Jay Scott -
Muhammad Rasheed - In addition to the fact that Paul of Tarsus often contradicted the singular Gospel message of Jesusﷺ, which never claimed that the Christ was divine anyway, we also have the biblical scholars admitting that Paul didn't even write the Epistle to the Colossians, even if l were inclined to take him seriously. Colossians was written by some anonymous randoms, and isn't even from God. So who cares what it says?
Why did the people get so angry when He told them
BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "this is wild take! Just throw so throw the Pauline epistles out huh?"
How is it a wild take when it's the biblical scholarship position? The true believer position is that Paul of Tarsus wrote scripture in his letters. The scholarly position was that he contradicted Jesus, and the epistle you highlighted here wasn't even written by your guy.
So, my question to you is: Why would l believe you over your religion's actual scholars?
Jay wrote: "Why did the people get so angry when He told them BEFORE ABRAHAM WAS, I AM?"
What angry "people" are you talking about?
Jay Scott - You are questioning the authenticity of scripture. An entirely different argument than the one presented in the OP.
why would we go any further discussing this?
All that response and you haven’t said a word about the deity of Christ.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You are questioning the authenticity of scripture"
How am l doing that when literal biblical scholar experts are admitting the Epistle to the Colossians was written by some anonymous randoms and clearly isn't from God? How are you pretending l made it up when l provided my sources?
Jay wrote: "An entirely different argument than the one presented in the OP."
Not true. Did you not hinge your entire belief point on one particular verse in Colossians? Then how is the proof that Paul didn't even write that epistle not relevant?
Jay wrote: "why would we go any further discussing this?"
We wouldn't if you are admitting you have no answer when confronted with the fact that the findings of your religion's own scholars do not support your blind beliefs.
Jay wrote: "All that response and you haven’t said a word about the deity of Christ."
Again, you hinged the false ideology of the Christ's divinity upon one particular scripture that l provided the proof was fake. That's a mic drop.
Jay Scott -
Jermaine Scott - @Muhammad... Yup.. secondary source!
Jay Scott - To those reading… have you noticed that Muhammad is quoting ME all day… but hasn’t mentioned a SINGLE scripture?
That’s intentional.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "To those reading… have you noticed that Muhammad is quoting ME all day… but hasn’t mentioned a SINGLE scripture? That’s intentional."
To those reading, it was definitely intentional. Notice that Jay hinged his belief in Jesus' divinity on one verse. All l was required to do is prove that verse was fake using his own biblical scholarship to win the match.
Jay Scott - Notice that how you STILL haven’t used actual scripture? If you read the discourse with Jermaine, I have quoted several other scriptures, while you still haven’t referenced one.
Better yet, what biblical books are acceptable to use, by your standard?
We can go from there.
Jay Scott - And winning the match?
Are we boxing now?
I’m hinging the claim of his divinity on one verse? Are you assuming that there aren’t many others?
To prevent further useless back and forth, what books do you consider acceptable for this debate… i mean MATCH?
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Notice that how you STILL haven’t used actual scripture?"
There was no need. You set up the match's challenge to those like myself who reject the divine Jesus ideology around a single verse. I won the match by proving that the verse you hinged everything upon according to your own rules as null and void. According to your own rules, l stuck to Colossians 2:9.
Elementary.
Jay wrote: "I’m hinging the claim of his divinity on one verse?"
That's literally what your original post challenged. Did you forget?
Muhammad Rasheed - You may admit that l won that match according to the rules you established, and we can move on to another challenge as you like.
Jay Scott -
Jay Scott - You are being disingenuous.
Your way of avoiding using ANY of the other 65 books to defend your point is noted.
Colossians is not by any means the only book mentioning his deity.
Would you like to discuss any of them or will you continue to sidestep?
“Winning a match” is what you are concerned about the most here.
As I have said at least 5 times now, use the scripture to prove that Christ is not God in the flesh. Quote that part and respond!
I will wait…
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You are being disingenuous."
Based on the quality of your discourse, I'm unconvinced you even know what that means. You would've been better off just posting another animated thumbs up gif and running again.
Jay wrote: "Your way of avoiding using ANY of the other 65 books to defend your point is noted."
Why would I bother with any other part of the bible when the rules of the match that YOU initiated specifically said to use Colossians 2:9? If you would like to test the mettle of another of your favorite verses, then just admit I won this one and start a new challenge.
Jay wrote: "Colossians is not by any means the only book mentioning his deity."
So? Did you not specifically single out Colossians 2:9 as a challenge to all those who reject the Christian brand of pagan-polytheism? Then why would any other verse be relevant in this match?
Jay wrote: "Would you like to discuss any of them or will you continue to sidestep?"
All you have to do is:
• Admit that I won your Colossians 2:9 match.
• Start a new challenge using another verse.
Too easy. Waiting on you.
Jay wrote: "As I have said at least 5 times now, use the scripture to prove that Christ is not God in the flesh."
I did. I used Colossians 2:9 just like it said in the original challenge post (see screenshot below). Why are you pretending this isn't a thing?
Jay Scott - You continue to respond with ZERO intention of actually using scripture to prove your point.
In an actual debate, the rules are agreed on. You responding to a post and called it a match. And you blatantly refuse to use a single scripture to prove your point.
And said I’m running… from what exactly???
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "You continue to respond with ZERO intention of actually using scripture to prove your point."
Acknowledge that I won your Colossians 2:9 match, and then initiate another challenge using another one of your favorite verses and try me. Too easy. Waiting on you.
Jay wrote: "In an actual debate, the rules are agreed on."
I clearly agreed to only focusing on Colossians 2:9 as your original post instructed.
Jay wrote: "And you blatantly refuse to use a single scripture to prove your point."
I addressed Colossians 2:9 per the original instructions.
Jay wrote: "And said I’m running… from what exactly???
"Failing to acknowledge what was true and proven.
Jay Scott - Is Philippians authentic?
Or Isaiah? I will let you pick which one we can discuss.
See how I am referring to more scriptures here?
If those two don’t suffice, I ask that YOU select a book relevant to the topic, that is deemed authentic.
Then we can continue. If you avoid actually providing such, any further discourse is a moot point.
Muhammad Rasheed - Jay wrote: "Is Philippians authentic? Or Isaiah? I will let you pick which one we can discuss."
You may pick the verse using the same format you used before and we can start Match #02.
Jay Scott - This is exactly why I said your intentions are disingenuous.
You will critique all day, you will not make any foundational claims. That’s insincere.
Muhammad Rasheed - Just shove your 2nd favorite verse into another original post with a pretty background so I can discredit your corrupt religion again, please.
Muhammad Rasheed - Stop stalling.
No comments:
Post a Comment