Who Killed Jesus?

[PaulThomson]

No, he asked that God take it. He died from his wounds.

I asked Google AI for words that mean "making false distinctions". Choose the one that applies to your argumentation. I would say in this case "specious" and "casuistry".

Google AI "
The act of "making false distinctions" can be described by several words depending on the context and nuance:

• Specious - An adjective used to describe something that appears plausible or correct at first glance but is actually false or misleading. This often applies to an argument or reasoning that relies on false distinctions.
• Fallacious - An adjective describing reasoning or an argument that contains a fallacy, which is an error in logic, including drawing incorrect separations between ideas or facts.
• Sophistry - A noun referring to the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving someone.
• Casuistry - A noun that describes the use of clever but unsound reasoning, particularly in relation to moral questions, to resolve difficult cases or to find a way around a difficulty.
• False dichotomy/false dilemma - While not a single word, this phrase describes a specific type of fallacy where a situation is presented as having only two possible options, when in fact others exist, thereby creating a false distinction between possibilities.

In general conversation, you might say someone is misleading or drawing arbitrary lines to describe the action of making false distinctions.

 

[Clayman]

I asked Google AI for words that mean "making false distinctions". Choose the one that applies to your argumentation. I would say in this case "specious" and "casuistry".

Google AI "
The act of "making false distinctions" can be described by several words depending on the context and nuance:

• Specious - An adjective used to describe something that appears plausible or correct at first glance but is actually false or misleading. This often applies to an argument or reasoning that relies on false distinctions.
• Fallacious - An adjective describing reasoning or an argument that contains a fallacy, which is an error in logic, including drawing incorrect separations between ideas or facts.
• Sophistry - A noun referring to the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving someone.
• Casuistry - A noun that describes the use of clever but unsound reasoning, particularly in relation to moral questions, to resolve difficult cases or to find a way around a difficulty.
• False dichotomy/false dilemma - While not a single word, this phrase describes a specific type of fallacy where a situation is presented as having only two possible options, when in fact others exist, thereby creating a false distinction between possibilities.

In general conversation, you might say someone is misleading or drawing arbitrary lines to describe the action of making false distinctions.

lol What are the options it comes it with when you ask for words that mean "making false parallels"?

 

[PaulThomson]

lol What are the options it comes it with when you ask for words that mean "making false parallels"?

I looked it up for your brecause I am willing to serve you: a false equivalence or a false analogy.. I am your servant.

 

[aChristian2]

The Lamb of G-D that takes away the sins of the world.

 

[Aaron56]

I asked Google AI for words that mean "making false distinctions". Choose the one that applies to your argumentation. I would say in this case "specious" and "casuistry".

Google AI "
The act of "making false distinctions" can be described by several words depending on the context and nuance:

• Specious - An adjective used to describe something that appears plausible or correct at first glance but is actually false or misleading. This often applies to an argument or reasoning that relies on false distinctions.
• Fallacious - An adjective describing reasoning or an argument that contains a fallacy, which is an error in logic, including drawing incorrect separations between ideas or facts.
• Sophistry - A noun referring to the use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving someone.
• Casuistry - A noun that describes the use of clever but unsound reasoning, particularly in relation to moral questions, to resolve difficult cases or to find a way around a difficulty.
• False dichotomy/false dilemma - While not a single word, this phrase describes a specific type of fallacy where a situation is presented as having only two possible options, when in fact others exist, thereby creating a false distinction between possibilities.

In general conversation, you might say someone is misleading or drawing arbitrary lines to describe the action of making false distinctions.

Apparently, you know much more about the death of Jesus. I certainly cannot teach you anything.

 

[posthuman]

Show me where Jesus said to Pilate, "I am the LORD of Heaven."

My kingdom is not of this world

 

[posthuman]

Axiom.

But it is not self-evident. Nor is it explicitly stated in scripture

John 10:18​

No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. ​

​

​

if you believed in the deity of Christ, this would need neither explanation nor, much less, argument.

 

[posthuman]

John 10:18
No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

Jesus: no one can possibly take My Life

PaulThomson: single cell amoeba take God's life

 

[posthuman]

the kingdom He was ruling over was not an earthly kingdom running on worldly principles of enforced allegiance by might. It was running on heavenly principles of service

100% incompatible with scripture and 300% ridiculous.

He said if His kingdom were of the world, His servants ((the angels)) would fight - - that is, explicitly, exercise might.

He said not of this world. He did not say not of your ethos.

crazy straw grasping you got there, neighbor.

do you not believe what you have certainly read, that He will come again in power and judgement?

 

[PaulThomson]

My kingdom is not of this world

The phrase "of this world" in this text has a variety of possible meanings. You are arbitrarily mandating only one of the possible meanings to make your preferred christology necessary. But there are other possible meanings that would allow for a variety of other christologies to be "biblical". I have already explained one of those other options.

 

[PaulThomson]

PaulThomson said:
the kingdom He was ruling over was not an earthly kingdom running on worldly principles of enforced allegiance by might. It was running on heavenly principles of service.

100% incompatible with scripture and 300% ridiculous.

100% compatible with scripture -

Luk 22:24
Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest.
Luk 22:25
And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’
Luk 22:26
“But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves.
Luk 22:27
“For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.

 

[Aaron56]

Jesus: no one can possibly take My Life

PaulThomson: single cell amoeba take God's life

Perhaps he's overthinking it?
More likely: I find that people who dig in on certain theology have taught others the error. I mean, sheesh, just tell them you were wrong people. It's okay.

 

[Aaron56]

Jesus: no one can possibly take My Life

PaulThomson: single cell amoeba take God's life

Also, when someone resorts to using AI they've gone off the rails. At that point they are unteachable and not worthy of more of my time.

 

[Clayman]

I looked it up for your brecause I am willing to serve you: a false equivalence or a false analogy.. I am your servant.

Thanks, If only I could get my wife to take a leaf out of your book

 

[SomeDisciple]

Mr. Green, in the Library, with the candlestick.

 

[PaulThomson]

Jesus: no one can possibly take My Life

PaulThomson: single cell amoeba take God's life

Student: Nobody can possibly take my lunch. I've already decided to lay it down and let whoever grabs or demands it have it.

Bully : Gimme your sandwiches!

The student silently places his lunch on the bench and leaves it there. The bully takes it.

Posthuman: The student said, "No one can possibly take my lunch. Therefore, the only possibilities are
1. That the student was mistaken. Or,
2. Even though it looked like the bully was taking the student's lunch, the bully didn't in one sense take the student's lunch, because the student put up no resistance. But in the case of 2, the student would have to have been claiming omnipotence, for him to have predicted that he would lay it down and no one would take it..

 

[posthuman]

Student: Nobody can possibly take my lunch. I've already decided to lay it down and let whoever grabs or demands it have it.

Bully : Gimme your sandwiches!

The student silently places his lunch on the bench and leaves it there. The bully takes it.

Posthuman: The student said, "No one can possibly take my lunch. Therefore, the only possibilities are
1. That the student was mistaken. Or,
2. Even though it looked like the bully was taking the student's lunch, the bully didn't in one sense take the student's lunch, because the student put up no resistance. But in the case of 2, the student would have to have been claiming omnipotence, for him to have predicted that he would lay it down and no one would take it..

Jesus Christ, almighty omniscient God in the flesh, is a student?

 

[posthuman]

this is all just, lowest possible view of Christ remotely justifiable, versus highest view of God explainable.

i find it wiser to perhaps be guilty of giving God too much glory, than for Him to find me having failed to respect Him enough.

others have a different view, and they have their reasons.

 

[SonJudgment]

this is all just, lowest possible view of Christ remotely justifiable, versus highest view of God explainable.

i find it wiser to perhaps be guilty of giving God too much glory, than for Him to find me having failed to respect Him enough.

others have a different view, and they have their reasons.

Hence A but in a comprehensive way that accounts for the verity and depth of all the other options as well.

 

[posthuman]

Hence A but in a comprehensive way that accounts for the verity and depth of all the other options as well.

haha!

hence anything but C diminishes God - - and nothing less can reconcile with John 10:18 / Hebrews 7:16

bacteria did not kill God, and our wickedness cannot kill God, and no man or angel or power at all can kill God.
only God can voluntarily lay down His own divine life, and take it up again.

no one and no thing is greater than Him