Also available in

Revised 02/2018

Necessary inference vs. biased assumption

The Weakness with the Use of assumed proofs

 

The most common tactic those promoting a “God in the flesh” Messiah utilize is what I call, “biased assumption” or the “biased inference" 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 (Jesus the Christ) preexisted as the “angel of God,” and the notoriously popular phrase that was used by Yeshua in simple conversation, “I am”.

 

Those who promote a “God in the flesh” Messiah utilize the tactic of “biased inference” to claim that such terms directly "infer", and thus "prove", that Messiah is God or a preexistent divine being.  There are numerous similar examples.

 

Christian, Messianic, and Nazarene proponents of the mystery Babylon man-God Messiah present assumptions as though they are facts utilizing the solely based upon their intense, unwavering bias.  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 God and Messiah.  They then present the common terminology used as biased “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 - literally all of their argument is based purely upon anti-Torah beliefs combined with biased inference with which they leap to conclusions that are not necessarily correct!  They are incapable of seeing beyond their bias.

Every single proof put forth by Trinitarians and others who promote the pagan man-God of the Roman empire is totally dependent upon biased assumption combined with Torah ignorance.  (The "God in the flesh" idea is actually a continuation of ancient pagan concepts within idol worshiping cultures which preceded the Roman empire.)

​Individual within Christianity and counterfeit Messianism who advance the idolatrous "God in the flesh" 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 and Torah based postilions of  those like myself, opting instead to utilize their ejection devices of “mystery” or an illegitimate form of kabbalah to avoid such common sense reasoning.  And of course, those who reject Torah will consider nothing that is Torah based, thus proving they do not follow the Messiah they claim to revere - a fact I prove in the article i which I prove that Christianity teaches against following Christ.

 

This particular discussion addresses this “biased inference assumption" method.  Every proof put forth to which I respond takes a biased assumption with which they leaps 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 who disagree, that the definitions of God and Messiah used by those who promote a “God in the flesh Messiah” are based totally upon Torah ignorant biased assumption instead of straight forward Torah based Scriptural fact or necessary inference.

 

Necessary inference

 

So, what is “necessary" inference”?  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, undeniable, clear 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 to prove how the arguments of those who promote a "God in the flesh" Messiah lack basic common sense.

 

Necessary inference = Common Sense!

 

Note the contrast between “necessary inference” and proof by "unnecessary biased inference.”

 

Those using proof by biased inference 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 position 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 the assumptions of "God in the flesh" idolaters can be shown to not be necessary facts.

 

However, my use of necessary inference starts with a fact instead of an assumption.  For instance, it is a fact that God cannot be tempted to sin. From such a fact, plus the other fact that Yeshua was tempted to sin, it is proven that 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 a properly constructed necessary inference position 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 Christians and counterfeit Messianics.

 

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

 

  • Proof by biased inference begins with an assumed idea and from it derives an assumed conclusion.  However, this conclusion truly is an assumed conclusion based entirely upon speculative bias and is not a necessary conclusion.  It is instead an assumed result that can only be possible if the initial bias was correct.
  • Necessary inference begins with common sense facts and from them derives a necessary conclusion – a conclusion that is required by simple, common sense reasoning.
  • Proof by biased inference 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 bias to prove a point; however such “proof” can only be arrived at using a preconceived, biased perspective.
  • 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.
  • So, proof by biased inference 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.
  • Necessary inference progresses from common sense fact to a necessary, common sense conclusion that has no other legitimate explanation.

 

A primary weakness of the arguments put forth by the idolatrous "God in the flesh" proponents is how they must resort to use of the ejection buttons of “mystery” or an illegitimate form of kabbalah to prove their position.  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 their obvious rejection of common sense they eventually "eject" from any true discussion by hiding behind their "unexplainable mystery" shields.

​Over and over and over you will find that the entire argument of the man-God promoters ultimately rests upon outrageous, unprovable bias that they ultimately claim is unexplainable.

Friend, if you are so naive that you will base your eternal destiny on doctrines that violate common sense and use 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 biased inference and proof by necessary inference are not the same thing.  One (necessary inference) uses fact as a basis and the other (biased inference) uses biased assumption as a basis.  We typically 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 Christians 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 Christians see in Scripture what is not there and do not see 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 approach do you use, proof by biased assumption or proof by necessary, common sense inference?

 

The Weakness with the Use of assumed proofs

 

The most common tactic those promoting a “God in the flesh” Messiah utilize is what I call, “biased assumption” or the “biased inference" 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 (Jesus the Christ) preexisted as the “angel of God,” and the notoriously popular phrase that was used by Yeshua in simple conversation, “I am”.

 

Those who promote a “God in the flesh” Messiah utilize the tactic of “biased inference” to claim that such terms directly "infer", and thus "prove", that Messiah is God or a preexistent divine being.  There are numerous similar examples.

 

Christian, Messianic, and Nazarene proponents of the mystery Babylon man-God Messiah present assumptions as though they are facts utilizing the solely based upon their intense, unwavering bias.  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 God and Messiah.  They then present the common terminology used as biased “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 - literally all of their argument is based purely upon anti-Torah beliefs combined with biased inference with which they leap to conclusions that are not necessarily correct!  They are incapable of seeing beyond their bias.

Every single proof put forth by Trinitarians and others who promote the pagan man-God of the Roman empire is totally dependent upon biased assumption combined with Torah ignorance.  (The "God in the flesh" idea is actually a continuation of ancient pagan concepts within idol worshiping cultures which preceded the Roman empire.)

​Individual within Christianity and counterfeit Messianism who advance the idolatrous "God in the flesh" 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 and Torah based postilions of  those like myself, opting instead to utilize their ejection devices of “mystery” or an illegitimate form of kabbalah to avoid such common sense reasoning.  And of course, those who reject Torah will consider nothing that is Torah based, thus proving they do not follow the Messiah they claim to revere - a fact I prove in the article i which I prove that Christianity teaches against following Christ.

 

This particular discussion addresses this “biased inference assumption" method.  Every proof put forth to which I respond takes a biased assumption with which they leaps 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 who disagree, that the definitions of God and Messiah used by those who promote a “God in the flesh Messiah” are based totally upon Torah ignorant biased assumption instead of straight forward Torah based Scriptural fact or necessary inference.

 

Necessary inference

 

So, what is “necessary" inference”?  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, undeniable, clear 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 to prove how the arguments of those who promote a "God in the flesh" Messiah lack basic common sense.

 

Necessary inference = Common Sense!

 

Note the contrast between “necessary inference” and proof by "unnecessary biased inference.”

 

Those using proof by biased inference 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 position 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 the assumptions of "God in the flesh" idolaters can be shown to not be necessary facts.

 

However, my use of necessary inference starts with a fact instead of an assumption.  For instance, it is a fact that God cannot be tempted to sin. From such a fact, plus the other fact that Yeshua was tempted to sin, it is proven that 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 a properly constructed necessary inference position 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 Christians and counterfeit Messianics.

 

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

 

  • Proof by biased inference begins with an assumed idea and from it derives an assumed conclusion.  However, this conclusion truly is an assumed conclusion based entirely upon speculative bias and is not a necessary conclusion.  It is instead an assumed result that can only be possible if the initial bias was correct.
  • Necessary inference begins with common sense facts and from them derives a necessary conclusion – a conclusion that is required by simple, common sense reasoning.
  • Proof by biased inference 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 bias to prove a point; however such “proof” can only be arrived at using a preconceived, biased perspective.
  • 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.
  • So, proof by biased inference 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.
  • Necessary inference progresses from common sense fact to a necessary, common sense conclusion that has no other legitimate explanation.

 

A primary weakness of the arguments put forth by the idolatrous "God in the flesh" proponents is how they must resort to use of the ejection buttons of “mystery” or an illegitimate form of kabbalah to prove their position.  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 their obvious rejection of common sense they eventually "eject" from any true discussion by hiding behind their "unexplainable mystery" shields.

​Over and over and over you will find that the entire argument of the man-God promoters ultimately rests upon outrageous, unprovable bias that they ultimately claim is unexplainable.

Friend, if you are so naive that you will base your eternal destiny on doctrines that violate common sense and use 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 biased inference and proof by necessary inference are not the same thing.  One (necessary inference) uses fact as a basis and the other (biased inference) uses biased assumption as a basis.  We typically 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 Christians 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 Christians see in Scripture what is not there and do not see 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 approach do you use, proof by biased assumption or proof by necessary, common sense inference?