the POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royal I

[Nathon Detroit]

OK "Battle Royale I" is over!

What are your thoughts?

Who did the best job in presenting their case?

Was your mind changed in any way?

Was it fun???

 

[me again]

A GOOD FIGHT

A GOOD FIGHT

It was exhausting.

While you were watching, you may have been thinking ”he should say this!” or ”he should say that!” But when you get in the ring, 10 rounds is a long ways to go.

I found it to be rewarding, as well as difficult.

• Pre-fight photo of me again:
  
• Post-fight photo of me again: (looking a little roughed up, eh?)

I look forward to seeing some good arguments in the future. I think it’s a very good idea. However, I'm throwing in the gloves.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

It was definately fun but my mind has not really changed. I think it was a great idea.

 

[Kimberblue]

Well, it was interesting to say the least. Or the most. I'm looking forward to something a bitmore serious in the next round of battles.

 

[themuzicman]

I want to know why Freak didn't use Hebrews 11:6 (unless I missed it). Supports his point as well as John 8.

Michael

 

[Pilgrimagain]

Freak was using someone elses argument so he probably never considered it.

 

[Projill]

Wish I could have been here for it. I hope both you guys are nursing your wounds and have access to heating pads and ice and such.

 

[Evangelion]

Hebrews 11:6 says this:

• 
  But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

There is nothing here which requires us to believe that God consists of one person, two persons, three persons - or any other number of persons, for that matter - in order to be saved.

The NIV makes this absolutely clear:

• 
  And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Hebrews 11:6 wouldn't have helped Freak in any way at all.

Oh, and just for the record, his wild forays into John 8 were a complete waste of time.

 

[MARANATHA2002]

It seems to me, that under Freaks conclusion, no one before John 8 could be saved. Did all, whom we consider old testaments saints die lost? Is there an Old Testament verse, which parallels John 8 (as believed by Freak), which required the Old Testaments saints to believe that the MESSIAH was GOD in order to be saved? Peace, but not yet.

 

[Evangelion]

Hey, great point! :up:

 

[me again]

• Posted by Evangelion
  Snip...
  Oh, and just for the record, his wild forays into John 8 were a complete waste of time.

Yes, you're right.

But since he raised the issue and, more importantly, since he really believes it, I felt obliged to address it.

 

[themuzicman]

Originally posted by MARANATHA2002
It seems to me, that under Freaks conclusion, no one before John 8 could be saved. Did all, whom we consider old testaments saints die lost? Is there an Old Testament verse, which parallels John 8 (as believed by Freak), which required the Old Testaments saints to believe that the MESSIAH was GOD in order to be saved? Peace, but not yet.

The Old Testement saints were under the Mosaic law and sacrifices, and were specifically seeking the Messiah spoken of repeatedly in the Old Testement. Isaiah confirms the identity of the Messiah as "Almighty God" and "the everlasting Father". It's pretty clear they they knew.

Michael

 

[PENIEL]

Why not have Questions Submitted in another thread and

Vote on which one is the Most Important to Discuss ?

 

[MARANATHA2002]

Muzicman, how are you

I am assuming you are referring to Isaiah 9:6. Though this verse is a good verse to support the trinity, I do not believe it answers the criteria as Freak asserts. I agree with what the verse claims, MESSIAH/JESUS is GOD THE FATHER, but it does not say one must believe the MESSIAH is GOD to be saved. The point I am trying to make is, before any of the books of the Bible were written, what did the people believe that saved them eternally? Was it you must believe that Messiah was GOD, or that HE simply was coming to take the sins of the world away, and put there faith in that promise. It is easy to get caught up in “you have to believe this and you have to believe that” when we have the recorded word of GOD, but what of those before the books were written. I do believe a study of the scriptures should and will teach the deity of CHRIST, but you will have to have the recorded word to come to that conclusion, and the Old Testament saints before the books were written did not have our luxury.

The author of Genesis is believed to be Moses. He wrote about the past history of the earth from creation to his time. In Genesis Chapter 1 we can read the promise of the SEED of the woman. The first recorded mentioning of the MESSIAH. This is the promise that saved all the Old Testament saints. What saved Adam and Eve, and the generations before the word was recorded, is in Genesis, not in Isaiah, John, or Hebrews. Of course this is just my opinion, and some may simply disagree. Peace, but not yet.

 

[Evangelion]

Isaiah 9:6 does not call Jesus "Almighty God." It calls him el gibbor, which the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew Lexicon translates as "divine hero."

It never ceases to amaze me that Trinitarians will look at a verse and see something which isn't really there! Just goes to show how strong their preconceptions are... and now frequently these preconceptions cloud their judgement.

Maranatha, you wrote:

The author of Genesis is believed to be Moses. He wrote about the past history of the earth from creation to his time. In Genesis Chapter 1 we can read the promise of the SEED of the woman. The first recorded mentioning of the MESSIAH. This is the promise that saved all the Old Testament saints. What saved Adam and Eve, and the generations before the word was recorded, is in Genesis, not in Isaiah, John, or Hebrews. Of course this is just my opinion, and some may simply disagree. Peace, but not yet.

Excellent point! :up:

 

[MARANATHA2002]

Evan, how are you

Isaiah 9
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Well, I am not up on Brown, Driver, and Briggs. It seems you are saying they didn’t like “The mighty GOD” phrase and changed it to “divine hero“, that is a pretty drastic change, there is a real big difference between being "The mighty GOD", and being a "divine hero". Well, people are entitled to believe what they wish. I will stick with what has been there for years now. What did they do with the "everlasting Father" phrase, did they change that too? Peace, but not yet.

 

[Evangelion]

Maranatha, I used Brown-Driver-Briggs because (a) it is a standard authority, and (b) it is a lexicon to which Trinitarians themselves will frequently refer. They didn't "change" anything, Maranatha - they simply translated the words "el gibbor" in a slightly different way. And believe it or not, their translation is perfectly reasonable.

You might be interested in Psalm 45, where a Hebrew king is called both "mighty" and "god" (though not simultaneously.) The fact that Jesus is called "mighty god" merely emphasises his role as a warrior-king who represents God on Earth. Meanwhile, I'm curious to know how you think the Jews understood Isaiah 9:6. If (as you insist), it refers to a Messiah who would also be God, why didn't the Jews anticipate the arrival of a "God-man"?

By the way - Brown, Driver and Briggs were perfectly happy with "Everlasting Father", and so am I.

 

[Pilgrimagain]

And BDB is hardly a new thing.

 

[Evangelion]

Exactly. :up:

 

[Pilgrimagain]

of course. I'm always right after all.