Author Topic: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?  (Read 17385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #116 on: December 27, 2013, 10:05:02 PM »
Is it a pony!?



Yes...it is a model of a pony...
Not stating what one.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #117 on: December 27, 2013, 11:57:49 PM »

As it says in Phillipians 2  (Jesus)......."emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men".

O.K., I read Phillipians 2.  So you are saying that Jesus is God and he shares in ONE nature.  v. 8 says, "...He humbled Himself by becoming OBEDIENT to the point of death."

Can God OBEY Himself?  This makes no sense to me.     

This doctrine is a mystery for sure.

You say mystery and I say contradictory.  But please keep it a mystery in your explanation of the Trinity.  No more analogies please.  None of them work.  It's like trying to come up with an analogy for a square and a circle and saying they are the same shape. 

So since you think the Trinity doctrine is a mystery do you think that one has to believe in this mysterious doctrine in order to be saved (John 8:24)? 

My understanding is that God is one God but three separate beings.  Jesus is one in nature with God, but came to earth as a man.  So He can claim that He is one with God in that He existed with God in the beginning during the creation event, He and God the Father are one in nature but positionally separate beings.   


I am confused.  Now I don't even know if you are a true Trinitarian Christian.  The Trinity is defined as three PERSONS that make up ONE BEING.  If you think that God is three separate "beings" then you must think there are three separate Gods by the definition of "being".  Wikipedia defines the Trinity as:

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[2] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is."

"In their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity


I don't really see the hang up with the "one being" statement if you see the Trinity as one in nature.  This is why I tend to draw parallels here on earth.  Because I think that Jesus does it for our understanding.  If He is one with the Father and imparts a Spirit that allows Christians to become one with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief, want to please God, love God, love each other.  I think it harmonizes.

I don't see how you don't see the hang up with the "one being" statement.  Well, maybe it's because I don't understand your stance on the Trinity. 

You say that the members of the Trinity are three "SEPARATE BEINGS".  Do you agree with the definition of the Trinity that the three members are consubstantial (ONE BEING)?

The nature of a Christian is changed in the sense that they have common belief???  Just google "How many Christian denominations are there".  The statement, "Christians have common belief" is an oxymoron.  The only thing common about the belief of different Christian doctrines is disagreement amongst Christians.

So if their is common belief amongst Christians who are indwelt with the same Spirit, why are there non-trinitarian Christians and Trinitarian Christians.  Doesn't the Spirit guide believers into all truth?



"I and the Father are ONE"(John 10:30) - PH's interpretation is that Jesus is the one true God because Jesus said He is ONE with the Father.

"...that they may be ONE just as we are ONE" (John 17:22) - PH's interpretation is that a Spirit is imparted that allows Christians to become ONE with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief.

How is this harmonizing these two verses???  A harmonization would be: "John 17:22 speaks of the Spirit making Christians ONE with each other in the sense that they have common belief so, in turn, that means John 10:30 speaks of Jesus having the Spirit that makes Him one with the Father in the sense that he has common belief with the Father."

THAT'S HARMONIZATION!

"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #118 on: December 28, 2013, 01:56:08 PM »

PH -  .  Good point.  The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son.  But I can't be sure if that is a reference for the reader's understanding or if it how God wants us to view the Son pre-creation event or not.  Talking about a Being who isn't bound by time creates all sorts of rabbit trails to go down.  I do think that it's noteworthy that this old testament verse hints that God has a Son prior to the incarnation.

Do you see the contradiction now.  You say, "The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son."  If the second person of the Trinity was called "Son" before the incarnation then one would think that this entity is a DESCENDENT of someone since that is what the definition of "Son" means.  According to the definition of son, a son cannot exist eternally and must have a beginning (unless your name is Yahweh and want to confuse the human race). 

According to one's interpretation of John 8:24, Yahweh might possibly make believing in this confusion a requirement for salvation.  Why would God make believing in a contradiction a requirement for salvation?     

PH -
I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity).  That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One.  All these things are crucial to understanding salvation.


WHY?  It seems to me that Zaccheus (Luke ch. 19) didn't have this understanding.  I guess you could say that Zaccheus thought Jesus was "Deity" and one being with Yahweh because Zaccheus called Jesus Lord but Acts 2:36 said that Jesus was MADE Lord.  In addition, this Greek word for Lord can mean "Master" or "Sir". 

Link:  http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/2962.htm

I don't think Zaccheus had any understanding that Jesus was sinless, present in the creation with God, was actually God incarnate and one in nature with the one true God.  All he did was repent of being a fraud and materialistic and Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house".  I don't think Zaccheus had to believe anything about who Jesus is/was for Jesus to say Zaccheus is saved.

I think God will save those who believe in Christ as their redeemer and that person can measure where they are based on their own life.   The bible talks about the "fruit" that comes from having the Spirit.  So that is a good starting point to gauge oneself.   I think about who is really saved and it's an interesting thing to talk about.  But ultimately God judges us and I think that only Christ can justify us.  We don't justify ourselves.   

This makes no sense to me.  If "fruit" only comes from having the Spirit then why are many non-believer's loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlling (Gal. 4:22)?  So is an atheist who practices all these things in his/her life saved?  You would say NO.  So this is NOT a "good gauge".   

Additionally, all this "fruit" is relative.  How "good" does one have to be?  How much self-control does one have to have?  Will this Spirit allow the Christian to even tell a white lie?  How would one know how to "guage" oneself?  Is the bible clear on all of this?  If the "fruit" that comes from this Spirit is ABSOLUTE and Christian's somehow have their nature changed in the sense that they have common belief, then why don't all Christians practice all the "fruits" if they are indwelt with this Spirit and their nature is changed.   

If Paul was writing "truth" then all atheists who don't have this Spirit would be immoral, impure, sorcerers, full of strife, jealous, angry, factious, envious, drunkards, etc. (Gal. 4:19).  This "gauge" is not absolute for all believers unless we would see all Christians practicing all the "fruit" in Gal. 4:22-23.  The "gauge" cannot be "good" because the "gauge" is too relative.

By the way you said, "I think" three times in this last paragraph alone.  I am very aware of these words as they imply to a skeptic like myself that the doctrine of salvation is unclear in the bible.  The words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense for the hope that is in you.   
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #119 on: December 29, 2013, 06:13:10 PM »

PH -  .  Good point.  The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son.  But I can't be sure if that is a reference for the reader's understanding or if it how God wants us to view the Son pre-creation event or not.  Talking about a Being who isn't bound by time creates all sorts of rabbit trails to go down.  I do think that it's noteworthy that this old testament verse hints that God has a Son prior to the incarnation.

Do you see the contradiction now.  You say, "The Son who exists eternally, has probably always been the Son."  If the second person of the Trinity was called "Son" before the incarnation then one would think that this entity is a DESCENDENT of someone since that is what the definition of "Son" means.  According to the definition of son, a son cannot exist eternally and must have a beginning (unless your name is Yahweh and want to confuse the human race). 

According to one's interpretation of John 8:24, Yahweh might possibly make believing in this confusion a requirement for salvation.  Why would God make believing in a contradiction a requirement for salvation?     

PH -
I think that it's very important to understand that Jesus is the Son of God (Deity).  That He was sinless, that He was present in the creation with God, that they are One.  All these things are crucial to understanding salvation.


WHY?  It seems to me that Zaccheus (Luke ch. 19) didn't have this understanding.  I guess you could say that Zaccheus thought Jesus was "Deity" and one being with Yahweh because Zaccheus called Jesus Lord but Acts 2:36 said that Jesus was MADE Lord.  In addition, this Greek word for Lord can mean "Master" or "Sir". 

Link:  http://biblehub.com/strongs/greek/2962.htm

I don't think Zaccheus had any understanding that Jesus was sinless, present in the creation with God, was actually God incarnate and one in nature with the one true God.  All he did was repent of being a fraud and materialistic and Jesus said, "Today salvation has come to this house".  I don't think Zaccheus had to believe anything about who Jesus is/was for Jesus to say Zaccheus is saved.

I think God will save those who believe in Christ as their redeemer and that person can measure where they are based on their own life.   The bible talks about the "fruit" that comes from having the Spirit.  So that is a good starting point to gauge oneself.   I think about who is really saved and it's an interesting thing to talk about.  But ultimately God judges us and I think that only Christ can justify us.  We don't justify ourselves.   

This makes no sense to me.  If "fruit" only comes from having the Spirit then why are many non-believer's loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, kind, good, faithful, gentle, and self-controlling (Gal. 4:22)?  So is an atheist who practices all these things in his/her life saved?  You would say NO.  So this is NOT a "good gauge".   

Additionally, all this "fruit" is relative.  How "good" does one have to be?  How much self-control does one have to have?  Will this Spirit allow the Christian to even tell a white lie?  How would one know how to "guage" oneself?  Is the bible clear on all of this?  If the "fruit" that comes from this Spirit is ABSOLUTE and Christian's somehow have their nature changed in the sense that they have common belief, then why don't all Christians practice all the "fruits" if they are indwelt with this Spirit and their nature is changed.   

If Paul was writing "truth" then all atheists who don't have this Spirit would be immoral, impure, sorcerers, full of strife, jealous, angry, factious, envious, drunkards, etc. (Gal. 4:19).  This "gauge" is not absolute for all believers unless we would see all Christians practicing all the "fruit" in Gal. 4:22-23.  The "gauge" cannot be "good" because the "gauge" is too relative.

By the way you said, "I think" three times in this last paragraph alone.  I am very aware of these words as they imply to a skeptic like myself that the doctrine of salvation is unclear in the bible.  The words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense for the hope that is in you.   

I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony. As Christians, I would imagine any theist, we are against the rule to make absolute statements. We are almost forced to walk a fine line. We must be careful to say I think man is fallen into sin rather than the absolute Man IS fallen into sin.

I disagree with a changed nature is a common belief. Unless that common belief is simply Jesus came in the flesh and is the son of God. You must repent to be saved. I think these may be the only things Christians agree on regardless of denomination. A changed nature refers to something more personal. This is new nature:

2 Corinthians 5:17
17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

 For my own personal evidence there are many but I'll use one. In my old nature I cussed like crazy. When I was saved and given a new nature that was removed from me. My new nature won't cuss. Not because I decided not to it just happened. As i said many more things came with this new nature. This is only one.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #120 on: December 30, 2013, 12:19:13 AM »
I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony.

Does this "new nature" of yours allow you to lie?  You are referring here to post #43 on this thread.  Do you see the words "I think"?  DON'T LIE!  It's amazing that in this "new nature" of yours you can lie but you can't cuss.   

As Christians, I would imagine any theist, we are against the rule to make absolute statements. We are almost forced to walk a fine line.

I suggested to Patrick Henry instead of using the words "I think"; the words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense.  If you want to make an "absolute statement" about salvation then start a sentence with, "The bible says...., and then give scripture reference.

Harbinger77, I actually thought it was unfair that the moderator adjusted your post #43.  I don't like that rule but rules are rules I guess.  Instead of saying, "All YOU have to do is accept the free gift", You might want to say, "The bible says all a person has to do is accept the free gift" (scripture reference).  I believe this would allow you to "make absolute statements" without being "forced to walk a fine line". 

 
We must be careful to say I think man is fallen into sin rather than the absolute Man IS fallen into sin.

Try:  THE BIBLE SAYS man is fallen into sin (scripture reference).

I disagree with a changed nature is a common belief. Unless that common belief is simply Jesus came in the flesh and is the son of God. You must repent to be saved. I think these may be the only things Christians agree on regardless of denomination.

False!  Christian Universalism would not say that one has to repent to be saved and they are considered a Christian denomination.
 
I don't think you follow rules very well.  Notice how the word "you" is crossed out of your post #43.  You broke the rule again by saying, "YOU must repent to be saved".  Once again, use the words "The bible says..." and then give scripture reference unless, that is, something was revealed to you directly from God like your ridiculous contradictory analogy of the trinity in post #84.

Since you believe that one must repent to be saved then you better repent of being a liar unless you are going to hell (if you believe in the doctrine of hell).

By the way, you also lied about getting back to people in post #106.  What you are doing is dodging questions.  I guess this "new nature" of yours likes to dodge questions.  It really looks bad when you say you are pressed for time when asked to respond to some of your ridiculous claims regarding astral travel, but then all of a sudden you have time to post this. 

A side note:  You have still not answered my question in the thread "In the beginning was the word..." (post #67).  Why do you dodge questions?  Anfauglir puts it best in his thread, "Why it it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?"

Link:  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25200.0.html


For my own personal evidence there are many but I'll use one. In my old nature I cussed like crazy. When I was saved and given a new nature that was removed from me. My new nature won't cuss. Not because I decided not to it just happened. As i said many more things came with this new nature. This is only one.

You are lying again!!!  You say, "My new nature won't cuss".  If I held a loaded gun up to somebody's head that you love and said, "I am going to pull the trigger if you don't say f#%k"; you would have no problem saying the "F" word.  You can't say with absolute certainty that your "new nature" won't cuss.

     
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 12:21:51 AM by Andy S. »
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #121 on: December 30, 2013, 08:01:27 AM »
Just a thought. Up to the Reformation, these two creeds were the definition of what it was to be a Christian so far as belief is concerned. now I know that it is popular to argue with these statements of faith and claim they are wrong or whatever. Yet the Reformation was not about the creeds or the doctrines of the church but really about church government. Luther stuck with these creeds for instance.

So Patrick and Harbinger, do you accept the following creeds?

Nicene Creed


Chalcedon Creed


If not, how is it that you think that you know better than nthose who worked for serval centuries to come up with this doctrine?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #122 on: December 30, 2013, 09:40:07 PM »
I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony.

Does this "new nature" of yours allow you to lie?  You are referring here to post #43 on this thread.  Do you see the words "I think"?  DON'T LIE!  It's amazing that in this "new nature" of yours you can lie but you can't cuss.   

As Christians, I would imagine any theist, we are against the rule to make absolute statements. We are almost forced to walk a fine line.

I suggested to Patrick Henry instead of using the words "I think"; the words, "The bible says....." would appear as a much better defense.  If you want to make an "absolute statement" about salvation then start a sentence with, "The bible says...., and then give scripture reference.

Harbinger77, I actually thought it was unfair that the moderator adjusted your post #43.  I don't like that rule but rules are rules I guess.  Instead of saying, "All YOU have to do is accept the free gift", You might want to say, "The bible says all a person has to do is accept the free gift" (scripture reference).  I believe this would allow you to "make absolute statements" without being "forced to walk a fine line". 

 
We must be careful to say I think man is fallen into sin rather than the absolute Man IS fallen into sin.

Try:  THE BIBLE SAYS man is fallen into sin (scripture reference).

I disagree with a changed nature is a common belief. Unless that common belief is simply Jesus came in the flesh and is the son of God. You must repent to be saved. I think these may be the only things Christians agree on regardless of denomination.

False!  Christian Universalism would not say that one has to repent to be saved and they are considered a Christian denomination.
 
I don't think you follow rules very well.  Notice how the word "you" is crossed out of your post #43.  You broke the rule again by saying, "YOU must repent to be saved".  Once again, use the words "The bible says..." and then give scripture reference unless, that is, something was revealed to you directly from God like your ridiculous contradictory analogy of the trinity in post #84.

Since you believe that one must repent to be saved then you better repent of being a liar unless you are going to hell (if you believe in the doctrine of hell).

By the way, you also lied about getting back to people in post #106.  What you are doing is dodging questions.  I guess this "new nature" of yours likes to dodge questions.  It really looks bad when you say you are pressed for time when asked to respond to some of your ridiculous claims regarding astral travel, but then all of a sudden you have time to post this. 

A side note:  You have still not answered my question in the thread "In the beginning was the word..." (post #67).  Why do you dodge questions?  Anfauglir puts it best in his thread, "Why it it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?"

Link:  http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,25200.0.html


For my own personal evidence there are many but I'll use one. In my old nature I cussed like crazy. When I was saved and given a new nature that was removed from me. My new nature won't cuss. Not because I decided not to it just happened. As i said many more things came with this new nature. This is only one.

You are lying again!!!  You say, "My new nature won't cuss".  If I held a loaded gun up to somebody's head that you love and said, "I am going to pull the trigger if you don't say f#%k"; you would have no problem saying the "F" word.  You can't say with absolute certainty that your "new nature" won't cuss.

   

The replies that keep my post in its original context are 47, 46, 44, However the post I reference is 43. That's the one I wrote (in black) and was later changed by the mod (in green). 47 has my quote in it's original. It does NOT say "I think" in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie.

YOU bear false witness, sir.
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

 exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism. It's wrong about so much though. I'm not even sure they fall into the Christian category as they reject so much basic doctrine and make up their own seeker sensitive garbage. I suppose that could be debated... That could be a whole separate thread even...

I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one. I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.

  I'm sorry I'm human and I over look, forget, miss or for whatever reason don't get to answer a question. I promise it's not malicious on my part. While I do appreciate the reminder, saying i lied without knowing the facts well I say again...

YOU bear false witness, sir!
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

If you didn't notice, at the threat of another verbal rape, I reject your "Bible says" advise. Sound advice I'm sure. However, I choose to state it as an absolute... because less than that would be a disservice to the absolute truth that is God's word!

Romans5:12
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon ALL men, for that ALL have sinned:

And for the loaded gun question. The reaction you hope for is rooted in fear.
As an infantry soldier I am not afraid to die. As a Christian physical death is almost a favor. I don't fear your loaded gun... I'm much more likely to get myself shot taking the gun away. I wouldn't let some gun totin' punk force me to do or say anything! My wife would agree death can be a favor too.... sorry. Aside from that I said won't not can't.

For the record and from experience the trigger that takes a life is a really hard one to pull.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 11:15:19 PM by harbinger77 »
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #123 on: December 30, 2013, 11:09:49 PM »
Just a thought. Up to the Reformation, these two creeds were the definition of what it was to be a Christian so far as belief is concerned. now I know that it is popular to argue with these statements of faith and claim they are wrong or whatever. Yet the Reformation was not about the creeds or the doctrines of the church but really about church government. Luther stuck with these creeds for instance.

So Patrick and Harbinger, do you accept the following creeds?

Nicene Creed


Chalcedon Creed


If not, how is it that you think that you know better than nthose who worked for serval centuries to come up with this doctrine?

I can't answer this for Patrick Henry of course but I think you answered your own question with "up until the reformation"

I am a reformed Christian.
Look up reformed theology to better understand what I believe.
http://www.reformedreader.org/t.u.l.i.p.htm

Or the synod of dort.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod_of_Dort

I would also add these are both incomplete and if you must have a confession or creed, I would direct you to the Belgic confession That I do give my endorsement to.
https://www.rca.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=362

The history of which can be found here:
https://www.rca.org/belgic
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #124 on: December 30, 2013, 11:53:58 PM »
Protip: do not use bible verses, they have as little use here as a quote from Harry Potter.
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #125 on: December 31, 2013, 12:00:49 AM »
I only want to add two things first I don't disagree with "I think" however the one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think" I believe the mod changed it to reflect what they called a personal testimony.

Does this "new nature" of yours allow you to lie?  You are referring here to post #43 on this thread.  Do you see the words "I think"?  DON'T LIE!  It's amazing that in this "new nature" of yours you can lie but you can't cuss.   

ahhhh... I only had to read it about 5 times.. now I see the disconnect. I said "I think." as in the mod changed the NATURE of my post from matter-of-fact to "I think." I never intended to convey that the actual words "I think" were added to my post. That's why I used the quotes.

 That's the way you read it though, right?
If I was unclear I apologize. I'm sorry.
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #126 on: December 31, 2013, 12:07:35 AM »
The 10 commandments states you are not allowed to lie, so have you lied?

I find many theists break that one (9, wasn't it?...cant remember...)
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #127 on: December 31, 2013, 03:20:17 AM »

O.K., I read Phillipians 2.  So you are saying that Jesus is God and he shares in ONE nature.  v. 8 says, "...He humbled Himself by becoming OBEDIENT to the point of death."

Can God OBEY Himself?  This makes no sense to me.     

So since you think the Trinity doctrine is a mystery do you think that one has to believe in this mysterious doctrine in order to be saved (John 8:24)? 

I am confused.  Now I don't even know if you are a true Trinitarian Christian.  The Trinity is defined as three PERSONS that make up ONE BEING.  If you think that God is three separate "beings" then you must think there are three separate Gods by the definition of "being".  Wikipedia defines the Trinity as:

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity defines God as three divine persons or hypostases:[1] the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature".[2] In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is."

"In their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and "each is God, whole and entire".

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

I don't see how you don't see the hang up with the "one being" statement.  Well, maybe it's because I don't understand your stance on the Trinity. 

You say that the members of the Trinity are three "SEPARATE BEINGS".  Do you agree with the definition of the Trinity that the three members are consubstantial (ONE BEING)?

The nature of a Christian is changed in the sense that they have common belief???  Just google "How many Christian denominations are there".  The statement, "Christians have common belief" is an oxymoron.  The only thing common about the belief of different Christian doctrines is disagreement amongst Christians.

So if their is common belief amongst Christians who are indwelt with the same Spirit, why are there non-trinitarian Christians and Trinitarian Christians.  Doesn't the Spirit guide believers into all truth?



"I and the Father are ONE"(John 10:30) - PH's interpretation is that Jesus is the one true God because Jesus said He is ONE with the Father.

"...that they may be ONE just as we are ONE" (John 17:22) - PH's interpretation is that a Spirit is imparted that allows Christians to become ONE with each other, their nature is changed in the sense that they have common belief.

How is this harmonizing these two verses???  A harmonization would be: "John 17:22 speaks of the Spirit making Christians ONE with each other in the sense that they have common belief so, in turn, that means John 10:30 speaks of Jesus having the Spirit that makes Him one with the Father in the sense that he has common belief with the Father."


If I answer you on your terms, then yes, God can obey Himself.  I wouldn't really put it that way though.   Jesus took on the flesh like a man and "humbled" Himself to be like us.  So He modeled a reliance and humility towards God as we are supposed to.   

Salvation based on belief in the Trinity:  It seems the thief on the cross was saved, I doubt that he fully understood the Trinity.  Maybe Zacchaeus didn't understand the Trinity completely either.   While the Trinity is important to understand, ultimately it is a changed heart that leads a man to repentance and belief in Christ.  That changed heart and ultimate salvation is up to God and is between God and the person.   

Persons or Beings:   It's funny because if you Wikipedia "person" the first line states "A person is a being...."  But then goes on to say that long ago terms such as these needed further definition for the puposes of philosophical debate.
Soooo......ya, I didn't really look it up before I typed.  But I think the idea of one nature but three persons is Trinitarian and is what I believe and was trying to say even while substituting the word "person" for "being".   Believing Jesus is the eternal Son, that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of man to bring him to salvation, and in the Father is all plenty of understanding for most people.  Because it's what the bible says.

But this is something that I'm interested to know about you.  When you were a Christian, did you believe that it was absolutely necessary to have just the right view of the Trinity?  That salvation depended upon intellect and knowlege? 

Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?  Over a long period of time, where does it lead a church? 

Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.  There are a lot of false gospels out there and aberrations of the faith.  Some sound good but when finally flushed out, may not come to the same conclusion. That salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross, was enough. 

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #128 on: December 31, 2013, 06:47:05 AM »

Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.  There are a lot of false gospels out there and aberrations of the faith.  Some sound good but when finally flushed out, may not come to the same conclusion. That salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross, was enough.

You come to the crux of theology at this point precisely. It is as essential as anything to know just who Jesus was to determine if his sacrifice was sufficient. The fact is that whilst a good man might die for a cause his death could not be enough to cover all the sins of all the people - ever. Indeed, even if Jesus as a super-man but still part of creation it would still not do. The only way the the sacrifice pays for all the sins is if Jesus is god yet that's only part of the problem.

The other part concerns Jesus' life and example. Now, if Jesus was just god, then not doing bad things during his earthly life would not be anything to mention - after all if god can't manage this he isn't god. Now a lot of fuss is made of Jesus living a sinless life - a fuss that is based on theology since the bible is not of much help. (I wonder if he cussed the first time he hit his finger with the hammer...) Still, to be the example for everyone, he needed to be fully human.

So now we have these two natures that have to be incorporated into the on Jesus and that was part of Nicea but most importantly Chalcedon. Frankly, one can just believe what the minister / priest / pastor delete as applicable says and not get involved in the theology and most people do. However, engag8ing in the discussion does help one to understand the problem and the facts rather better and ought to help belief too.

So, that's what "salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross," is about.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Online shnozzola

Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #129 on: December 31, 2013, 07:10:41 AM »
Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?  Over a long period of time, where does it lead a church?

Patrick Henry,
     The Westboro Baptists, as Primitive Baptists with Calvinist Principles, believe in the Holy Trinity.


Quote
From Wiki:
The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is an American unaffiliated Baptist church known for its extreme ideologies, especially those against gay people.[2][3] The church is widely described as a hate group[4] and is monitored as such by the Anti-Defamation League and Southern Poverty Law Center.
The church describes itself as following Primitive Baptist and Calvinist principles.[10]

My point always in these debates is not to say you are incorrect, but to ask you, when it is obvious that you could not possibly know better than another, wouldn't common sense dictate that you realize you can not be sure?   


Here is another interesting fact about the WBC,
         They believe that all church music should be a cappella because there is no New Testament command to play instruments, but only to sing.

Does that make you wonder about the picking and choosing of Christian theology?  And therefore question your own beliefs? 
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 07:23:55 AM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #130 on: December 31, 2013, 10:58:00 AM »
Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?  Over a long period of time, where does it lead a church?

Patrick Henry,
     The Westboro Baptists, as Primitive Baptists with Calvinist Principles, believe in the Holy Trinity.


My point always in these debates is not to say you are incorrect, but to ask you, when it is obvious that you could not possibly know better than another, wouldn't common sense dictate that you realize you can not be sure?   


Here is another interesting fact about the WBC,
         They believe that all church music should be a cappella because there is no New Testament command to play instruments, but only to sing.

Does that make you wonder about the picking and choosing of Christian theology?  And therefore question your own beliefs?

This proves the point that two people can have the same knowlege of the bible but one can be saved and the other not saved.  Evidence of salvation is "fruit of the Spirit".  Galatians 5:22-23
 "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law."
I don't see that in folks who go to funerals with hateful picket signs.  They have knowlege but doesn't appear to me that their heart has been changed by the gospel.  God is their Judge, not me though. 
I try not to "pick and choose" but be guided by the bible and the Spirit. 

Offline Angus and Alexis

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1487
  • Darwins +71/-24
  • Gender: Male
  • Residential Tulpamancer.
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #131 on: December 31, 2013, 11:03:45 AM »
I try not to "pick and choose" but be guided by the bible and the Spirit. 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html

Totally with you pal!
Because male superiority, am i right?

(disclaimer: Women are equal of man, this post was satirical, and is intended to show issues with the quote)
Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Online shnozzola

Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #132 on: December 31, 2013, 11:24:40 AM »
I try not to "pick and choose" but be guided by the bible and the Spirit.

Could you be wrong?

edit:  wait, I'll answer that.  Right or wrong doesn't matter, as long as you are saved.

Me:  how about a 1 year old that dies without knowing about Christianity?

wait - sorry -you answered below - it would be possible for the child to be saved, right?
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 11:30:30 AM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #133 on: December 31, 2013, 11:27:22 AM »

You come to the crux of theology at this point precisely. It is as essential as anything to know just who Jesus was to determine if his sacrifice was sufficient. The fact is that whilst a good man might die for a cause his death could not be enough to cover all the sins of all the people - ever. Indeed, even if Jesus as a super-man but still part of creation it would still not do. The only way the the sacrifice pays for all the sins is if Jesus is god yet that's only part of the problem.

The other part concerns Jesus' life and example. Now, if Jesus was just god, then not doing bad things during his earthly life would not be anything to mention - after all if god can't manage this he isn't god. Now a lot of fuss is made of Jesus living a sinless life - a fuss that is based on theology since the bible is not of much help. (I wonder if he cussed the first time he hit his finger with the hammer...) Still, to be the example for everyone, he needed to be fully human.

So now we have these two natures that have to be incorporated into the on Jesus and that was part of Nicea but most importantly Chalcedon. Frankly, one can just believe what the minister / priest / pastor delete as applicable says and not get involved in the theology and most people do. However, engag8ing in the discussion does help one to understand the problem and the facts rather better and ought to help belief too.

So, that's what "salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross," is about.

I agree that it is essential to know who Jesus is.  But possibly God saves some who have not had the chance to know everything based on when they finally believed in their life.  Like on their death bed (thief on the cross).  Matt 20 is just one example where Jesus teaches that salvation is really up to God.  But is there some kind of progressive accountability where as a person who goes through life needs to accept more based on the knowlege he's been given?  I think that is (possibly) true to the extent that the acceptance of the knowlege of God is done with a heart towards God and not prideful intentions.  No one comes to God without humility.  But is it the same for everyone?  There are a lot of variables and nuances to people and life itself.  It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved.  Which is fine, except that it has a "works righteousness" feel to it.  The gospel doesn't teach that.

Online shnozzola

Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #134 on: December 31, 2013, 11:39:19 AM »
It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved. 

Not quite, I believe the whole saved business is hogwash (only my opinion, no proof you know).  I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, Patrick.  I want to know what YOU think a person needs to do to be saved.  When the next theist arrives, we will get his or her rules for being saved, for the never ending, never agreeing book we are writing.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 11:41:49 AM by shnozzola »
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2519
  • Darwins +110/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #135 on: December 31, 2013, 11:46:44 AM »

You come to the crux of theology at this point precisely. It is as essential as anything to know just who Jesus was to determine if his sacrifice was sufficient. The fact is that whilst a good man might die for a cause his death could not be enough to cover all the sins of all the people - ever. Indeed, even if Jesus as a super-man but still part of creation it would still not do. The only way the the sacrifice pays for all the sins is if Jesus is god yet that's only part of the problem.

The other part concerns Jesus' life and example. Now, if Jesus was just god, then not doing bad things during his earthly life would not be anything to mention - after all if god can't manage this he isn't god. Now a lot of fuss is made of Jesus living a sinless life - a fuss that is based on theology since the bible is not of much help. (I wonder if he cussed the first time he hit his finger with the hammer...) Still, to be the example for everyone, he needed to be fully human.

So now we have these two natures that have to be incorporated into the on Jesus and that was part of Nicea but most importantly Chalcedon. Frankly, one can just believe what the minister / priest / pastor delete as applicable says and not get involved in the theology and most people do. However, engag8ing in the discussion does help one to understand the problem and the facts rather better and ought to help belief too.

So, that's what "salvation through Christ's finished work on the cross," is about.

I agree that it is essential to know who Jesus is.  But possibly God saves some who have not had the chance to know everything based on when they finally believed in their life.  Like on their death bed (thief on the cross).  Matt 20 is just one example where Jesus teaches that salvation is really up to God.  But is there some kind of progressive accountability where as a person who goes through life needs to accept more based on the knowlege he's been given?  I think that is (possibly) true to the extent that the acceptance of the knowlege of God is done with a heart towards God and not prideful intentions.  No one comes to God without humility.  But is it the same for everyone?  There are a lot of variables and nuances to people and life itself.  It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved.  Which is fine, except that it has a "works righteousness" feel to it.  The gospel doesn't teach that.

Very good, Patrick, except you are trying to dodge the point. I'm sure that all sorts of people have thought themselves 'saed' but have not bothered to understand any theology but that hardly makes the theology not worth doing. After all, the simple belief that belief in Jesus 'saves's a person is far from simple as it makes lots assumptions - assumptions which really need to be examined. Shall we try?

Firstly, I know that lots of people join churches and believe without the theology to back it up yet do they really? Why would a person like you, for example, not go to a Roman Catholic or an Anglican church? I'm assuming that if you don'#t go to such a church you will probably have some objection to the theology - whether its the confessional, where the sinner ought to speak direct to god, or the communion, where the bread and wine 'become' the body and blood of Jesus. In the Catholic church you will also need good works on top of beliefs to be saved whereas many no episcopalian churches say faith alone is all that is needed.

Anyway, that belief in Jesus 'saves' is all about who people think Jesus is. Its all about a concept of the Trinity because it is not really a biblical doctrine and because churches  all have a different view of the topic. The only thing they all have in common is that the clergy don't like to preach on the trinity as its too hard for them! Since we are discussing and neither of us (I hope) are on our deathbeds, I think it would be helpful to see your view on this.

Then there is the 'saves'. 'Saves' from what? Well, apparently Original Sin (OS). You know, Adam and Eve and the fruit and the wily snake. Well, it turns out that, using the same Genesis text, Jews don't find OS at all. They see it as something the couple did that doesn't affect us today. Yoyu have Paul to thank for introducing the world to the need to be 'saved'. Anyone wodering about being 'saved' really ought to come to terms with the concept and decide if it makes sense.

The problem is, though, that the money coming in on the plate would fall, as would the numbers on the pews, if the congregations had to start and get their heads around this stuff because it takes some interesting philosophy to make it all work. Aristotle and his concept of 'substance' in particular. Yet if people are being brought into the churches without the understanding of the basis of faith (and Aristotle's dodgy philosophy) is it being honest to the people?

So, anyway, have a look and Nicea and try some theology, Patrick - it might chnage your life.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #136 on: December 31, 2013, 12:03:38 PM »


The replies that keep my post in its original context are 47, 46, 44, However the post I reference is 43. That's the one I wrote (in black) and was later changed by the mod (in green). 47 has my quote in it's original. It does NOT say "I think" in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie.

YOU bear false witness, sir.
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.


Referring to post #43, in post #119 you said, "The one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think".

Then in post #122 you say, "It does NOT say 'I think' in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie".

You are right!  Post #43 does NOT say "I think".  So why would you say the moderator changed your post to say "I think"???

I "THINK" it is because you are a liar.  Lets move on Harbinger77.  Who cares if you are a liar.  Even Jesus lied (John 7:8-10).  Jesus said, "I do NOT go up to THIS feast" and then he went up to THAT feast.  He lied to his brothers. 


Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism.

Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved.  Another is hyper-Calvinism.  Article 26 states a confession that the natural man should not be given exhortation or duties to "spiritually and savingly" repent and believe.  This article is controversial but some Christians believe in complete "election" and consider the "free gift" duty/faith free.

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism

I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one.


NOW YOU WANT ME TO LIE AND POSE AS A THEIST??? 

No thanks.  I don't like gangs; I don't like rape; and gang rapes don't sound too appealing to me.

My advice would be to only get involved in 1 thread and not 4 if you cannot "keep up". 

I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.

Why do you have frustration?  Jesus says, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt. 11:30).  I would think He would supernaturally give you all the time and direct answers so you can be involved in 4 threads while at the same time being "verbally gang raped". 

Now I'm thinking you aren't even a true Christian since you are not "peaceful" and you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread.  You don't have these fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 4:22-23).  Since you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread it seems like you are dodging questions since you can't keep up.  This does not look good for someone who is supposed to be defending his faith.   


And for the loaded gun question. The reaction you hope for is rooted in fear.
As an infantry soldier I am not afraid to die. As a Christian physical death is almost a favor. I don't fear your loaded gun... I'm much more likely to get myself shot taking the gun away. I wouldn't let some gun totin' punk force me to do or say anything! My wife would agree death can be a favor too.... sorry. Aside from that I said won't not can't.


You missed the whole point to the whole analogy.  By saying, "My new nature won't cuss" you are implying that under any circumstance your new nature will not cuss.  I am calling BS on this and I "think" you are a liar.  I don't buy your story that you wouldn't say "F#*K" to save the life of a loved one.  Especially since you say, "As a Christian physical death is ALMOST a favor". 

As a personal note, my wife would think I was a jerk if a "gun totin' punk" put a gun to her head and my reaction was, "You can't force me to do or say anything to save her life".  I would be doing my wife a disservice if I didn't do what the "punk" asked in order to save her life.  I guess that's because I am not delusional enough to believe that there is an afterlife.  Her life is precious to me! 
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Online shnozzola

Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #137 on: December 31, 2013, 12:10:05 PM »
What's interesting about these exchanges is how many  people may stumble into WWGHA, read a thread and say to themselves, "My God, I have never seen the power of Satan displayed so strongly -  the people on this website are trying to lead us astray by asking us to think differently.

Stay strong, soldiers of the Lord, display you crucifix against these demons, and fight against these thoughts that try to make us think we are all equal.

sheesh, satan is made up too, didntchaknow?
“The best thing for being sad," replied Merlin, beginning to puff and blow, "is to learn something."  ~ T. H. White
  The real holy trinity:  onion, celery, and bell pepper ~  all Cajun Chefs

Offline Patrick Henry

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Darwins +7/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #138 on: December 31, 2013, 02:26:09 PM »
It seems that everyone on this board continues to try and focus on exactly what a person needs to do or believe to be saved. 

Not quite, I believe the whole saved business is hogwash (only my opinion, no proof you know).  I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday, Patrick.  I want to know what YOU think a person needs to do to be saved.  When the next theist arrives, we will get his or her rules for being saved, for the never ending, never agreeing book we are writing.

I'm glad to read that you didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.  Did you decide to tell me that because you want me to know that you're smart, or because you think I'm trying to fool you?  If it's the former, don't worry I'm sure you're plenty smart enough. 
If it's the latter I can assure you that I believe what I'm saying and am not trying to fool anyone.
In order to be saved a person must be born again (John 3), meaning a changed person with a repentant heart fully trusting in Christ for their salvation (2 Cor 5:17).  He or she must understand that our salvation rests on the merit of Christ alone, which is appropriated to us when we embrace Him by genuine faith (Romans 4:1-5). If we understand that, the remaining question is, "Do I have the genuine faith necessary for salvation?"
Is a person willing to look at the "fruit" in their life?  We must examine ourselves to see whether the fruit of regeneration is apparent in our lives.  Also, do we have a real affection for the biblical Christ?  There is a lot of back and forth about who is saved and if what they believe matters in their salvation.  I think it does matter.  You have to know who you believe in.   The last part is the stumbling block for many.   We don't save ourselves.  It is the work of God alone that allows us to believe. Ephesians 2:8-10

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6705
  • Darwins +534/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #139 on: December 31, 2013, 03:02:32 PM »
I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one. I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.
Here is a good place to confirm Harbinger's experience. There are a few of us who have played "God's Advocate" in slack times (when there were no Christians to throw to the lions) and can testify that a one-man stand against WWGHA is no simple task.

Harbinger,
I have every sympathy with you.

GB Mod

Carry on ...
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12473
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #140 on: December 31, 2013, 03:07:49 PM »
I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one. I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.
Here is a good place to confirm Harbinger's experience. There are a few of us who have played "God's Advocate" in slack times (when there were no Christians to throw to the lions) and can testify that a one-man stand against WWGHA is no simple task.

Harbinger,
I have every sympathy with you.

GB Mod

Carry on ...


Unless you're Nam.

:P

j/k.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline harbinger77

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 345
  • Darwins +0/-15
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #141 on: January 01, 2014, 01:31:32 AM »


The replies that keep my post in its original context are 47, 46, 44, However the post I reference is 43. That's the one I wrote (in black) and was later changed by the mod (in green). 47 has my quote in it's original. It does NOT say "I think" in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie.

YOU bear false witness, sir.
Exodus 20:16
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.


Referring to post #43, in post #119 you said, "The one time I did present salvation as a matter of fact it was reported as preaching and the mod changed it to say "I think".

Then in post #122 you say, "It does NOT say 'I think' in either 43 or 47 I'm not sure how post 43 makes what I've said a lie".

You are right!  Post #43 does NOT say "I think".  So why would you say the moderator changed your post to say "I think"???

I "THINK" it is because you are a liar.  Lets move on Harbinger77.  Who cares if you are a liar.  Even Jesus lied (John 7:8-10).  Jesus said, "I do NOT go up to THIS feast" and then he went up to THAT feast.  He lied to his brothers. 


Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism.

Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved.  Another is hyper-Calvinism.  Article 26 states a confession that the natural man should not be given exhortation or duties to "spiritually and savingly" repent and believe.  This article is controversial but some Christians believe in complete "election" and consider the "free gift" duty/faith free.

Link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyper-Calvinism

I suggest you make a new name, pose as a theist and try to keep up with at least 4 threads while 10 people verbally gang rape you at a break neck pace on each one.


NOW YOU WANT ME TO LIE AND POSE AS A THEIST??? 

No thanks.  I don't like gangs; I don't like rape; and gang rapes don't sound too appealing to me.

My advice would be to only get involved in 1 thread and not 4 if you cannot "keep up". 

I suggest the name change because I'm sure you see how it's piled on at times but until you see it from this side you can't understand the frustration it causes.

Why do you have frustration?  Jesus says, "My yoke is easy and My burden is light" (Matt. 11:30).  I would think He would supernaturally give you all the time and direct answers so you can be involved in 4 threads while at the same time being "verbally gang raped". 

Now I'm thinking you aren't even a true Christian since you are not "peaceful" and you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread.  You don't have these fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 4:22-23).  Since you don't have the "self-control" to only get involved in one thread it seems like you are dodging questions since you can't keep up.  This does not look good for someone who is supposed to be defending his faith.   


And for the loaded gun question. The reaction you hope for is rooted in fear.
As an infantry soldier I am not afraid to die. As a Christian physical death is almost a favor. I don't fear your loaded gun... I'm much more likely to get myself shot taking the gun away. I wouldn't let some gun totin' punk force me to do or say anything! My wife would agree death can be a favor too.... sorry. Aside from that I said won't not can't.


You missed the whole point to the whole analogy.  By saying, "My new nature won't cuss" you are implying that under any circumstance your new nature will not cuss.  I am calling BS on this and I "think" you are a liar.  I don't buy your story that you wouldn't say "F#*K" to save the life of a loved one.  Especially since you say, "As a Christian physical death is ALMOST a favor". 

As a personal note, my wife would think I was a jerk if a "gun totin' punk" put a gun to her head and my reaction was, "You can't force me to do or say anything to save her life".  I would be doing my wife a disservice if I didn't do what the "punk" asked in order to save her life.  I guess that's because I am not delusional enough to believe that there is an afterlife.  Her life is precious to me!

you missed post #125... go back and read it. thank you.

You have an odd need to misrepresent what I said. I didn't say universalism is the ONLY denomination that denies repentance.

 I am a calvanist and you clearly don't understand calvanism let alone hyper calvanism. Study it a bit more and then get back to me with rather repentance is truly necessary. Maybe while your at it... who makes repentance possible, you or God? By the way calvanism is a theology not a denomination.

I didn't think you have trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive. The evidence would suggest as much anyway. Sometimes it just helps to see how the other half lives that's all.

The yoke of jesus IS light. I'm still flesh though. and until glory comes it's rather frustrating that everyone has a comment and each thinks his/hers  is deserving of reply. Some simply are not.
Honestly most of the time I laugh and praise God.  because I see the hatred for Christians here. Not Satan as I've seen suggested. Just plain hate. Not everyone but some. That's another confirmation of faith for me though. So believe me I have a peace about it.

John15:119
 19 If you were of the world, the world would love you as its own. However, because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it, the world hates you . :)

The gun thing again?
 I'm sorry you would give in to some punk. Do you have no Intestinal fortitude? I would fight to defend my wife. I guess that makes us different kinds of men though. I said almost because personally it IS a favor. I have kids though and they need me. This still doesn't effect my being ready and willing to go when called.

I know this is a hypothetical situation here but hypothetically... I'm a soldier you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place.
and before you go there... It's thou shalt not murder.. killing the man who intended my family harm would be justified.
Two round burst, no double taps!
I can't help but look at those pages (human genome) and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God's mind.
-Francis Collins lead scientist Human Genome project

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #142 on: January 01, 2014, 02:37:39 AM »

Salvation based on belief in the Trinity:  It seems the thief on the cross was saved, I doubt that he fully understood the Trinity.  Maybe Zacchaeus didn't understand the Trinity completely either.   While the Trinity is important to understand, ultimately it is a changed heart that leads a man to repentance and belief in Christ.

This is a first for me.  I have heard a lot of pastors say it is important to BELIEVE in the Trinity but I have never heard anyone say it is important to UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  The reason why you are the first person I have heard mention this is because NOBODY can UNDERSTAND the Trinity.  If you, or anyone else, can fully understand the Trinity then you need to write a book.  Trust me, if you can logically fill all the holes apparent in the doctrine then you need to write a book and let everyone know that you solved the mystery to the doctrine of the Trinity.

You are conflating the two claims of Understanding and Believing.  The two words mean two different things.  For instance, you BELIEVE that Samson's hair gave him strength but you don't UNDERSTAND how his hair makes him strong. 

Like I said before, nobody can understand the Trinity because it's like saying someone can understand how a square and a circle can be the same shape.  It is impossible and incomprehensible to understand.  For example:

You say that Jesus is one nature with the Father and is fully the one true God.  You say He claimed it through the "I am" statement in John 8:58.  So the bible says that God "knows all things".  But then speaking of the timing of his second coming, Jesus says, "But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone". So if Jesus is "one being" with God and He knows all things then why does Jesus claim ignorance as to the timing of his second coming?

I'm not a prophet but I am going to predict that the answer you will give me will sound a lot like you are trying to round the corners of a square to make it a circle so they can be the same shape.  Nothing you say will make sense to me because this is a contradiction.  My guess is that you will "round the corners" and say that Jesus didn't have all the attributes in His humanity.  If this is the case, then He wasn't fully God.  Saying that Jesus is fully man and fully God is a CONTRADICTION.  This is one example out of many why the doctrine of the Trinity is impossible to understand.  CONTRADICTIONS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO HUMANS WHO ARE LOGICAL!

Here is a comparison for you:

TRUTH is to FALSEHOOD     like     DIVINE INSPIRATION is to CONTRADICTION

   
Believing Jesus is the eternal Son, that the Holy Spirit works in the hearts of man to bring him to salvation, and in the Father is all plenty of understanding for most people.  Because it's what the bible says.

Here's another comparison for you:

The words "Eternal Son" put together are not in the Bible     like     The word Trinity is not in the bible

And you say it's what the bible says???  Maybe it's what YOU say the bible says.  I'll challenge you on this claim that the bible teaches the Son is eternal (no beginning).  Warning: It will get "scholarly" again.  By the way, I'm still waiting for a rebuttal to BeDuhn's "scholarly" arguments concerning the "I am".

But this is something that I'm interested to know about you.  When you were a Christian, did you believe that it was absolutely necessary to have just the right view of the Trinity?  That salvation depended upon intellect and knowlege?


As a Christian I believed that Children before the age of accountability (whatever age that is) were saved without intellect and knowledge no matter what.  Individuals who were mentally disabled, etc. fell into this category for me as well.  Why did I believe this?  I don't know.  I think I was creating God in my own image because there is not too much scriptural backing to support this view I had.

Everybody else after the age of accountability (whatever age that is) was responsible for their salvation.  They were supposed to work out their salvation with fear and trembling as Paul puts it.  And yes, intellect and knowledge played a role.  People had to KNOW they were sinners and repent from their sins and have the INTELLECT to believe that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God and that he died on the cross as a sacrificial atonement for one's sins and rose again. 

This was pretty much as far as I went when it came to the requirement of intellect, knowledge and belief one had to have in order to be saved.  I didn't think people had to have "just the right view of the Trinity" because I didn't think the bible taught the Trinity. 

I don't think you would find the concept of the Trinity if you were stuck on an island alone and found a bible and read it for the first time.  I seriously doubt that you would pull the doctrine of the Trinity out of it.  I don't think you would say, "That was cool that God revealed himself as one being in the Old Testament but then as one being in three persons that are co-equal, co-eternal, and consubstantial in the New Testament".  Who knows, I could be wrong.  It's just a guess on my part.  I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is taught through INDOCTRINATION.  It won't take you that long to think about this but how did you come up with the idea that Jesus was claiming to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58?  I'm going to make another guess and say that you did not discover this on your own but THE CHURCH made this connection for you.  I don't think you would have ever made this connection on your own if you were on an island alone reading the bible from cover to cover. 

In addition, through indoctrinating people, fear is added to the process by saying that the people who do not believe in the Trinity are involved in a cult.  I saw this first hand.  I've read a lot of material concerning this issue.  Every non-trinitarian "Christian" group is considered a cult according to the majority of Christians.     

I never let the doctrine of the Trinity (or Binity) overlap into the doctrine of salvation.  As a Christian I would have said your gospel is to "inclusive" as you would have to say that one has to believe that Jesus is the "I am" of the Old Testament in order to be saved.  Because you believe that Jesus claims to be God by saying "I am" in John 8:58 you would have to say that one will "die in their sins" if they don't believe that Jesus is the "I am" (John 8:24).  Am I wrong?  I don't want to misrepresent your gospel. 

If you agree, then I would have said that you are adding to the gospel of salvation by making this belief a requirement and are accursed in Paul's eyes (Gal. 1:9).

Here's another question:  Where does a non-trinitarian gospel lead a person?


My answer to where a non-trinitarian gospel leads a person will be threefold (or a trinity):

1. Personally, a non-trinitarian gospel led me to pastoring my own home fellowship for about 6 months.  I was OSTRACIZED from my church.  The closest church that shared my non-trinitarian gospel was 50 miles away and I could not make the drive every week.

2. Eternally I will mention five options:

1.  Your gospel is right and the non-trinitarians will go to hell

2.  The non-trinitarian gospel is right and you will go to hell

3.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians will go to hell

4.  Trinitarian's and non-trinitarians go to heaven

5.  Nobody goes to heaven or hell because God doesn't exist.

     My guess is #5!


3.Historically, a non-trinitarian gospel has led people to EXCOMMUNICATION from the church.

One example:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to PUNISHMENT AND IMPRISONMENT.

example:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_Act_1697

A non-trinitarian gospel has led people to DEATH.

One example:   http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

This last example I found interesting.  Michael Servetus was a participator of the protestant reformation. He was a non-trinitarian that John Calvin was instrumental in putting to death. By order of the Protestant Geneva Governing Council, which John Calvin has association with, Michael Servetus was convicted of being against infant baptism and denying the trinity. John Calvin said, "I hope that sentence of death will at least be passed on him, but I desire that the severity of the punishment be mitigated". Servetus was burned at the stake with what was believed to be the last copy of his book chained to his leg. Historians record that his last words were, "Jesus, son of the eternal God have mercy on me". Notice Servetus didn't say "Jesus, the eternal God have mercy on me".

If the Christian God exists, all this is mind boggling to me.  I'm sure you think that God is all-knowing as 1 John 3:20 suggests. So God would have known when he "inspired" his word back in the first century that there was not enough information in the bible for human brains to figure out concerning his nature. Also, since god is all knowing then he must have known all the disagreement, excommunications and killings that would result from this unclear and confusing doctrine.

Don't you think God could have clearly explained the doctrine of the trinity better in his revealed word?  Don't you think the nature of the Godhead could have been expressed more clearly in the bible to avoid disagreements, excommunications, and killings?  In fact, a MAN who tampered with the bible spelled the doctrine of the trinity out more clearly than God did. In the King James Version we find 1 John 5:7 say, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". This is the clearest expression of the trinitarian concept in the bible. However, this verse is not found in ANY of the earliest Greek manuscripts. You can't find this verse in any of the new testament manuscripts before the sixteenth century. This tells me that a MAN who tampered with the bible could express the trinity clearer than God.

If the omniscient Christian God exists, my only conclusion as an outsider is that God didn't want to communicate the doctrine of the trinity clearly in his revealed word because he likes to see his children disagree, excommunicate, and kill one another over an unclear, confusing and contradictory doctrine found in his revealed word.


Regarding the unity of the church and common belief:  The short answer is that there are essentials of the faith that unite people.   Salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final attonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people.


I find it fascinating that you used the word "essentials".  You know, I looked up the word "essentials" through blue letter bible (NASB).  The word "essentials" only appears in the bible once and it's in Acts 15:28 (NASB):

“For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials":

You want to know what the "essentials" are?  Verse 29: "that you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication". 

Let me ask you this PH.  Does your "unity" with your fellow Christians involve saaaay, abstaining from blood?  If you ask me, the JW's who are considered heretics follow the bible more closely as to obeying the "essintials" of the New Testament Church than you do.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Can you BIBLICALLY explain to me why the "unity" with your fellow Christians should not involve abstaining from blood and from things strangled?

Man says, "salvation by grace through faith in Christ as the final atonement for our sin, is the one thing that unites people".  The alleged word of God suggests something different.     
"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Offline Andy S.

  • Undergraduate
  • ***
  • Posts: 158
  • Darwins +35/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #143 on: January 03, 2014, 12:22:11 AM »

You have an odd need to misrepresent what I said. I didn't say universalism is the ONLY denomination that denies repentance.

I don't see the misrepresentation.  I never quoted you to say, "universalism is the only denomination that denies repentance".  You said, "Exception to everything I guess... I did forget  Universalism".  By saying, "exception to EVERYTHING" I added that you were wrong again because of hyper-calvinism. 

My exact words were, "Wrong again!  Christian Universalism is not the only exception to the fact that one has to repent to be saved".

If it's anyone doing any misrepresenting it is you. 
 
I am a calvanist and you clearly don't understand calvanism let alone hyper calvanism. Study it a bit more and then get back to me with rather repentance is truly necessary.  Maybe while your at it... who makes repentance possible, you or God?  By the way calvanism is a theology not a denomination.


First, I would like to say that I at least know one thing more about Calvinism than you.  That is, I know how to spell Calvinism!  I would like to point out that you misspelled calvinism three times and calvinist once just in this paragraph.  If you are truly a calvinist and adhere to the "theology" of calvinism you should at least know how to properly spell the theology you adhere to if you want to be taken seriously.  The MURDERER John Calvin's last name is CALVIN not CALVAN.  Yes, I said, MURDERER (post #142).  I thought this mistake might have been a simple typo at first but I just kept noticing the misspellings and am convinced that you have no idea how to spell the "theology" that you adhere to.

Secondly, I didn't mention Calvinism at all so how would you know that I don't understand Calvinism.  I mentioned "Hyper-calvinism.  I GAVE YOU a link on hyper-calvinism and quoted you article 26 and then you said I don't understand hyper-calvinism and then you GAVE ME NOTHING.  I studied more like you said and I wish I could get back to you with the good news that this theology teaches that repentance is truly necessary but I can't.

Hyper-calvinism is (1) denying that the call of the gospel to repent and believe is universal, i.e. for all alike, and (2) denying that the unregenerate (natural) man has a duty to repent and believe in Christ for salvation". 

Link:  http://www.theopedia.com/Hyper-Calvinism

Furthermore, "hyper-Calvinism, simply stated, is a doctrine that emphasizes divine sovereignty to the exclusion of human responsibility".   

Link:  http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
 

I didn't think you have trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive. The evidence would suggest as much anyway.


Why would you assume that I would have no trouble with telling a lie or being deceptive?  Are you that delusional to think that I would have no trouble telling a lie because I am not a Christian and I cannot be moral without God.  And what evidence Harbinger?  Have you ever caught me in a lie?

The yoke of jesus IS light. I'm still flesh though. and until glory comes it's rather frustrating that everyone has a comment and each thinks his/hers  is deserving of reply. Some simply are not.


I totally agree and understand that some posts are not deserving of a reply.  At first, I didn't think this post of yours deserved a reply but then a "still small voice" (probably my conscience) told me that I should respond to at least educate you on the spelling of the "theology" you adhere to. 

However, what is wrong (in my opinion and your God's opinion) is when you say you are going to respond (post #106) when you have more time and then you don't respond.  That is a deceptive tactic.  If posts are not deserving of a reply then don't say you will respond to them later when you have more time... and then not reply back at all.  You hinder your reputation by saying you will do something and then not acting on that promise.  James 5:12 says, "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath; but your yes is to be yes, and your no, no, so that you may not fall under judgment".

I would like to point out that I think James is a jerk for not excluding people with mental disabilities from this requirement.  Harbinger, I don't know you personally but if you, in any way, have a mental disability then please disregard my opinion.  It is O.K. to not follow through on a promise if you are mentally disabled.         

Honestly most of the time I laugh

We have something in common.  I want to thank you for the good laugh.  I found it comical that you said I clearly don't understand Calvinism but then come to find out, you don't even know how to spell Calvinism.  That's funny!   


The gun thing again?
 I'm sorry you would give in to some punk. Do you have no Intestinal fortitude? I would fight to defend my wife. I guess that makes us different kinds of men though. I said almost because personally it IS a favor. I have kids though and they need me. This still doesn't effect my being ready and willing to go when called.

I know this is a hypothetical situation here but hypothetically... I'm a soldier you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place.

Wow!  Them are fighting words. ;D  Once again, I would "give in" and say F#*K if that's all it took to save my wife.  That's the point to this hypothetical situation.  It's not about intestinal fortitude.  The hypothetical situation ASSUMED that the "punk" got through the weak defense that you provided for your wife and had the gun pointed at her head telling you to say the word F#*K to save her life.  The fact that you say, "I'm a soldier and you would never get close enough to my wife without getting yourself shot in the first place" really shows your ignorance as to what a hypothetical situation really is.

I am amused that you now say a Christian physical death IS a favor.  Let's test your "intestinal fortitude".  I told you before that I don't think you are a true Christian.  Let's test if you are a true Christian through a science experiment.  What you do is you go out and buy some deadly poison.  Then read Mark 16:17-18 where it says that one of the signs that will accompany a true believer is that he/she will not be harmed by drinking deadly poison.  Now, turn your kitchen (if you have one) into a laboratory and poor the deadly poison straight down your gullet.  Now act like a scientist and start writing down your observations.

NO....WAIT.....HARBINGER STOP!!!  I was just kidding.  Don't do it.  Your kids need you.  In addition to it being highly plausible that your God doesn't exist, this section of text in Mark is considered uninspired by many Christians because this text is not found in the earliest Greek manuscripts.         

Please don't perform this science experiment.  Graybeard's right!  We do need more Christian's like you to "throw to the lions".

In addition, I like you too much.  I enjoy toying with you.  You are too valuable as a "Look what Christianity did to this guy" example.


"The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries, that have afflicted the human race, have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion."
~Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)

Online Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12473
  • Darwins +324/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Is Jesus the Son of God or God?
« Reply #144 on: January 03, 2014, 04:02:23 PM »
I like the varying different translations[1] of vary Bibles for Mark 16:18. Because with a different word, even a synonym of the "original" word can change the meaning of the line. So some say "no harm" if drinking poison and even some change the word "poison" to be something less, therefore drinking it may not harm you but in changing certain words one could interpret it to mean, "It won't injure[2] but it'll kill you!"

They attempt to place a more logical conclusion in varying versions but always, mostly, fail.

-Nam
 1. or interpretations
 2. one version I read that in
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.