When You Assume…

Apr 25, 2015 | General |

This discussion has not yet been rewritten or presented in the updated multi-part format.  That will occur as God wills to provide me the time and energy to do so.

The Weakness with the Use of “Implicit” proofs

The most common tactic those promoting a “God in the flesh” Messiah utilize is what I call, “Proof by Implication” or the “Implicit method.”  In fact, this tactic constitutes virtually their entire argument!

Some common examples are the use of terms and phrases such as “Savior”, “Holy One,” “king of kings,” the unsubstantiated assumption that Yeshua the Messiah preexisted as the “angel of God,” and the notoriously famous phrase that was used by Yeshua in simple conversation, “I am”.  Those promoting a “God in the flesh” Messiah utilize the tactic of “proof by implication” to show that these terms “prove” Messiah to be God or a preexistent divine being.  There are numerous similar examples.  Constantinian Christian, Messianic, and Nazarene proponents of the mystery Babylon man-God Messiah present ASSUMPTIONS as though they are FACTS utilizing the “implicit method.”  They make DRAMATIC leaps of logic as they frantically search for hints, clues, or any possible shreds of “proof” and hungrily cling to passages that utilize similar terms or phrases to refer to both HaShem and Messiah and then present the common terminology as implicit “proof” that Messiah is God.

There is a crucial point to be grasped by their practice of such Scriptural gymnastics.  That point is this: THEIR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BASED PURELY ON BIASED ASSUMPTION AND IMPLICATION AS THEY LEAP TO CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY CORRECT!  With few exceptions, EVERY proof put forth by Trinitarians and others that promote the pagan man-God of Constantinian thought is TOTALLY DEPENDANT upon biased ASSUMPTION.  They all possess powerful mental leg muscles that have been strengthened by the constant exercise of JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS they perpetually practice.  Of course, as they perform these illogical gymnastic maneuvers they refuse to consider the common sense arguments those like myself put forth, opting instead to utilize their ejection devices of “mystery” or “Kabbalah mysticism” to avoid such common sense reasoning.  It is no coincidence that those disagreeing with me conspicuously avoid the many common sense issues I raise such as those listed in my FAQs (Frequently Avoided Questions).

This particular discussion addresses just this “Implicit method.”  EVERY proof put forth that I will respond to takes an assumption and leaps with it to a conclusion that is, by it’s very definition, purely speculative.  Virtually all proofs man-God promoters use utilize the same leaping and jumping to conclusion approach.  It must not be missed, regardless of the tremendous discomfort and embarrassment it causes to those disagreeing with us, that the definitions of God and Messiah used by those that promote a “God in the flesh Messiah” are based completely upon assumption and implication instead of straight forward Scriptural fact or NECESSARY inference.

So, what is “NECESSARY inference”?  Well, NECESSARY inference is simply the application of common sense!  For instance, Yeshua WAS tempted to sin; yet God CANNOT BE tempted to sin.  Therefore, it is NECESSARILY inferred (implied) that Yeshua cannot possibly be God!  In other words, COMMON SENSE dictates the result!  Similarly, God cannot die; yet Yeshua most certainly did die. Therefore, it is NECESSARILY inferred that Yeshua cannot possibly be God!  I utilize numerous common sense (necessary inference) arguments.  So,

NECESSARY inference = Common Sense!

Note the contrast between “NECESSARY inference” and “proof by unnecessary implication.”  Those using proof by implication say, for instance, that since both Messiah and God are called “Savior” in various passages that this proves Messiah is God.  Note, however, that the logic behind their use of the implication method begins with a biased ASSUMPTION.  That biased assumption being that a common term or phrase somehow implies something that is NOT necessarily true!  Virtually ALL their initial assumptions can be shown to NOT be necessary facts.  However, my use of NECESSARY inference starts with a FACT instead of an assumption, for instance that God CANNOT BE TEMPTED TO SIN, and from it plus the other FACT that Yeshua WAS TEMPTED TO SIN proves as a NECESSARY conclusion using COMMON SENSE that Yeshua cannot possibly be God!  Common sense forces ONLY one possible conclusion to the necessary inference argument, as in the temptation example!  There is literally no alternative conclusion to my necessary inference arguments IF common sense and sincerity are used.  I present many such NECESSARY proofs as I also expose the deceit behind the biased, twisted “proofs” of Messiah’s alleged deity that are put forth by Constantinian Christian, Messianic, and Nazarene leaders.

Summarizing the differences, note the following regarding “proof by implication” and “necessary inference.”

  1. Proof by Implication begins with an ASSUMED CONCEPT and from it derives an implicit conclusion.  However, this conclusion is truly an assumed conclusion based entirely upon speculative bias and is NOT a NECESSARY result, instead, it is an ASSUMED result that can only be possible IF the initial assumption is correct.
  2. Necessary inference begins with common sense FACTS and from them derives a NECESSARY conclusion – a conclusion that is required by simple, common sense reasoning!
  3. Proof by “implication” takes scattered words and phrases plucked from the shredded context of widely dispersed passages of Scripture and ASSUMES they can be pieced together by implication and assumption to prove a point; however such “proof” can ONLY be arrived at using a preconceived, biased perspective!
  4. Necessary inference considers the context of passages – the context is not shredded – as well as irrefutable, obvious FACTS and from them derives what MUST be the result.  Any other result would defy common sense!  Our opponents realize this.  That is why their only response to the common sense, necessarily inferred points we make is to throw up their hands and claim we are wrong because it is an “unexplainable mystery” or part of the “mystic” nature of God.  In short, they eject from the debate because they know they can’t win as long as common sense is the basis of the discussion.
  5. So, proof by implication progresses from an initial biased ASSUMPTION to a speculative result that is NOT a necessary conclusion but is instead completely founded upon the initial assumption.
  6. Necessary inference progresses from common sense fact to a necessary, common sense conclusion that has no other legitimate explanation.

THE primary weakness of the arguments put forth by the mystery Babylon man-God proponents is how they MUST resort to use of the ejection buttons of “mystery” or “Kabbalah mysticism” to prove their position.  They use the same ejection devices to argue that our NECESSARY conclusions are wrong simply because they claim “mystery” or “mysticism” makes anything possible (or that no conclusion is necessary and that common sense cannot be used in the study) no matter how ridiculous their “proof” or rejection of our common sense conclusions may seem.  Over and over and over you will find that the entire argument of the man-God promoters ULTIMATELY rests upon outrageous, unproven “mysteries.”

Friend, if you are so naive that you will base your eternal destiny on a doctrine that violates common sense and uses an “unexplainable mystery” approach to Scripture, so be it.  But, myself and others prefer to keep the context of Scripture intact and to use a common sense approach to Scripture and have no need to ever have to resort to ejecting from the debate using ludicrous “mystery” or “mysticism” excuses.

I think, if you are sincere, you must admit proof by implication and proof by NECESSARY inference are NOT the same thing.  One (necessary inference) uses FACT as a basis and the other (implicit method) uses ASSUMPTION as a basis.  We often use necessary inference as a foundation for our arguments, and our opponents often use biased assumptions as a foundation for theirs.  Tragically, bias has so blinded most that many are sincerely incapable of distinguishing between assumption and fact.  The Great Harlot truly has made the world drunk on the wine of her fornications.  So drunk, in fact, that most see in Scripture what is not there and do not see in Scripture what is.  In addition, those drunk on the wine she serves typically hallucinate “proofs” that do not exist or create them from biased assumptions.

So, which tactic do you use, proof by implication, or proof by necessary, common sense inference?