User Tag List

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 101

Thread: THE CREDENCE OF JESUS CHRIST AS A DEISTIC DESCENDANT OF JEHOVAH IS DISCREDITED BY SHO

  1. #76
    TOL Subscriber glorydaz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    25,588
    Thanks
    16,942
    Thanked 40,135 Times in 20,063 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    114 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147831
    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Nope. These admonitions are NOT commandments. They’re not even in the imperative grammatical form. They are NOT determinations.

    These are all “words”. Literally. The Ten “Commandments” are NOT commandments in the English sense at all. They are promissory.

    A better simple translation would be the promissory statements:

    You’re not going to murder. This is a simple “word” of covenantal promise based on the covenant of faith. It’s an assurance. A comfort that their faith will preclude the listed items, of which there are actually more than ten.

    All you’ve done is illustrate all I’ve said of your ignorance, and the misuse of the term “law”. The law was not merely legislative codification. It swas the promise that faith would prevent a list of things from being brought into negation.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to glorydaz For Your Post:

    PneumaPsucheSoma (April 5th, 2019)

  3. #77
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 410 Times in 341 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    36303
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    OK. The Resurrection of Christ is explicitly that upon which the one Christian faith is built.
    Idolater,
    My prima facie thoughts about the fact that Christians, simultaneously, posit both that Christ died, hence the road to salvation, and, that he resurrected, is almost a totally self-inconsistent position, wherein both death and fantastically exiting death, are historically maintained, both at the same time.

    If Christ did, in fact die, (he could have been comatose for three days), is a death of a mere three days death ? Death is forever. Is a short-lived death a death sufficient unto constituting an everlasting salvation ?
    The precept of double nihilation is essentially a description of how a conscious project originates. Apparently the death and resurrection of Christ was foretold/prophesized originally from the Old Testament phrase "...something something shall bruise his heel." Thus, Christ's death and resurrection were the objective, the end goal, the intentional intent of the consciousness which foretold the death and resurrection, The resurrection was an original goal which was at first a mere present absence, a lack, a future, a non-existent, a non-being, a negation, a nothing of death and resurrection; then, the projected death/resurrection became an objective reality in the world; then, the event central to the history of the world (according to Christians), became historical, past. What is past is non-being/nothing and is not normally a determinative force in the world; however, in this particular instance, the central Christian instance, the past/historical event which is Christ's death and resurrection is claimed to be absolutely the most momentous and significant event in the history of the world. Thus we have the operative principle of double nihilation transpiring within the most fundamentally important event which has ever transpired in the world, i.e., the death and resurrection of a man who was, at the same time God, which crucial event passed from being an imagined, prophesized and intended phenomenon, to being an objective phenomenon, to being the nothing that is the past; --- which past nothingness is deemed to be t h e efficacy of efficacies.
    Indeed the entire ensemble of events is magical thinking entirely out of the realm of normal human events.

    The historical death and resurrection of Christ is the common Christian person's path to the attainment of being ens causa sui, i.e., of being a self-made consciousness which inhabits an eternal glorified body; the resurrection of Christ is, for the Christian, the sole means of becoming the in-itself-for-itself which is the vain passion for the sake of which all human endeavor strives. Enscausasui
    I'm proto tropic in that I believe in the proto trope, which is of the pattern 101 or 010 or ABA or MOM or DAD or any other simple pattern involving two types of things related to each other in a particular way, as examples of what this is not, e.g. not 'xxy' or 'xyy.'

    Ehyeh asher ehyeh, for an example. In binary 101 is 5, and 010 is 2. In Scripture ehyeh asher ehyeh is God.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  4. #78
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by glorydaz View Post
    It is a joy to interact with you, glorydaz; and to see your likes and read your posts.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    glorydaz (April 5th, 2019)

  6. #79
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    I'm proto tropic in that I believe in the proto trope, which is of the pattern 101 or 010 or ABA or MOM or DAD or any other simple pattern involving two types of things related to each other in a particular way, as examples of what this is not, e.g. not 'xxy' or 'xyy.'

    Ehyeh asher ehyeh, for an example. In binary 101 is 5, and 010 is 2. In Scripture ehyeh asher ehyeh is God.
    So you are meaning that in-itself-for-itself is proto tropic ? What is the significance of it being prototrophic ?

  7. #80
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,516
    Thanks
    367
    Thanked 422 Times in 310 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117555
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    Aimiel,
    My ultimate objective, in spite of all the travail which is attendant upon the clash of our conflicting world views, is to so seriously expose the human ontological incorrectness of attempting to govern our nation via an ongoing and ever intensifying tyranny of law.
    You are SO sadly mistaken: without the rule of law we would have chaos and far more tyranny than the world knows today.
    The police, killing someone in our country constantly in the name of some alleged violation of some petty law;
    Are you in Antifa? ... the KKK?
    the legislatures, taxing the citizenry and their businesses, to the point of the citizenry taking flight to less tax oppressive states; all call for an incisive demonstration that police and prosecutorial officers and legislators are loose cannons, which can only possibly be thwarted in their absolutistic legal absolutism, by writing an indubitable logic of the complete error which language of law is as a means of controlling men who possess an absolute ontological freedom, an ontological freedom whereby ineffectual law per se comes to be.
    If you want to be s scofflaw, you're calling for treason. The law is the only thing that separates us from animals, apparently.
    Showing that Yahweh; Jehovah; Christ; Mr. Greenleaf all suffer from living the mistake of suffering under a legislative/judicial illusion, is the only possible means of emancipating ourselves from a tyrannical law, whereby we are currently doing extreme harm to ourselves.
    You want to blame the law for men being lawbreakers? You don't make any sense.
    Living in the state we now dwell in wherein police continually kill the citizens they are sworn to protect, is without a doubt, tantamount to and possibly worse than the state of chaos that everyone insists will transpire in the absence of law.
    Indeed it would be, were it the norm. Most every police officer would rather go on down the road than pull his weapon. You not only base your vague attempt at philosophy on foolish notions but you also generalize upon the police population...

    There are over 18,000 Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies around the United States, and it is estimated that there are between 750,000 and 850,000 sworn officers. If you count non-sworn personnel who work for police departments, you get over 1 million. -- SOURCE

    ... the accidental shootings (a scant few of which are actually in error and even fewer of those are actually murder) and that's way too reactionary for me (or anyone else with any sense, as well). As I've said several times now: read Dr. Greenleaf's book; you'll find more evidence there than you can explain away. You just might come to a knowledge of Truth, too; instead of superstitious fairy-tales.
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Aimiel For Your Post:

    PneumaPsucheSoma (April 6th, 2019)

  9. #81
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,516
    Thanks
    367
    Thanked 422 Times in 310 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117555
    Quote Originally Posted by Enscausasui View Post
    kOde,
    By saying that I perceive Christians as engaging in a magical approach to attaining the everlasting life they hope for, I am saying that they are not engaging in the attainment of eternal life by rational means; that the means which Christians describe as the indubitable path to eternal life does not make sense. And, according to Christians, I am supposed to take the in-credible, non-verified events of the resurrection as indubitably historical, while, all the while, historians do not know for sure that Christ even existed. All of that is what I mean by magical thinking on the part of Christians. Enscausasui
    Actually, according to Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the world's foremost authorities on evidence in jurisprudence and one of the founders of Harvard Law School: we actually have more evidence of Christ's birth, death, resurrection and proof of Him being a historical figure than we do for ANYONE in antiquity. The Gospels corroborate one another like no other text in history. Read his book, "Testimony of the Evangelists." You will be very enlightened. You'll certainly gain more knowledge than fiction-writing pseudo-philosophers might give you.
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Aimiel For Your Post:

    George Affleck (April 7th, 2019),PneumaPsucheSoma (April 6th, 2019)

  11. #82
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    2
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    What a rambling piece of nothing. Hubris.

    You use a word that you can’t define, and indeed say evades definition. I can clearly define it. Any competent linguist can do so. Your contentions are based on absurdities of erroneous speculations from delusions. You want to use a word and deny it has any real definition except your mumbo jumbo from moronic sources.

    The law in Hebrew was PROMISSORY, not punitive. It was the means of fulfiling COVENANT. It represented the Bilateral and Conditional covenant that paired with the Abrahamic Unilateral and Unconditional covenant of faith (other words you know nothing about in ANY language, novice).



    No. Don’t attempt to prescribe the Christian world view (another fallacious monicker) or mine, holding me hostage to your prejudiced and tangential understandings. In defense of the faith once delivered to the saints, it is quite appropriate to correct those evil ones like yourself with an apologetic.

    Just because you’re a master victim, that’s not on me. You’re the one that picked this fight, and you well know it. And you want to shame Christians into cowering from your bluster. I’m not going to yield to your cowardice and dishonesty.



    Then put up or shut up. How could someone so “superior” already be extremely fatigued by rhetoric? You knew what you were doing when you came here, demon. You had NO positive reasons for joining this forum. You had NO intention of addressing anyone with respect or mutual consideration. So stop lying to yourself and all of us. You came here to be a self-appointed monarch and arbiter of alleged truth, subjecting everyone else as a serf in your false little kingdom of demented existentialism.



    Only to employ is accurately and validly with consistency. This is you excusing your ignorance of words you use to build your foundation for false superiority. I’ve shattered you source of your fragile identity, and thus your worth. You have nothing without these shallow misdefintions and vagueries of concepts for pseudo-meaning.

    Who are you to speak authoritatively on the use of language? You know you’re no linguist.



    No. I just know what “law” is and means, and I know what other major words you use that are the same situation. You make bare assertions about “law” that don’t even apply to “law” in regards to what it truly means. That’s because you’re an English speaker. You can’t even imagine how stupid your premises are from a linguistic perspective.

    And again it is you who are the one engaging in ad hominem, not me. And you couldn’t climb out on my philologcial limb if Hegel and company launched you there with a trebuchet. You’re a bloviating fool, pretending to be articulate. Now what, Herman?
    You incorrectly deem that you had ultimately impugned and defeated Enscausasui’s fundamental position, by intentionally mischaracterizing his use of the word ‘law’, as being insufficient to the achievement of the intension he was undertaking to impart. You incorrectly claimed that he was not referring to the totality of modes of law by using the word ‘law’. The generic term ‘law’ references all members of the class law(s) in their infinite multiplicity, without diverting into an irrelevant summation of each and every other particular mode of law contained in the world. Thus you did indeed make the fatal error of appearing to proceed against what was basically sound usage of a term, via a fallacious argument by extension, wherein you incorrectly attempted to extend the writer’s position into an apparent failure to give an irrelevant accounting of an infinite series of specific descriptions of the modes of law, which reference to all modes of law you falsely posited as fatally absent from Enscausasui’s fundamental position. You are mistaken, you did not invalidate the fundamental viability of the writer’s position by fallaciously attempting to posit an extensive series absences to which the writer indeed did refer via his use of the all inclusive generic term ‘law’, as the term is generally employed in the humanities.

  12. #83
    Veteran k0de's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Bronx NY
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 58 Times in 52 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    4302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimiel View Post
    Actually, according to Dr. Simon Greenleaf, one of the world's foremost authorities on evidence in jurisprudence and one of the founders of Harvard Law School: we actually have more evidence of Christ's birth, death, resurrection and proof of Him being a historical figure than we do for ANYONE in antiquity. The Gospels corroborate one another like no other text in history. Read his book, "Testimony of the Evangelists." You will be very enlightened. You'll certainly gain more knowledge than fiction-writing pseudo-philosophers might give you.
    I just purchased the ebook. So far a good read in the early chapters. Thank you for sharing.
    Abraham did not do such things.... (John 8:40)

  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to k0de For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 6th, 2019),PneumaPsucheSoma (April 6th, 2019)

  14. #84
    Over 6000 post club Aimiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    6,516
    Thanks
    367
    Thanked 422 Times in 310 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    117555
    Dr. Greenleaf makes good sense, backing up the Gospels with the evidence found in the writings themselves. I found that the Bible makes even more sense in light of his evaluations.
    "That man of sin must first be revealed." -- Jesus

    If you haven't tried: you've already failed. -- Aimiel

  15. #85
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,019
    Thanks
    221
    Thanked 410 Times in 341 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    36303
    Quote Originally Posted by blackgeorgijs View Post
    So you are meaning that in-itself-for-itself is proto tropic ? What is the significance of it being prototrophic ?
    I'm suggesting that the proto trope is indistinguishable from the hypothetical bedrock upon which reality is constructed. The significance of it is as supreme as it is simultaneously trivial. And it does not only suggest but it insists that believing in the Resurrection of Christ is the one and only way in which the human mind can be coordinated with its as built optimum.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  16. #86
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimiel View Post
    You are SO sadly mistaken: without the rule of law we would have chaos and far more tyranny than the world knows today. Are you in Antifa? ... the KKK?If you want to be s scofflaw, you're calling for treason. The law is the only thing that separates us from animals, apparently.You want to blame the law for men being lawbreakers? You don't make any sense.Indeed it would be, were it the norm. Most every police officer would rather go on down the road than pull his weapon. You not only base your vague attempt at philosophy on foolish notions but you also generalize upon the police population...

    There are over 18,000 Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies around the United States, and it is estimated that there are between 750,000 and 850,000 sworn officers. If you count non-sworn personnel who work for police departments, you get over 1 million. -- SOURCE

    ... the accidental shootings (a scant few of which are actually in error and even fewer of those are actually murder) and that's way too reactionary for me (or anyone else with any sense, as well). As I've said several times now: read Dr. Greenleaf's book; you'll find more evidence there than you can explain away. You just might come to a knowledge of Truth, too; instead of superstitious fairy-tales.
    He doesn’t know what law is, thinking it’s merely codification via legislation. Law is far more than that.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 6th, 2019),JudgeRightly (April 6th, 2019)

  18. #87
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    584
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123650
    Quote Originally Posted by blackgeorgijs View Post
    You incorrectly deem that you had ultimately impugned and defeated Enscausasui’s fundamental position, by intentionally mischaracterizing his use of the word ‘law’, as being insufficient to the achievement of the intension he was undertaking to impart. You incorrectly claimed that he was not referring to the totality of modes of law by using the word ‘law’. The generic term ‘law’ references all members of the class law(s) in their infinite multiplicity, without diverting into an irrelevant summation of each and every other particular mode of law contained in the world. Thus you did indeed make the fatal error of appearing to proceed against what was basically sound usage of a term, via a fallacious argument by extension, wherein you incorrectly attempted to extend the writer’s position into an apparent failure to give an irrelevant accounting of an infinite series of specific descriptions of the modes of law, which reference to all modes of law you falsely posited as fatally absent from Enscausasui’s fundamental position. You are mistaken, you did not invalidate the fundamental viability of the writer’s position by fallaciously attempting to posit an extensive series absences to which the writer indeed did refer via his use of the all inclusive generic term ‘law’, as the term is generally employed in the humanities.
    Hi, Enscausasui. Nice sock.

    No, your references to law are simply marginal and fractional, not a dichotomy of distinct things. So I have rightly exposed your limited applications for the term “law” and have disannuled your entire position thereby.

    Law is far more than merely legislative codification, but it doesn’t exclude that in the scope of its meaning, either.

    Law isn’t merely prohibitive and prescriptive, it is also still promissory. Law always promises the inverse of the consequences of its violation. (And law isn/t actually violated, itself violating those who do not keep it. And keeping it is also something you can’t understand linguistically.) Law is always promissory, far more than it is punitive.

    Your fallacies are duly noted, as is your dependence upon existential drivel. You are dismissed. Your position is toast.
    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

  19. The Following User Says Thank You to PneumaPsucheSoma For Your Post:

    Aimiel (April 6th, 2019)

  20. #88
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    9,761
    Thanks
    33,180
    Thanked 8,384 Times in 5,366 Posts

    Mentioned
    76 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147634
    blackgeorgijs
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    |
    V

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JudgeRightly For Your Post:

    PneumaPsucheSoma (April 6th, 2019),Right Divider (April 7th, 2019)

  22. #89
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    7
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Hi, Enscausasui. Nice sock.

    No, your references to law are simply marginal and fractional, not a dichotomy of distinct things. So I have rightly exposed your limited applications for the term “law” and have disannuled your entire position thereby.

    Law is far more than merely legislative codification, but it doesn’t exclude that in the scope of its meaning, either.

    Law isn’t merely prohibitive and prescriptive, it is also still promissory. Law always promises the inverse of the consequences of its violation. (And law isn/t actually violated, itself violating those who do not keep it. And keeping it is also something you can’t understand linguistically.) Law is always promissory, far more than it is punitive.

    Your fallacies are duly noted, as is your dependence upon existential drivel. You are dismissed. Your position is toast.
    The instant one characterizes another person's person as severally embodying one's judaeo-christian notions of "evil";"sin";"satan", one, without any doubt, is arguing ad hominem against an opponent's person; hence, doing violence to the person instead of doing intelligible violence to the person's position; and, simultaneously, one demonstrates one's self to be a mere narrow provincial bigot, lacking realization that the judaeo-christian moral standard set is neither an absolute morality nor pertinent to considerations of whether or not Elohim; Yahweh;Jehovah, or Christ are verily deity.
    Furthermore, by maintaining that your opponent is unfamiliar with all incarnations of judaeo-christian law, and, therefore, his position is invalid, is just plain vacuous.
    ANd, it is indifferent whether law is deemed promissory; putatively determinative; presceiptive or proscriptive, law is a given factual state of affairs having no efficacy among men in a world wherein the originative upsurge of all human action proceeds only via the double nihilation.
    Law is failed absolutism mistakenly posited relative to human original ontological future-oriented thinking, per a legalistic intellectual instrumentation parlytically frozen in a dead and past past. Judaism and Christianity are particularly paralyzed and frozen weltanschauungs which are too totally past-orinted to appeal to a posterity of future-oriented consciousnesses.

  23. #90
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    7
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    I'm suggesting that the proto trope is indistinguishable from the hypothetical bedrock upon which reality is constructed. The significance of it is as supreme as it is simultaneously trivial. And it does not only suggest but it insists that believing in the Resurrection of Christ is the one and only way in which the human mind can be coordinated with its as built optimum.
    How, why, is it of import that being-in-itself-for-itself is characterizable in terms of alternating proto trophic pattern entailing two components ?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us