Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_maklelan]

So, prove your contention that the earliest Christian view was Adoptionism - and prove it from the Bible. (Remember that contemporary adoptionism denies Christ's pre-incarnational divinity, which would be a direct contradiction of Mormonism).

Mark presents an adoptionist view of Christ's divinity. As I've made this case directly to you in the past, only to have you entirely dodge the issue and change the subject, I will not be wasting my time. If you are actually planning on engaging anything, please see here and here. I will fully, openly, and directly engage any concerns you raise with that scholarship. My gut tells me you have no intention of engaging anything at all, no matter where it's published. Prove me wrong.

[_Servant]

So, prove your contention that the earliest Christian view was Adoptionism - and prove it from the Bible. (Remember that contemporary adoptionism denies Christ's pre-incarnational divinity, which would be a direct contradiction of Mormonism).

Mark presents an adoptionist view of Christ's divinity. As I've made this case directly to you in the past, only to have you entirely dodge the issue and change the subject, I will not be wasting my time. If you are actually planning on engaging anything, please see here and here. I will fully, openly, and directly engage any concerns you raise with that scholarship. My gut tells me you have no intention of engaging anything at all, no matter where it's published. Prove me wrong.

The Gospel of John, which some scholars believe to be the oldest Gospel (I'm sure you don't) states emphatically time and again that Jesus is Divine, always was Divine, and is God in the flesh.

John 1:14: 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Was Christ the Word of God before coming to earth?

Does the Book of Mormon teach Christ's pre-incarnational divinity? And that Jesus is God in the flesh?

PS: If you are going to be so fully open, tell us whether or not you believe in Christ's bodily resurrection?

[_maklelan]

The Gospel of John, which some scholars believe to be the oldest Gospel (I'm sure you don't)

The gospel of John is absolutely not the oldest gospel, and I don't know a single actual scholar who thinks otherwise.

states emphatically time and again that Jesus is Divine, always was Divine, and is God in the flesh.

Being divine is different from being God, and nowhere does it say Jesus is "God in the flesh."

John 1:14: 14 The Word became flesh

Yes, the Word was made flesh. This does not mean "God in the flesh." Both Philo and Justin Martyr call the Word "another god."

and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Was Christ the Word of God before coming to earth?[/b]

That was one of the conceptualizations of his premortal existence. There are several, though.

[_Servant]

Notice how maklelan hauls out a quote from Justin Martyr while ignoring the rest. Here are quotes from ECFs he didn't mention:

http://www.Bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

But, why should any Mormon quote the ECFs anyway since the cult teaches the Christian Church became apostate shortly after the death of the last Apostle?

As far as the antiquity of the Gospel of John goes: http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html

By the way, the Gospel of Mark teaches the full deity of Jesus Christ, right in the first verse! And futher on teaches that Christ held divine sway over illness, nature, and in the end, death!

Speaking of which, maklelan, what do you believe about Jesus' Christ's bodily resurrection (this is the real question!)

[_maklelan]

Notice how maklelan hauls out a quote from Justin Martyr while ignoring the rest. Here are quotes from ECFs he didn't mention:

http://www.Bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

I wasn't commenting on the systematic analysis of all ECF comments on the Trinity, I was commenting on Martyr's point about the Word of God. Keep in mind Martyr is writing earlier than the others.

But, why should any Mormon quote the ECFs anyway since the cult teaches the Christian Church became apostate shortly after the death of the last Apostle?

As far as the antiquity of the Gospel of John goes: http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html

How on earth does this bear at all on the antiquity of John? Nobody is challenging the dating this papyrus provides.

By the way, the Gospel of Mark teaches the full deity of Jesus Christ, right in the first verse!

It does no such thing.

And futher on teaches that Christ held divine sway over illness, nature, and in the end, death!

Yes, which is what we would expect of an adopted divine agent.

Speaking of which, maklelan, what do you believe about Jesus' Christ's bodily resurrection (this is the real question!)[/b]

No, this isn't the real question. This is a diversionary tactic.

[_Servant]

Notice how maklelan hauls out a quote from Justin Martyr while ignoring the rest. Here are quotes from ECFs he didn't mention:

http://www.Bible.ca/H-trinity.htm

I wasn't commenting on the systematic analysis of all ECF comments on the Trinity, I was commenting on Martyr's point about the Word of God. Keep in mind Martyr is writing earlier than the others.

But, why should any Mormon quote the ECFs anyway since the cult teaches the Christian Church became apostate shortly after the death of the last Apostle?

As far as the antiquity of the Gospel of John goes: http://www.bible-researcher.com/papyrus.52.html

How on earth does this bear at all on the antiquity of John? Nobody is challenging the dating this papyrus provides.

By the way, the Gospel of Mark teaches the full deity of Jesus Christ, right in the first verse!

It does no such thing.

And futher on teaches that Christ held divine sway over illness, nature, and in the end, death!

Yes, which is what we would expect of an adopted divine agent.

Speaking of which, maklelan, what do you believe about Jesus' Christ's bodily resurrection (this is the real question!)[/b]

No, this isn't the real question. This is a diversionary tactic.

"It does no such thing" is not a scholarly refutation! It's a diversionary tactic.

[_maklelan]

"It does no such thing" is not a scholarly refutation! It's a diversionary tactic.

Show me how the first verse "teaches the full deity of Christ." You got an assertion because you gave me an assertion. You want me to make a full case, give me a case to which I can respond.

[_just me]

"It does no such thing" is not a scholarly refutation! It's a diversionary tactic.

Show me how the first verse "teaches the full deity of Christ." You got an assertion because you gave me an assertion. You want me to make a full case, give me a case to which I can respond.

I think it is clear to us all that that is not how servant works. You have the patience of Job, mak.

[_Servant]

"I think it is clear to us all that that is not how servant works. You have the patience of Job, mak."

Ask him if he believes "JOB" ever existed!

[_maklelan]

Ask him if he believes "JOB" ever existed!

Completely irrelevant, but as we've seen, you're not here to address any claims, you're just here to sling sectarian rhetoric.