Counterarguments
Some articles refer to "Rebuttals". These are the general meanings of these counterarguments.
assumption
The argument assumes that a certain aspect is the truth while there are no convincing evidence to support it.
For example:
A is B because of X, however
X is not proven
bad conclusion
While at least one matter is true, the argument's conclusion is false because it relates the different truths incorrectly to each other.
For example:
A is B (correct),
therefore they assume
A is C
bad correlation
The argument incorrectly correlates to unrelated truths.
For example:
A is B (correct), and
C is D (correct)therefore they assume
A is D
bad quotation
A missing or wrong scripture is quoted to support the argument.
For example:
A is B, because of quote
(but quote is invalid)
The counter to this counterargument is that often people incorrectly quoted scripture because they were paraphrasing. But does these incorrect "paraphrases" support an argument if it changes the meaning of the text?
bad translation
There are no strong evidence that support the translation which changes the meaning of the scripture.
For example:
Original text: A is A
Translated text: A is B
biased translation
The argument is supported by a biased translator who incorrectly chosen the wrong version of a word that has multiple meanings.
Definition of A: Could mean B or C (depending on context)
Original text: A is D (meaning B is D based in context)
Translated text: C is D
confusing events
The argument assumes that distinct events refers to the same event.
For example:
- A happened to a, then separately
- B happened to b, but only afterward
but they interpret
A and B happened simultaneously to a and b or a = b
confused by name removal
Because God's name was removed from the text, the intended meaning changed.
For example:
"The son is our lord and YHVH is our God."
but is translated:
"The son is our Lord and the Lord is our God."
confusing statements
The argument confuses distinct statements to different persons as if they all apply to the same person:
For example:
- A applies to a, and
- B applies to b, but distinctively
but they interpret
A and B both applies to a and b or a = b
confusing translation
The scripture is incorrectly translated when compared with other verses which uses the same word but for a different purpose.
Definition of A could mean: B or C (depending on context)
Original text: A is X and A is X (same context) Translated text: B is X and C is X (same context, confusing meanings)
context
The scripture is quoted out of context. The original intended meaning of the author's words does not support the argument.
For example:
The author wrote: When X then, A is B, otherwise A is C.
but only
Only "A is C" is quoted, but X is ignored which negate the quote.
demo
Jesus was not interacting with a different god, Jesus was demonstrating how his disciples must interact with him.
godhead
The argument ignores the doctrine of the Godhead which view "God" as the Father, Jesus or the Holy Spirit or any combination of them.
The reasoning is that terms "God", "Father", "Jesus", "Holy Spirit" can be replaced with each other and be mixed and matched as necessary so that the scripture do not contradict itself, because according to some scholars, they are all "equal" and the same.
idiom
The argument is based on an idiom that was taken literally.
interpretation
The same scripture could be interpreted in different ways and more evidence are required to proof the argument.
limited vocabulary
Although, the word was invented for the lack of our limited vocabulary, the concept is supposedly ancient.
majority
Something does not become the truth just because the majority agrees.
man-part of Jesus
The scripture only refers to the human part of Jesus.
not-jesus
The argument assumes that the scripture applies to Jesus, but there are no concrete evidence in the quoted scriptures alone that support the argument.
overgeneralized
The argument assumes that because one aspect is true, all similar aspects is also the same.
For example:
The author wrote: A is X.
but argument assumes:
All is X.
reflecting
Jesus was not really having a conversation with God. He was reflecting, thinking aloud or sharing information with his disciples by providing them an example how he expect them to have a conversation with him. When Jesus as a question to God, it should be interpreted as a Rhetorical question.
restriction of Jesus
Some scholars reason that Jesus is God, but restricted (or incarnated) himself to have the same human limitations as an ordinary human. Only at some later moment (like his baptism, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension) he removed his human restrictions or reincarnated to become God.
roles
Like the same person can be a father to his children, a son to his own father, a husband to his wife, an employee to his employer, a friend to his friend, and so forth, like wise God can relate to us by different roles.
strive
Some scholars reason that Jesus meant we should only strive to become like him as far as humanly possible. They reason that we should rather focus on his teachings like love, compassion, forgiveness, humility and so forth instead of trying to serve as he did and that it is impossible for us to do miracles.
symbolic
The argument is based on symbolic (prophetic) language that was taken literally.
theology
The argument accept made-up theologies as truth.
No matter how respected a church father was, his word does not make it the truth unless there are clear evidence to support the argument.