Doxa

mdsimpson92 wrote:

Metacrock wrote:I probably have used the self esteem issue wrongly with atheists. of course I do. because they are still treating me like a know nothing shit hole. they always will because that's the way they deal with people.

Likely, but it has made you preemptively angry which often makes it difficult for some people to talk with you. Not me normally because I'm normally on your side, if not with your temperament.

I wouldn't get mad at Fleet. they are not dealing with arguments. they always attacking me personal. everyone expect me to just for get it. I'm an elephant.

Metacrock wrote:sure I said in my thing the early chruch expected it. That doesn't mean Jesus did.

I suppose we can only look to what Jesus wrote himself to know what he REALLY thought.

Magritte wrote:

Metacrock wrote:sure I said in my thing the early chruch expected it. That doesn't mean Jesus did.

I suppose we can only look to what Jesus wrote himself to know what he REALLY thought.

well did you read the essay I put up on CARM? I argue that I doubt that he would say "I don't know" then try to say when it would be.

There is no contradiction between "it's coming soon, very soon - some of you will be alive when it happens" and "no one knows the hour or day".

Magritte wrote:There is no contradiction between "it's coming soon, very soon - some of you will be alive when it happens" and "no one knows the hour or day".

It gives plausible deniability too. It's not "thus says the Lord, it will be next Thursday."

So what if he thought it would soon, but he has limited omniscience and he's not speaking as God himself form on high.

Metacrock wrote:It gives plausible deniability too.

Lord, lawyer or lunatic, eh?

So what if he thought it would soon, but he has limited omniscience and he's not speaking as God himself form on high.

I think you'd better define what you actually think, because "honest mistake by non-omniscient guy" contradicts your redaction scenario. I don't see how this can function as a fallback given your primary redaction belief.

It's clear from a straightforward reading of the Gospels - or at least of the Synoptics- that Jesus isn't meant to be omniscient,even if fundies tend to docetism with Jesus (as well as taking a docetic hermeneutics to Scriptures)....

met wrote:It's clear from a straightforward reading of the Gospels - or at least of the Synoptics- that Jesus isn't meant to be omniscient,even if fundies tend to docetism with Jesus (as well as taking a docetic hermeneutics to Scriptures)....

there you go.

Magritte wrote:

Metacrock wrote:It gives plausible deniability too.

Lord, lawyer or lunatic, eh?

LOL you still got it!

So what if he thought it would soon, but he has limited omniscience and he's not speaking as God himself form on high.

I think you'd better define what you actually think, because "honest mistake by non-omniscient guy" contradicts your redaction scenario. I don't see how this can function as a fallback given your primary redaction belief.

Explained by Paul:

phil 2:6

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
7 rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8 And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

9 Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.


He chose to divest himself of the full accoutrements of Godhood and become an actual man; albeit one with 2 wills and 2 natures. apparently the omnis were turned off.

Well there you go. If Jesus was fallible then you needn't reach for excuses like redaction when his fallibility is in evidence.