If you have a verse from Psalms you'd like to discuss, then cite it. I'm uninteretsed in playing guessing games with you.
I think we can cut to your second reply post, since we now seem to be in general agreement about what the Chrisitan view is, and I am not a Chrisitan
apologist. Since you still disagree with both Christians and with me about what saved
would mean in the context of Hebrews
, I don't see
that you and I could go forward with discussion about that anyway.
then all that does is finally prove that Jesus is NOT God.
That's an odd sort of final proof you've got there, Scorpie. "Proof" is when the premises and the conclusion go together in a compelling way, not
in a way that one or two billion people think that the very opposite of your conclusion follows from the premises.
The argument with traction, I think, is to dispute that the Resurrection really happened, as both Muslims and many other non-Christians believe that
it didn't happen. Granting the Resurrection as a fact of history is simply not a winner for your view.
Which is also why your choice of verses won't carry the day for you. The fellow who wrote Hebrews
believed the Resurrection to be a fact of
history. His exact christology may not have developed to the fully Nicene view yet, but he's way beyond thinking that Jesus was just a righteous man
who received a special favor from God.
You might look at Hebrews
1: 1-8. God, in the author's view, has clearly begotten, and whom he begot was present at the very Creation. The
author plainly is not talking about Allah.
A man who prayed, was killed and then saved by God from death... simply cannot be God. Are Christians willing to accept that?
Obviously not. And why should they? "Is not" is one thing, but "cannot" simply isn't the case.
Even as an agnostic, I can see logically that if man is an image of God, then God could be a man without contradiction. If God is omnipotent, then he
can do whatever can be done without contradiction. Any man at all may talk to himself on occasion. If to pray
is to talk to God, then when the
man who is God talks to himself, he necessarily prays. Whatever happens after that would be the revealed will of God.
That position may be factually incorrect, but it is not necessarily incorrect and is not illogical.
Worse, if you accept the premise about God's omnipotence, as I think you might, then you have to explain how you come to know that God's will in
this matter isn't to become a man. I suspect you know how that goes. You take the Koran as revelation. Your opponent does not. That's each of you
contradicting the other; it's not your opponent contradicting her scriptures.