Sunday, 13 October 2013

Continuation of response to LimitBreak's comments



I was told by a friend on facebook that when you address 1000 objections Rabbinic Jews bring, they will bring 1000 more. It can get get tiresome to refute every single argument that a person brings up Jew or Gentile alike. I just want to look at some objections brought LimitBreak9001.

I want to tackle some his arguments in the comments section of the following videos so you can follow what is going on:
Anointed Ones and Strange Gods
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaKFEudHrpM
Rabbinic Dilemma 101
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cO9m2_9NLW0
Intellectual Honesty and Abuse of Apologist statementshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4W-apX51kU

You can also follow the following articles as well for a better understanding of what this article addresses.
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/intellectual-honesty-and-abuse-of.html
http://answering-judaism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/anointed-ones-and-strange-gods.html

The first is his comments on William Lane Craig in which he claimed Lane Craig was intellectually honest though later in the point that Lane Craig actually made to Tovia Singer was that the Trinity was not imcompatible with anything in the Old Testament. You can find the comments in the video where I speak on this issue that the NT writers had the TANAKH is their foundation to which Limitbreak brought the Mormons supposedly doing the same thing.

In point of fact I mentioned the Zohar has things which are not consistent with the TANAKH itself to which I was told that it was not inspired scripture.

Even though the Zohar is not scripture, my whole point is if LimitBreak is going to use the Mormons to beat Christians over the head with, would he be consistent in allowing me to use Chasidic Jews to beat Rabbinic Jews over the head with? That is all I asked, to which he ran to a Mormon website called FAIR to further bolster his point.

If LimitBreak were to actually research Mormonism properly, It is polytheistic in content though they will not use that term. On Facebook I was sent the same link to that mormon website that said the following about the Trinity on the very same page:
"Usually the very same people who are pressing the case that Mormons are polytheists are some stripe of Evangelical Christians who claim to be monotheists. But Trinitarians are not Monotheists by definition (just ask a Jew or Muslim). "

What makes this statement about Christians rather reprehensible is I have yet to come a across a Counter Missionary or a Muslim Apologist who even comes close to even semi accurate understanding of the Trinity. For Example Tovia Singer's arguments against the Trinity were very shallow and surface level stuff and no doubt others will probably have the same level of ignorance. It's sheer nonsense.

Next argument I shall address here is my usage of James White's quotation in my video "Anointed Ones and Strange Gods". Limitbreaks objection which can be found on the comments page of that video if you want to take a look.

My whole point in using White's quote is that Daniel being unaware of Jesus would not present a problem to the Christians regarding Limitbreak's objection that he initially brought to the table.

Limitbreak then made a point that James White's logic could be applied to Jeroboam and the golden calves which as I said in the comments page IS a red herring and I stand by that point. The point that White made in response to Anthony Buzzard is strictly to the TRIUNE GOD, not to anything else, whereas there is a general principle in the statement that William Lane Craig made to Singer regarding the salvation of the Old Testament saints.

One more point I'll address is of course the Mormons and the Muslims being brought up again which COMPLETELY LEAVES the Bible entirely. I hardly think that speaking about "Well the muslims say Jesus and Moses are muslims thus you Christians are doing the same thing" actually deals with the objections, its simply the two quo que fallacy.

Another problem, The Quran DENIES having ANY kind of sonship, which would include Israel, in point of fact the Israelites were fathered spiritually by God, something rejected COMPLETELY by Muslims as well as Muhammad. Also their claim about the people of the Bible being Muslims is outright absurd, especially the prostration argument. I could easily point to the Chinese of ancient and modern times and say because of prostration they are Muslims, that's the level of stupidity I hear from some.

Also, The very same James White said the following in his debate with Jalal Abualarub regarding the Trinity that it is revealed between the Old and the New Testaments. He has also stated that the OT saints did NOT speak as a Christian speaks. In fact one strawman from Shadid Lewis regarding the angel of the Lord was "They didn't say they saw Jesus", which is a moot point considering it's the Christian claim that the angel of the Lord is Jesus in prehuman existance and the claim that that angel is God. No Christian says that Abraham to the angel said "Oh hello Jesus I bow at your feet". As far as Abraham was concerned, he was speaking with God. No problem there.

That's all for the arguments in this particular article. 

Thank you for reading.

Answering Judaism.

No comments:

Post a Comment