vast swaths or use a verse or two to trump such vast swaths, to get to your conclusion.

When you agree to a moderated debate, without any preconditions except a basic premise, then I'll take you seriously.

How is asking a very simple foundational necessity over complicating things? There was no list of demands, there was only one need to establish the ground for debate. I did not agree to and I should not have agreed to debating what Paul and James claimed when the issue is much larger. I wanted to debate works versus grace. That will involve me challenging all aspects of works salvation.

I brushed off no request for the level of faith necessary and provided an absolute methodology to determine it.

I am interested in a debate involving all relevant argumentation concerning salvation models and that will include criteria as well as scripture, etc.....

I first wish to know what is meant by a moderated debate, but I can think of no definition of moderation that will prevent me from accepting that challenge but wanted to know anyway.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can't believe this thread/debate is still going.....WOW!

 

[1robin]

I can't believe this thread/debate is still going.....WOW!

The only thing necessary for a thread to keep rolling along is one person who likes to debate the specific issue. Shermana is a thread unto himself.

 

[Shermana]

The only thing necessary for a thread to keep rolling along is one person who likes to debate the specific issue. Shermana is a thread unto himself.

You're the one who took it in a different direction and kept going and going with it even after I said its best for another thread. Let me know when you want to have that moderated debate.

 

[1robin]

You're the one who took it in a different direction and kept going and going with it even after I said its best for another thread. Let me know when you want to have that moderated debate.

Is it contrary to your nature to ever post what is requested? I swear I have asked for at least a dozen things lately from you, and have gotten exactly 1 after I reminded you three times.
The latest example is my previous two statements where I stated I am willing to debate you anywhere but wanted to know what you meant by a moderated debate. Moderated by who? Where does it take place? I am unfamiliar with what you mean.

When I request something from you, every response is possible except that what I asked for will be provided. For some reason you are even willing to invest typing a thousand words in several posts just to keep from supplying the one sentence that was requested and is a necessity. Why?

 

[Shermana]

Because I think I explained in very clearly. A moderated debate is where we bring aboard someone to act as a judge to moderate, such as when we feel the other side is ignoring points, or acting as if points have been addressed when they have in fact not been (such as your reply to my issue of quantization of "faith" in your own logic) or digging into rabbit holes that aren't substantiated answers.

 

[1robin]

Because I think I explained in very clearly. A moderated debate is where we bring aboard someone to act as a judge to moderate, such as when we feel the other side is ignoring points, or acting as if points have been addressed when they have in fact not been (such as your reply to my issue of quantization of "faith" in your own logic) or digging into rabbit holes that aren't substantiated answers.

That is one heck of an idea if an unbiased third party can be found. Though this is the first time I remember hearing about this.

1. How do we go about finding a trustworthy moderator?
2. Does that mean the debate must take place in real time or at convenience as they normally do.

If you can supply or (we can supply) a trusted moderator and we can debate in a normal at convenience fashion I would be very interested to do so.

 

[Muffled]

I don't think this is supported by anyone
It would mean that the other sons of god, Prophets and god fearing man all were following a wrong way, i belief that it was the only way in that time
Well you can belief whatever you want but there is no evidence for it.

The Himdus believe in re-incarnation. There is Biblical evidence from Jesus who I believe is God in the flesh so He should know better than anyone.

I don't believe they were following a wrong way but simply a way that didn't work very well. The way of Jesus is the way, so it is not time limited. I suppose you think Mohammed coming later had a better way but he didn't. His way was the same way that was explained in the OT but was supplanted by the law and Islam managed to supplant Islam with a law (Sharia) also which goes to show that man will do everything in his power to avoid a direct relationship with God.

Moses knew God so it would make sense that he would know Him now. I will grant that most of past lives are forgotten but some things are retained. I believe something as important as knowing God would be retained.

 

[1robin]

Because I think I explained in very clearly. A moderated debate is where we bring aboard someone to act as a judge to moderate, such as when we feel the other side is ignoring points, or acting as if points have been addressed when they have in fact not been (such as your reply to my issue of quantization of "faith" in your own logic) or digging into rabbit holes that aren't substantiated answers.

Shermana I never prayed for your silence but it appears your prayer may have backfired. Why in the world you made such a big deal about this debate challenge and then disappear once it was accepted is a mystery. You want me to pray that you be un-silenced?

 

[Shermana]

Shermana I never prayed for your silence but it appears your prayer may have backfired. Why in the world you made such a big deal about this debate challenge and then disappear once it was accepted is a mystery. You want me to pray that you be un-silenced?

Because I'm trying to figure out who would make a good moderator we'd both agree to.

How about Legion?

I haven't seen you make any suggestions.