Thursday, November 29, 2007

Extra! Extra! Read All About It: J.C. Thibodaux Admits His Doctrines Aren't Associated With The Teachings of Jesus

Thibodaux: "Though our viewpoints do often overlap, I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man." (Emphasis mine)

Apostle Paul: "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," (Emphasis mine)

So much the worse for any of Thibodaux's "doctrines."

12 comments:

  1. Paul Mitchel11/30/2007 8:13 AM

    1 Tim 6:15-16:
    God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Speaking of comedy:

    GeneMBridges said: This text is part of "the book of signs." Coming to the Christ is the sign of having been drawn by the Father, which is, in turn the sign of having been given to Christ. Being raised on the last day is the sign of having come to Christ.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2207

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul Mitchel,

    Then he pits Jesus against God? That's even worse!

    ReplyDelete
  4. What do you get if you cross John Loftus with Richard Dawkins?

    An evolutionist in a cowboy hat, a superb liar, 8 lords a leaping, 7 maids a milking publicity for his book, 6 name drops of Craig, 5 golden logical fallacies, 4 collie accusations of child abuse, 3 french men kissing, 2 Ed Babinskis, 1 Franklin Loftus and, which is more, an adulterous affair that is the responsibility of the whole of Christendom (deep voice) IN A PEAARRRRR TRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE.

    YAY! The Christmas season is almost upon us! Deck the halls with boughs of atheist folly! Fa la la la la- LA LA LA LAAA.

    LOFTUS: "Jingle Bells, Dawkins smells
    Hitchens flew away
    Oh what fun it is to use bad arguments always

    Over to you Richard!"

    DAWKINS: "Thank you, good sir

    A day or two ago
    I thought I'd take a ride
    And soon Miss Fanny Bright
    Was seated by my side
    The horse was lean and lank
    Misfortune seemed his lot
    We got into a drifted bank
    And then we got upsot"

    HITCHENS: "Upsot? What arrant nonsense is this?

    Dashing through the snow
    In a one horse open sleigh
    O'er the fields we go
    Laughing all the way, Heh Heh
    Bells on bob tails ring
    Making spirits bright, (Aside) This sounds more like it!(Faces crowd again)
    What fun it is to laugh and sing
    A sleighing song tonight

    Altogether now!!"

    Dawkins, Loftus and Hitch: "Jingle Bells, Dawkins smells
    Hitchens flew away
    Oh what fun it is to use bad arguments always!!!"

    Loftus: (high pitched) "Like meeeee

    Well done guys, now that's what I call an outsider test. It was hard to get it across to the T-Bloggers in words. It's best done in song"

    Hitchens: "I know this may sound glib of me to say, but Triablogue makes my flesh crawl. And Peter Pike in particular is inherently evil"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Kind of a juvenile ad hominem, don't you think? Especially since Jesus is not exactly mortal in the same sense as us. He says "I lay down my life--no man takes it from me." Can you say that?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ego,

    No, I don't think.

    But, if it were, so what? A juvenile ad hominem for a juvenile Christology. Juvenile is as juvenile does.

    I don't know what you mean? Guess you think Jesus wasn't truly, fully, a man. He was a "man" in a "different sense" than you are.

    Thanks for the fodder.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Speaking of comedy:

    GeneMBridges said: This text is part of "the book of signs." Coming to the Christ is the sign of having been drawn by the Father, which is, in turn the sign of having been given to Christ. Being raised on the last day is the sign of having come to Christ.

    LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=2207


    Thank you Anonymous for calling attention to what, exactly?

    This passage (John 6:37 - 45) which is what I wrote about is part of the Book of Signs.

    What exactly is the problem here, for everything that is said in the book is a sign that points to a particular significance?

    This discussion is part of the Bread of Life discourse. This section of it relates Jesus explanation of it.

    Jesus is the Bread of Life
    But what does this signify?

    Jesus answers this by discussing why the Father has sent the Bread of Life.

    The Jews grumble, and Jesus then admonishes them with a discussion about giving, drawing, coming, and being raised.

    What does drawing signify?
    What does being raised signify?

    The person who eats of the bread of life is the one who has been drawn by the Father. "Eating" the bread is the sign of being drawn. Being raised is the sign of having eaten and been drawn, which in turn signs of having been given.

    The whole discourse, as does the whole book of signs, turns on the theme of signs and significance, and that includes the explanations of the signs and the dynamics within them. The Arminians generally ignore this. They "get" the significance of the Bread of Life, but then they insert disjunctions between who is drawn and who is raised and make the giving of a people dependent on those persons coming, whereas the reverse is true. They misconstrue what is signed with its significance; put another way, they misconstrue what we might call "cause" and "effect." Giving becomes the effect of coming, not vice versa.

    And since the whole Book of Signs runs from John 2 to John 12, what's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This is a shameful place. Christians shouldn't treat Christians this way. And for the world to see yet.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous,

    That was a shameful comment, you shouldn't treat T-bloggers that way. And for all the world to see...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thibodaux: "Though our viewpoints do often overlap, I prefer not to associate my doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man."

    *******************************************

    Isn't this a self-refuting statement? He speaks of "my" doctrinal beliefs. But that would be to associate a set of doctrinal beliefs with the name of a mortal man: to wit, Thibodaux. These are *his* doctrinal beliefs. And he's a mortal man. So, when a mortal man by the name of Thiobodaux lays claim to a set of doctrinal beliefs, he is associating them with a mortal man; namely, himself.

    He can only extricate himself from this self-refuting statement by either:

    i) Denying that he's a mortal man (care to put that to the test?)

    or, by

    ii) Denying that he holds any doctrinal beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is a shameful place. Christians shouldn't treat Christians this way. And for the world to see yet.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is a shameful place. Christians shouldn't treat Christians this way. And for the world to see yet.

    ReplyDelete